People forget the U.S is a democratic constitutional republic. The federal government is not the humans government. It's the governing body for the States. Hence the reason for the electoral college and the way States are represented. Each state [government] has an equal voice in the Senate (and were represented by the Senators prior to the 17th Amendment). The house had a proportionate representation because it is ultimately the humans who have to pay for the running of the federal government.

The president it the head of the day to day operations of the government. They are supposed to faithfully see that the laws passed by Congress are executed properly.

And this is why most policy should be relegated to the states. But try making that argument and you'll be branded a nutty conservative.

But really, the states have always had the authority to do what people nowadays want the feds to do. Universal healthcare? The states are allowed to provide that. universal basic income? The states can do that too. Lower the drinking age? Yup, states can do that.

No one needs to wait for the federal government to 'approve' or 'allow' your state to do something. The states have ultimate, pretty much absolute authority.

There is no consistency of political philosophy.

If you want to limit access to abortions at the state level you are a nutty republican.

If you want to limit access to firearms at the state level you are a nutty democrat.

Or replace nutty with heroic depending what single issue you support.

Just because they technically "can" doesn't mean they actually can.

Universal healthcare requires high buy-in and very different systems from what we have now.

Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age.

>Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age.

Federal mandates for funds exist because the 17th amendment took away State governments representation and handed to popular human vote. Few Senators faithfully representing their State would pass mandates telling their own government they must comply or not get money. They'd likely get removed or replaced with someone else by the state government that put them there.

> Universal healthcare requires high buy-in and very different systems from what we have now.

States can regulate all of them. They are under no requirement to follow federal policy. In fact, they can even erect pretty substantial border controls (like California does) and send armies to protect their borders, if they really want to (yes this has actually been done outside the civil war).

For example, California recently 'threatened' to start universal health care. I'm unsure why the news framed it this way given that it has always been california's right to provide free health care to its citizens, and no one can really legally stop it. Perhaps California cannot raise enough money to do so, but that is an issue of feasibility, not legality. It's not like the feds would magically be able to raise money that California couldn't.

> Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age.

Um sure, but states are not required to take federal funding for highways. That's like saying 'Aunt Irma requires me to send her a Thank You note whenever I ask for her knit sweaters', while neglecting to mention that you actually do want the knit sweaters because they keep you warm and cozy.

>Lower the drinking age? Yup, states can do that.

The federal government passed a law in 1984 stripping states of their highway funding if they didn't put a floor under the drinking age at 21.

> The federal government passed a law in 1984 stripping states of their highway funding if they didn't put a floor under the drinking age at 21.

That doesn't actually change the fact that states have every right to change the drinking age. Obviously states do not have a right to federal government funds. However, if a state doesn't care for government funds, they are free to make their laws as they please. The feds have not made it illegal for states to do so (and they couldn't even if they tried).

I would really suggest responding to my comment as stated. I said:

> the states have always had the authority to do what people nowadays want the feds to do

Nothing about the contingency of federal highway funding takes away from the fact that states still retain the authority to set drinking ages as they see fit. The feds have the authority to spend their money how they see fit. That's how this whole thing works, believe it or not.

> People forget the U.S is a democratic constitutional republic.

Honestly I'm not sure who forgets this, considering how this point is brought up any time anybody wants to criticize the electoral college (as far as I see, anyways).

Regardless of why it is the way it is, in my opinion the electoral college is an absolute garbage implementation of a federal election.

Some states are vastly better represented than others because of "swing state" game theory. A third party is not viable except as a spoiler.

States are incentivized to implement first past the post voting from a game theory PoV because if you're a swing state you want to stay a swing state as it is financially and politically beneficial, and if you're not a swing state you don't want your solid blue/red state giving up even one delegate to the opposing party.

On top of that, the entire goal of the electoral college was that we would vote for electors we trust and those electors would handle voting in a President. Yet we don't even do that, we vote for a presidential candidate and an elector is chosen to carry that vote out to the national level! Presidential elections are poorly implemented direct democracy masquerading as federalism.

And of course you would get down voted.

I mean, you might have a philosophy that says that's what the US is.

In practice, none of those details are really true anymore.