Thanks for the history of the Laender. I had been wondering if they were holdovers from the various entities that united to form Germany or not.

Is there a website that compares various ways that nations split power between the federal governments and a state/province/Land/canton/oblast/etc.? what country has the weakest federal government? the strongest? How do these get ranked from most autonomy to least? Vermont, Nova Scotia, North Rhineland-Westphalia, New South Wales, Chihuahua, Brittany, Emilia-Romagna, County Cork, Zurich.

As for reorganizing our states, I don't really see this happening anytime soon. I have heard something about perhaps North Dakota and South Dakota uniting, but that would reduce their representation in the Senate, and it doesn't seem likely to me. I've kicked around a couple of ideas for combining states with friends before, but we would generally keep the number between 40 and 50.

It seems to me that reorganizing the states all at once would be too difficult and perhaps cost more money, effort and strife than it would save. There are subtle differences in laws that make it seem unlikely that voters in a state would agree to join up with six or seven other states. Give up the Alaska Permanent Fund? Would a company incorporated in Delaware retain the tax benefits from being there? Would Florida residents balk at having to start paying a state income tax? Or Oregonians at having to start paying a state sales tax? And combining states that come from different Federal court districts will require ironing out several subtle differences? Which state's marriage laws do you go by? Would adoptions be undone by such a union? We'd have to have six or seven different state constitutional conventions, plus probably a new federal one as well--a Senate that consists of only 12 people seems wrong. The only way I could see something like this happening would be if the federal government became much stronger, but that would have to be a long, slow process which doesn't seem likely to happen. The saving of money would probably come more from a stronger federal government making the boundaries less important than actually moving the boundaries.

Eric
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

Wolfgang Schaub <Wolfgang.Schaub@...> wrote:

Hi John,

Maybe you did not get the point, John: Nothing against states as such: I had proposed 6 typical ones to replace the 50 odd.

I remember having discussed the same in the States 30 years ago and having received the same answers. And I say NO to all this, sorry: Still you live in ONE country, how ever large it is, you (still) speak one language, and your country is "only" 230 years old and progress-oriented. By nature your country is a cultural mix, much different from Germany where we believe we have stronger ethnic / dialect diversities. In a global world there cannot be such differences that justify running immense bueraucracies within ONE country. And in addition, as I tried to explain, with often quite "unnatural" boundaries.

But to console everybody: Occasionally we discuss something similar in Germany, where we have 16 (!) Laender. While everybody believes this is totally unnecessary, we are neither able to a reform, nor do we abolish the Laender completely. Politicians stick to their training territories (the Laender being not more than that), and the constitution requires a 2/3 majority to change: Unsurmountable obstacles? At the same time we discuss about a "stronger" EU government in Brussels - and are unable likewise to accomplish this. Is this all the weakness of democracies - that they are made only for "sunshine weather"?

Mind you: You can change everything - you just need to want it.

Wolfgang

PS: Historically, the "Laender" are an invention that has been imposed on post-war Germany, in an attempt to prevent a strong central government. Perversely, the structure of the Laender still follows the old occupation zones: The city of Bremen, for example, was American-occupied (to provide a harbour), and still "enjoys" the status of a Land today. The Saarland is an old mass to be shifted between France and Germany - impossible to amalgamate with neighbouring Rhineland-Palatine. Not to mention Berlin which tried to join Brandenburg and failed. Ethnic, cultural, economical and other boundaries also here go criss-cross and not in line with political borders.

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Shankland(Train) [mailto:shankland@...]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Februar 2005 14:42
An: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: RE: [BoundaryPoint] The greater picture

Hi Wolfgang,

Interesting thought but I doubt that it could ever happen. The constitution etc was very adamant and the feelings very strong to maintain the separation of States and the federal government.

In addition many of the states are extremely culturally different from each other (not including N and S Dakota). I would suggest that is similar to the difference (other than language) Between Germany and Austria or England.

Alabama and California could never mix.

Euro will never be a single country. Imagine forcing the English to drive on the right or Germans to drive on the left.

I would also suggest that many of the government programs or services are complimentary each providing a piece of the service and not being a duplication.

The Fed provides Interstate Highways and the States local roads. Not a duplication. If the Feds took it over they would have to hire the States engineers anyway.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Wolfgang Schaub [mailto:Wolfgang.Schaub@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 8:02 AM
To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] The greater picture

After looking too much towards the past I felt I should look a bit into the
future now.

Following your discussions on intra-U.S. boundaries I begin to wonder if
there is, in the U.S., anybody who ever has estimated the waste of $ caused
by maintaining some 50 states. Three reasons:

1) The relative size of some states is drastically divergent (Rhode Island
vs. Texas and California)

2) There is often little intra-state homogeneity (New Jersey, for example,
split between an industrial, NY-City-oriented half and woodland towards DE
and PA; similar situation with N.Y. State)

3) The boundaries of many states seem drawn too straight to make sense
(cities are sometimes split, like Texarkana, and others).

I know there is a historical reason for all that, but is this situation not
contrary to the otherwise so "forward-looking" America? A reform could help
saving billions of dollars that could be used for a better purpose than
nurturing small-size or disparate governmental administrations. Or: Is there
a difference, geographically, ethnically, culturally or otherwise that
supports a reason for North AND South Dakota?

(I may even offer a recipe: Amalgamate the 50 into 6 new states, NE, SE,
mid-S, mid-N, SW, and NW)

I know this sort of discussion, carried in by a foreigner, is not to the
liking of patriotic Americans. And precisely for that reasons I bring this
up. Give me a reasonable answer please, forward-looking.

Wolfgang

__________ NOD32 1.961 (20041230) Information __________

Diese E-Mail wurde vom NOD32 Antivirus System gepr|ft
http://www.nod32.com

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.