Getting ~340M people to agree on anything is too hard, and now a good chunk of us seem to think the government can’t do anything productive at all. IMO, it would be nice to have an in between layer to do bigger things.
Ok, sorry for the poor writing. I mean states could form informal groups with likeminded states. So, the northeast could all pass the same law, the pacific coast, Texas and friends, wherever else.
Expecting laws to instead propagate from neighbor to neighbor as I accidentally suggested—this wasn’t what I meant to suggest, but in defense of the idea:
> At some point it makes more sense to pass such a law at the federal level since we end up there eventually either way.
I do think there still could be some value. Laws could propagate across states that are more receptive to them, and then people can see if they work or not. Porting Masshealth to the whole country at once seems to have been a little bumpy. If it has instead been rolled out to the rest of New England, NY, then down to Pennsylvania… might have gone a little smoother.
Probably not? I didn’t play it but I don’t think anybody would target a postapocalyptic fiction setting as a goal.
More like: look at the EU, extrapolate how it would look after a little more unification, and then take advantage of the fact that we’re made up of small states already that can group ourselves up as fits. Germany and France seem all-right, so we should organize ourselves into Germany and France size units.
Who says you have to have 340 million people agree? Congress's approval rating hovers around 20% for years and years— they haven't been interested in the will of the people for a long time.
At some point it makes more sense to pass such a law at the federal level since we end up there eventually either way.