Federalism makes more Happy Citizens

I have many times argued that most domestic governing should be done at the state level rather than the federal level.  Some say it is better to do it at the federal level on the basis of efficiency and uniformity but that is exactly why it shouldn’t be done at that level.  Federalism allows good ideas to spread and bad ones to be abandoned since it is easy to compare results of policies from state to state.  A federal policy can be compared with nothing.  Opponents can forever argue it was bad policy but provide no solid proof while proponents can claim the policy is excellent without fear of contradictory results.

For simplicity, let us consider the United States of Alpha & Beta.  There are only two states, each of which has a population of 1 million.  70% of the population of Alpha is in favor of banning English Muffins.  Beta only has 35% of its population favoring such a ban.  Senator Able of the great state of Alpha proposes legislation to ban English Muffins.  700 thousand people from Alpha are for it while 350 thousand from Beta are in favor.  That makes a narrow majority of 1 million 50 thousand vs. 950 thousand.  The bill passes and the President signs it into law.  The result is that almost half the nation is unhappy with the English Muffin ban.

Let us try that again on a state level.  Assemblyman Anderson proposes a state ban on English Muffins in Alpha.  The populace is overwhelmingly in favor and the bill is soon signed into law by the governor.  Now, 700 thousand citizens of Alpha are pleased with the ban while 650 thousand citizens of Beta can continue to eat English Muffins.  Thus, 1 million 350 thousand citizens are happy.  And those who feel strongly one way or the other on the ban have someplace more to their liking.  This is a very important factor.  If Alpha discovers that a large number of its citizens flee to Beta on account of the muffin policy, the state might consider a repeal of the ban.

The states are meant to be laboratories.  A federal policy that covers all states makes such impossible.  Even if a federal policy was a truly brilliant and wonderful idea, the states would have adopted it one by one as they saw great results in neighboring states.  However, bad or wasteful national policies (e.g. the Mohair Subsidy) are unlikely to be repealed.  Or, to take a recent example, Obamacare is opposed by 26 states.  Why not let each of those 24 not opposed adopt a healthcare system rather than inflict an untested national solution on all 50.  If one of those 24 achieves brilliance, the other states can follow its success.  If the results are disastrous, the other 26 might be vindicated in their opposition.

A policy that might please most New Yorkers could infuriate a majority of Texans or vice versa.  Gambling is legal in some states and not in others.  Even prostitution is legal in one state but the others have not found it worth emulating.  Massachusetts has a healthcare law which has not been sufficiently successful to win converts from other states.  Therefore, is it not best for each state to see to its own populace and the federal government to concern itself merely with comity among the states?  That was the intent of the constitution.