Why should a political system be unitary, federal, or confederal? If the U.S. were to have another constitutional convention, would we keep a federal system or change it? Why or why not?

After you read these articles, you should be able to form your own opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederal

The choice between a unitary, federal, or confederal political system is a fundamental decision for a country. Each system has its own advantages and considerations.

A unitary system is characterized by a strong central government that holds most of the political power. It is often suitable for smaller countries or states where there is a need for uniformity and efficiency in governance. Decision-making is generally faster and more streamlined in a unitary system. However, there may be less room for local autonomy and responsiveness to regional differences.

A federal system, like the one in the United States, divides power between a central government and regional or state governments. This allows for a balance of power and the recognition of regional diversity. Federal systems often provide avenues for local participation and decision-making, while also maintaining unity and stability at the national level. It can foster a sense of shared governance and accommodate diverse interests. However, coordination and cooperation between the central and regional governments can be challenging, and disputes can arise over jurisdiction and power-sharing.

A confederal system is characterized by a weak central government and strong autonomy for individual states or regions. It is typically created when previously independent states voluntarily choose to form a loose association for common purposes, while retaining significant sovereignty. Confederal systems prioritize local autonomy and allow for a decentralized exercise of power. However, confederal systems can face difficulties in coordinating policies, enforcing decisions, and maintaining unity.

As for the U.S. specifically, whether to keep or change the federal system in a constitutional convention would depend on various factors and perspectives. Decisions about the political system should consider both the historical context and the current needs and aspirations of the nation.

If a constitutional convention were to be held in the U.S., there would likely be a range of opinions. Advocates for keeping the federal system would likely emphasize the benefits of a balanced division of power, recognition of regional differences, and the ability to accommodate diverse interests. They might argue that the American federal system has proven to be flexible and capable of adaptability over time.

On the other hand, proponents for changing the federal system might argue for greater centralization or decentralization, depending on their view of how the system is functioning. This could stem from concerns about inefficiencies, power imbalances, or the need for more responsiveness to specific issues or regions.

Ultimately, whether to keep or change the federal system in the U.S. would require careful deliberation, consensus-building, and consideration of the potential consequences and trade-offs involved. A constitutional convention would provide an avenue for discussing and re-evaluating the political system in light of the nation's evolving needs and aspirations.