People keep talking about "Federalizing the National Guard" and now you've got other States pledging their NG to Texas in defiance of the Supreme Court (see image).
So is this what CW2 looks like?
P.S. I'm a Brit
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
903 points (93.2% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26980 readers
1300 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fair enough - I knew I should have supported that claim. An earlier commenter did, listing many - my claim probably represents a lot of countries with larger populations and/or enough wealth to support regional representative government. It may not be the majority - smaller countries like Tonga and Eswatini are notionally unitary monarchies, but I'd still be surprised if there weren't chiefs on each island or in each significant town or region in most countries. It's harder to qualify - my claim probably comes from looking at a world map and seeing 50-50, but it's probably Mercator projection and recognition bias (I may be able to name all countries and their capitals, but not the ins and outs of their government systems, given it gets murky).
Again this is an unsupported gut feeling, but this is what corrupt countries do, and I was going to say the US is nearly the only 'marble cake' democracy but I suppose people might be able to say "what about the Democratic Republic of the Congo?" which everyone knows is neither democratic nor a proper republic, but a barely-functioning government representing a large and valuable area of land easily manipulated by richer countries for its wealth. I suppose what I mean is that the US has, at least until recently, been the country most others and commentators sycophantically praise as a true democratic marble cake federation, when it is not truly democratic, it's just wealthy, and that wealth is held by oligarchs in the same way as federations like Russia or Brazil.
Maybe my point wasn't valid. Maybe it was a gut feeling. I don't know any more, I'm just a downtrodden man.
Oh, that makes sense. You're not talking specifically about countries with federal systems of government, you're talking about countries that have any form of local government in addition to a national government. That's technically not federalism, but I see what you're talking about.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about this:
According to the textbook my American Government class uses (We the People, 14th Essentials Edition by Ginsberg, Lowi, Tolbert, and Campbell), less than 15% of the world's countries use federal systems.
I was talking about both, and thinking about federations by population and influence (e.g. India, Russia, Brazil, Germany, Canada, Australia and the US) as well as regional representation which of course is not federalism per se. Thanks for citing your source, I concede to your point, but remonstrate by arguing that <15% of countries by number is not necessarily a useful statistic. I'd argue that the proportion by population, land area and political/cultural influence is a better metric (and I don't have a source for that but expect by population it'd be closer to 50:50). Fair?
No, I don't think that's fair, because 1) I was specifically referring to the relative scarcity of federal governments out of all the governments in the world, and 2) you're moving the goalpost in order to win the argument. You stated:
In reality, your statement was patently incorrect. Federal and unitary governments are not roughly evenly represented across the world's governments. In fact, the percentage of the world's population that resides in a country with a federal system of government is only 38.05%, and that drops to 20.28% if you don't count India, a significant outlier. The total physical area of the world claimed by countries with federal systems is closer to your 50% guess, at 42.53%, but that drops to 29.89% if you don't count the Russian Federation, another significant outlier.
Your claim of roughly even representation between federal and unitary governments isn't accurate by any of the metrics you used: Number of governments, population, and land area. I'm not sure how political/cultural influence can be quantified, but I dispute its relevance.
Sources: I sourced my populations from World Meter, Wikipedia, and Census.gov, and I used Wikipedia as a source for land areas.
All fair points, you win!