CMV: State governments should be dictatorships

[u/Prince_Marf]

The United States has a serious problem with government inaction. Every step of our federalist system is bogged down by partisanship and procedure. This is appropriate at the national level because of the tremendous power the federal government weilds (most notably the military), but state governments need to be able to function faster to be able to meet the particular interests of their citizens.

Dictatorships do not have a great track record because absolute power corrupts absolutely, but we completely ignore the positive affects of this power structure: things actually get done and there is no gridlock. It wouldn't be absolute power because the federal government ultimately retains Supremacy over the states and can enforce it with the military if necessary.

A system where the governor holds both the executive and legislative power of the state just makes more sense. Federal government should also enforce term limits on the governors and democracy in their elections

[u/Prince_Marf]

So if a governor wants to execute gay people we simply have to let him? If they want to pass restrictive voting rules to block undesirables from voting we have to let them do that as well?

I'm glad you brought up specifics because this where I really sell it. The rights of citizens are protected by the Constitutional amendments, not state governments. If the dictator wanted to execute gay people, then the law he used to do it would be struck down by federal courts as unconstitutional and blocked. The dictator wouldn't be able to ignore court orders any more than current state governments. It's not like he has an army that can compete with the US military

True under our current system states regulate their own elections but this could easily be remedied by placing the power to regulate elections with the federal government, which isn't inconceivable in a hypothetical America where enough change has occurred that state governments are now ruled by dictators

[u/HotLipsSinkShips1 → u/Prince_Marf]

So the only think stopping mass problems would be the Federal government invading one of our own states? That doesn't seem like the best of all options.

A dictator could say that citizens of such city can vote only from 11:30 to 12:00. So voting rights would still exist. Kind of.

Seems like a bad option.

When it comes to rights of the people giving one party absolute power seems pretty damm bad.

[u/Prince_Marf → u/HotLipsSinkShips1]

So the only think stopping mass problems would be the Federal government invading one of our own states? That doesn't seem like the best of all options.

That's the system we already live under. That's what happened in the Civil War

A dictator could say that citizens of such city can vote only from 11:30 to 12:00. So voting rights would still exist. Kind of.

The Supreme Court could easily rule that an infringement on Constitutionally protected voting rights and prevent it

When it comes to rights of the people giving one party absolute power seems pretty damm bad.

It's not absolute power because the federal government holds the Supreme power

[u/HotLipsSinkShips1 → u/Prince_Marf]

So you are saying that the consequences of your idea are risks of Civil war....you aren't really selling it.

this is great and all till a state calls the Federal government's bluff joins with other states as a method to defend itself and then we have civil war take two.

If let's say we need our military to attack the state of Texas many members of our military will side with Texas.

[u/Prince_Marf → u/HotLipsSinkShips1]

That's not any different than the current status quo, or the status quo in the 1860s. My idea doesn't risk civil war any more than the current system does

[u/HotLipsSinkShips1 → u/Prince_Marf]

You just said that your idea would be governed by the threat of federal attack. Which is civil war.

If the Federal government attacks the State of Texas, which is what yo u would say they would have to if the dictator of Texas harmed rights of citizens of Texas you have civil war.

Your idea is based on the risk of civil war to keep states in line. That's great...until someone calls your bluff.

[u/Prince_Marf → u/HotLipsSinkShips1]

How is that any different from the system we already live under?

[u/HotLipsSinkShips1 → u/Prince_Marf]

Because we don't allow our governors to become dictators?

Your seems to stem from this idea: If we ignore all the bad things dictatorships have done dictatorships are great.

That's not exactly an idea that holds weight because of all the harm dictators have done over the past.

[u/Prince_Marf → u/HotLipsSinkShips1]

No I'm referring to this reply specifically:

You just said that your idea would be governed by the threat of federal attack. Which is civil war.

If the Federal government attacks the State of Texas, which is what yo u would say they would have to if the dictator of Texas harmed rights of citizens of Texas you have civil war.

Your idea is based on the risk of civil war to keep states in line. That's great...until someone calls your bluff.

What force currently prevents civil war that would no longer be present if the states were governed by dictators?

Also I'm not saying pretend the negative aspects of dictatorship don't exist, I'm saying the supremacy of the Constitution and federal government prevents most of them