I was wondering what people thought about the idea that goverments tend to work better when they are governing over a smaller population. maybe it's easier to make all of the people happy when there are less of them.

like if the USA lost the U and just had independent state governments. is there any reason why this situation would work better?

I think so, and I think it may even happen.

I think the larger the mob, the easier it is to control. As you decrease the population, individual free-thinkers’ voices get louder. – which is hell for governments.

Originally posted by spacemanspiff
I was wondering what people thought about the idea that goverments tend to work better when they are governing over a smaller population. maybe it's easier to make all of the people happy when there are less of them.

like if the USA lost the U and just had independent state governments. is there any reason why this situation would work better? Simple!
A smaller population, less work, less profit. A larger population, more work, more profit, more growth, more profit, more growth, more profit, .:m:

I believe that the problem you are seeking to address is that we are not fairly represented at the federal level.

Here are some numbers that may serve to generate some discussion:

In 1790 the State of New York had a population of about 350,000 people. Only 83,000 of them were eligible to vote (white adult males). Therefore, with two senators, each effectively represented 41,500 potential voters. New York also had six representatives in the house, each representing 13,800 potential voters.

In 2000, there were 14,300,000 eligible voters in New York. Each senator is now responsible to 7,150,000 people, 172 times the 1790 ratio. The 31 representatives from New York must each represent 461,000 potential voters, 33 times the 1790 ratio.

Even when you combine senators and representives you find that representation at the federal level has been diluted by a factor of 42. Clearly voters in the state of New York do not have anywhere near the representation their forefathers had 213 years ago.

You'll notice I talk about "potential voters". In the 2000 election only about half the eligible voters bothered to go to the polls. I don't know what participation was in the 1792 election, but I'd bet the farm that it was a hell of a lot higher. This means that the "dilution ratio" is somewhat less than 42:1 - probably in the region of 30:1, if you're talking about representatives compared to people who actually vote.

What all this means is that our representation at the congressional level has been terribly watered down over time.

I would agree with SpacemanSpiff that the federal government is terribly inefficient and not very responsive to the people. Whether the state governments are more so is a subject for debate - I think New York's government is completely screwed. What is certain is that the taxation that is inflicted on the people does not translate into benefits for the people. I'll bet that if my state kept all the tax money collected in the state, we'd be doing a whole lot better than we are now. Instead we're converting hard-earned money into bombs, a fat bank account for Ken Lay, and a failed war on drugs. We could actually become the mythical America That The Whole World Envies if we spent it on education, health care, housing, new energy technologies and hiring one good hit man to shoot Saddam Hussein in the head.

But I digress. The original purpose of the Federal government was to provide a common currency, a national army, a uniform body of law and a single foreign policy. That's it. All it does now is get in the way and waste resources. I wouldn't shed a tear if the Federal government withered back to its original form.

Originally posted by Microzoft
Simple!
A smaller population, less work, less profit. A larger population, more work, more profit, more growth, more profit, more growth, more profit, .:m:

And what's wrong with less work, less profit? The problem is not that we lack enough resources, it's that the way of sharing those resources is completely out of whack. Also, we keep hearing about the desirability of a growth economy. Why? And how long can we sustain a growth economy before it comes to resemble a cancerous economy?

When an economy’s saturates with no possibility of considerable growing further, it begins to self consume within.

just like europe. wonderful. send a diplomatic envoy to new jersy and iowa to do something. It won't happen unless it was under a loose world federation that could gurantee security and stability.

Yes, the smaller the state, the more efficient it tends to be. Perfection will only come when there are 6.2 billion individual governing bodies.

- Rex Kahili

Originally posted by spacemanspiff
maybe it's easier to make all of the people happy when there are less of them.




People will never be happy...no matter what...even in Utopia people will complain it is unreasonably happy and that the Government is doing something to make it extra safe and happy.....happy propaganda....:rolleyes:


I believe Guyana has no formal government...being a small country and all...my firend once told me it was run by a groups spread across the place...like neighborehoods running their own mini gov run by a head family.....is there any validation to this???