[apatters]

> To the extent that coastal areas might have more sway as a whole because they have more people, isn't that the whole point of democracy?

But the United States was never intended to be a popular democracy. In their wisdom the Founding Fathers acknowledged the problems inherent in democracy (it devolves too easily into two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner). Instead, they created a federal republic, in which the primary powers of governance would be invested in the states. This is evident in the text of the 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The essential characteristic of this federal republic was that issues would be decided locally, and only a few necessary powers would be delegated to the central government. Small, local governments have many advantages: it's easier for ordinary people to participate in and influence them, and they're harder for big money to control. Local governments listen more closely to their constituencies and their decisions more accurately reflect what their communities want. While some of the Founders were fonder of a strong central government than others, none of them would have supported the degree of centralization we have today.

I can't help but wonder what our society would look like if we had adhered to the original vision of the Founders. Indeed, our entire moral framework would be based on the reality that people only a few hours' drive away might have very different values, and rather than coercing them through the threat of government force, we had to either persuade them to change their minds, or learn to work with people who were very different from us. In the modern United States people pay a lot of lip service to these ideals but at the end of the day they just want to get their candidate elected so that he/she can force everyone else to conform to their beliefs. Authoritarians on both sides of the political spectrum grow bolder every day and I can't help but feel that the American experiment in self-rule may be approaching its twilight.

The antidote is a return to the true meaning of the 10th amendment. A more local government which is influenced and participated in directly by the people it governs. A world where your vote is one of hundreds or thousands, not hundreds of millions, and genuinely does count. An end to the US central government as a tool of coercion and a dismantling of the most powerful bureaucracy in human history. Unfortunately the national conversation is very, very far away from this idea. Everyone's so caught up hoping that the next autocrat at the top will come from Team Blue/Team Red depending on their favorite color...

[throwaway729]

You're confusing federalism with the politics surrounding the electoral college.

The motivation for the electoral college had nothing to do with the values you've outlined in your post.

Incidentally, re: your thought experiment, we'd also have slavery and women wouldn't be allowed to vote. The politics of 1780 wasn't idyllic.

[TulliusCicero]

Yes, I'm aware of how things were at the time of the Constitution's creation. But things have changed; people no longer thing of themselves as Virginians first, and Americans second. As America has industrialized and developed, that the nation has become more tightly-knit and less an aggregation of states has been inevitable.

> Small, local governments have many advantages: it's easier for ordinary people to participate in and influence them, and they're harder for big money to control. Local governments listen more closely to their constituencies and their decisions more accurately reflect what their communities want.

Local governments also have certain disadvantages: just look at the housing and transportation situation in the SF bay area. Excessive fragmentation has resulted in horrible policies, with each community unwilling to compromise or do what makes sense for the area as a whole. It's basically tragedy of the commons.

> While some of the Founders were fonder of a strong central government than others, none of them would have supported the degree of centralization we have today.

Who cares? The country is radically different than the primarily agrarian society they had, what worked then won't work now.

The founders would also be horrified at our views on sex and gender, just because they were smart men for their time doesn't mean we need to follow their beliefs for all time.

> The antidote is a return to the true meaning of the 10th amendment. A more local government which is influenced and participated in directly by the people it governs. A world where your vote is one of hundreds or thousands, not hundreds of millions, and genuinely does count.

This doesn't happen because it's ineffective, same reason that -- current moves towards populism/nationalism notwithstanding -- there's a long-term trend towards more integration and fewer trade barriers as nations become more developed.

More fragmentation among local governments means powers are closer to individual citizens, yes, but that also means more government overhead: you're losing economies of scale. For example, imagine how well the interstate highway system would work if there were no real federal government or even state governments, and you just had hundreds or thousands of cities each managing little pieces of it.

[diggernet]

I regret that I have but one upvote to give for my country.