This post below: basically just rambling
>>7114514The same could be said for ANY government in the world, lad.
Btw, I was referring to breaking up government to be more local.
One of the main problems in government is that they're so out of touch with the people they're supposed to represent: how many G-mans have meaningful interactions with the average joe in their district? How many of us have met the local mayor face-to-face? Or the governor of the state for that matter?
They're representing far too many people - Kalifornia has one representative "representing" 310,000 people(!) There's no way in heaven or hell that representative could ever meet all of his constituents so how can he accurately represent them?
Ideal situation: Have no more than 1000 constituents per local representative (mayor) and no more than 30,000 constituents for state representatives - it's still a large base, but possible to know them all if dedicated enough. Ofc, it would lead to a massive federal like we have right now, but it would shift the power away from federal to local due to massive decentralization.
But in order to reconcile the balkanization that would ensue (1300 states versus a world of 157 nations!), a pyramid power structure would have to be implemented after balkanizing the states by order of population (Major cities like NYC, Dallas, Denver, etc. would be troublesome and would be split up into states within the cities if the Swiss confederal model was implemented in America) to maintain order at the federal or confederal level.
Even then, a lot of states might simply go their own way and avoid associating with the federal government, choosing to be their own federal government instead.
