The Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism, and the Difference Between the Federal System of Government and the Other Systems of Government

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of federalism. How does a federal method of government differ from other systems of government and what is the constitutional basis for nation-centered federalism?

The positive aspects of federalism are that it provides a regional viewpoint on politics, and permits for local governments to handle and respond to regional issues more quickly than a national government. It also makes it possible for for the national government to insure that the regional governments do not abuse their energy, and vice-versa. Federalism creates the “laboratories of democracy” addressed in question 9. It permits for greater participation in the political procedure. A single of the most significant disadvantages I see in federalism is lines of communication. In a federalist system you have a number of levels of government that have to communicate with every other, and sometimes things get mixed up in the procedure of communicating. There is no one particular policy for a nation, in the US there are 50 (51 like Puerto Rico) different policies for diverse troubles. When it comes to controversial issues, such as same-sex marriage recognition, the diverse policies lead to troubles.

It differs from other systems in that the voters have a direct say in all levels of government. In a unitary system the voters select the central government, which then chooses the regional governments. In a confederate method the votes decide on independent governments, which then select the central government. In the federal technique the voters pick all levels, regional and central.

The constitutional basis for federalism has a lot to do with the founder’s expertise of other systems of government. Below the Articles of Confederation the central government was too weak to deal with crises that arose, notably economic crises. A unitary system was dismissed due to wide-spread dislike of the system. A representative government was chosen, 1 where the individuals vote for all levels of government, and with a sturdy national government that was split between three different branches so that power could not rest solely in the hands of one particular.

Briefly talk about how states regulate elections in regard to existing political culture.

The most significant difference in how states regulate elections with regard to political culture is in the traditionalistic states. Traditionalistic states tend to have stricter voting laws. Take Texas and their recent modifications to election laws for instance. They have moved to make it far more difficult to vote for minorities in order to maintain their method of hierarchy in politics. This is a existing trend in most traditionalistic states considering that the repeal of the VRA, it is far more noticeable in the South. In contrast is North Dakota in the moralistic division. Any person can show up on Election Day and register to vote, and then vote. There is much much more allowances for men and women to vote in the moralistic states than the traditionalistic.

Briefly go over the effects of direct democracy on a state’s legislative process.

Direct democracy in the forms of the initiative and referendum let for voters to more than-turn laws passed by their state legislatures. This can be helpful or dangerous. I can bear in mind the outcry of people in my district when they voted to put fluoride in the water. The folks viewed this as a excellent issue that the government was not carrying out, so brought it to the individuals to vote on. In some situations, such as California, these processes can directly inhibit the capability of a state legislature to legislate. Voters decided that they would limit house taxes and make it much more tough for the state to increase taxes. This came back and hurt that state financially, and it wasn’t until recently that the proposition was repealed. Ultimately the system of direct democracy is a way to get around state’s legislatures and do what the will of the folks wants, rather than have some representative deliberate for an whole session.

How does political culture influence the role of public opinion inside a state?

Public opinion is straight tied to the political culture of a state. Depending on the culture there will be diverse views of government. In traditionalistic states the views will have a tendency to be much more damaging than in those of a moralistic state, which views government a lot a lot more positively. In individualistic states government is viewed a lot more as a means to an end, and public opinion will reflect this belief. In a traditionalistic state, due to the hierarchical nature of the political culture, public opinion will reflect the candidates themselves, and start to have an effect on their policies if those policies go off the beaten path.

Talk about the different roles governors must assume upon taking workplace and the relative importance of formal and informal powers. How do governors use informal powers to push their legislative agendas?

A governor has a number of different roles at the state level. They are the chief legislator: they have the power to sign bills into law or to veto them The governor has a potent say in the price range They are the head of state agencies: they choose who gets appointed to distinct state offices They are the chief spokesperson for the state: this function is primarily utilised in attracting company to their state in order to boost jobs and GDP They are the party chief in their state they are the Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard: unless the Federal government overrides this handle the Governor is in charge of the state’s National Guard.

There are two distinct powers of a Governor: Formal and Informal. Informal powers are not direct powers, but come from getting the Governor. With the workplace they can contact focus to specific issues, or attempt to persuade legislators to vote for one thing.

The formal powers are the energy to appoint men and women to run governmental agencies, to prepare state budgets, which allows them to direct funds exactly where they want, or use funds as a way to coerce legislators to vote their way, to veto, which causes legislators to be much more prepared to function with a governor if they feel their bill has a chance of getting cut from existence, grant pardons, and contact particular sessions of legislatures, which is beneficial in dealing with 1 specific issue, and it only performs if they currently have a program in spot or the solution solved.

Governors use their informal powers, notably political influence, to push their legislative agenda. They are the head of celebration while in office, and can use this to influence members of their personal party. They can grant favors or aid fundraise for legislators. Ultimate a governor is more productive if the cooperate with the legislature.

Briefly go over the part of lieutenant governors and state attorneys general and how those roles have changed. Why have these offices gained in political significance and power

Governors have grow to be increasingly politically mobile they have to deal with regional problems on top of some state concerns, and even international ones. The role of lieutenant governors and attorneys basic have changed because of this, and they have to take a far more active part in state government. Every workplace used to be noticed as a joke, but now, with elevated responsibilities for both offices, it can be viewed as a stepping-stone in state politics, and either a single of the could potentially run for the governor’s workplace.

Talk about the comparative strategy and its connection to the study of state and nearby politics. Are states a good unit of analysis for comparative research?

The comparative technique is utilised to study the differences and similarities among things, in this context state governments. It is employed to discover out why states do issues differently, such as how much they give to public education institutions, or how considerably they tax items. I do not feel states are the ideal products for a comparative study, they’re very good, but you could get far more detailed. The “lower” you go (States, counties, cities) the far more accurate data you can get. If you do a wide-variety study of numerous cities in a county, and do the same for the rest of the counties in a state, you will get a better idea of why thinks operate the way the function in a state, and how they differ state to state.

Talk about the value of political culture. Compare and contrast the 3 principal categories of political culture.

Political culture offers us a basic concept of what a state is like politically. It tells us the likelihood that a particular person will vote, what their policies are like, and how they run their government. There are 3 distinct kinds of political culture: Moralistic, Individualistic, and Traditionalistic. The moralistic states are generally in the north and the folks have a genealogy that stems from Scandinavia. Individualistic states are normally in the North-East. Traditionalistic states are in the South and their governments have a “hands-off” strategy to governing.

Moralist states have a tendency to worth the neighborhood more than the person, government is a constructive force, and there is far more amateur participation in politics. Individualistic states are significantly far more utilitarian, government is viewed as a implies to advantage the individual, and dirty politics is considerably much more accepted. Traditionalistic states are hierarchical, government is viewed as a indicates to hold the hierarchy, and government is restricted.

I uncover that traditionalistic and moralistic states appear to be the furthest apart. Moralistic is for political participation, while traditionalistic is against moralistic appears for the good of the community while traditionalistic is aimed a lot more towards the individual moralistic has a positive view of government whilst traditionalistic would eliminate all government if they could. The individualistic states fall in amongst moralistic and traditionalistic states, and significantly much more cynical when it comes to politics.

Clarify why you think US Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis after referred to as states “laboratories of democracy.”

Because they are the innovators of policy. Take Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana for instance. We would by no means see this take place on a national level without it becoming verified to work first. States have the ability to experiment with various laws significantly easier than the federal government. It is considerably less complicated to pass a controversial bill in a state than at the federal level. On the flip side there is Arizona and all the crazy bills they have put forward. Ultimately, in states, the folks have a greater say in what occurs, what is produced into law, and in this they are a “purer” kind of democracy, enabling it to be much more experimental.

Clarify devolution as it relates to public policy in state governments.

Devolution is the notion that, due to inactivity of the federal government, notably congress, states have taken on a larger function in generating policy choices. States have taken on much much more duty than in the past and use this to implement policy they could not in the previous. This makes it possible for for states to grow to be the aforementioned “laboratories of democracy” with growing energy at the state level there will be a wider variety of public policy from state to state, such as marijuana legalization or exact same-sex marriage legalization. Neither of those would ever have had a possibility at the national level, but due to states, and the powers that the federal has provided them, they have happened, and we will continue to see these two troubles brought up, as effectively as numerous more.