What if each American state had a different form of government?

Rhode Island is officially Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. I don't know if any other states have part of their name not being in popular use.

Louisiana calls her counties by the name parish. I don't think Alaska has counties that are called counties either. There is also another layer of government in the USA, the tribe. In some ways, the native tribes are independent of the states that they are located in.

Oh, there are cultural differences across North America, even if you don't consider Mexico part of North America. Oklahoma isn't like Alabama or Georgia, even if a lot of the names are similar, due to tribes being moved west. Virginia is different from all three. Louisiana is well, Louisiana. Texas, California, and Florida all vary from north to south, and east to west. Climate plays a part, as do settlement patterns.

There is also variation at the local and county levels. Joint city-county governments, mayors vs city managers, different types of city and town councils.

Is there any country that has different types of governments internally?

dilvish
 
I don't think Alaska has counties that are called counties either.
Alaska has boroughs. How much power a borough government has I do not know.

I just thought of something, pardon me if it's too off-topic, but what about voting standards? The Constitution says the right to vote cannot be denied due to race or sex or age (if you're over 18). But what if some states denied people the vote due to income or some other social status?
Until the early or mid 19th century several states had property or income requirements for the franchise. Could a political climate endure or emerge where each state had more or less the same form of government (like today) but there were income requirements, community service requirements, Starship Trooperesque "veteran" requirements, etc., in order to vote in some states?
 
Is there any country that has different types of governments internally?
France. They have overseas collectivity of Wallis and Futuna (in the Pacific) which is ruled by government, consisting of three kings and three appointed members (appointment is made by High Administrator on the advice of the Territorial Assembly, elected by the people; the High Administrator is appointed by the President of France). This collectivity is part of the French Republic (its inhabitants have right to vote at French presidential elections); however, their internal government is obviously unlike French departments.
 
Alaska has boroughs. How much power a borough government has I do not know.

I just thought of something, pardon me if it's too off-topic, but what about voting standards? The Constitution says the right to vote cannot be denied due to race or sex or age (if you're over 18). But what if some states denied people the vote due to income or some other social status?
Until the early or mid 19th century several states had property or income requirements for the franchise. Could a political climate endure or emerge where each state had more or less the same form of government (like today) but there were income requirements, community service requirements, Starship Trooperesque "veteran" requirements, etc., in order to vote in some states?

Income/property requirements were on their way out by the 19th century. With the victory of Jeffersonian Democracy at the beginning of the century, it was coming pretty much inevitably. By the 1820's, the majority of states had universal white male suffrage.

But even before Jefferson, universal white male suffrage was a big issue. Pennsylvania and Virginia are two examples of states which pushed it through almost immediately.
 
Alaska has boroughs. How much power a borough government has I do not know.

I just thought of something, pardon me if it's too off-topic, but what about voting standards? The Constitution says the right to vote cannot be denied due to race or sex or age (if you're over 18). But what if some states denied people the vote due to income or some other social status?
Until the early or mid 19th century several states had property or income requirements for the franchise. Could a political climate endure or emerge where each state had more or less the same form of government (like today) but there were income requirements, community service requirements, Starship Trooperesque "veteran" requirements, etc., in order to vote in some states?

Florida. I recall a historian's speech where he pointed out Florida has the most draconian rules in the nation for barring voters with criminal records of any kind, pretty much a lifetime ban. The majorityof Black males are thus barred from ever voting.

And like we saw in 2000, the ban got opportunistically extended to many Blacks with no records.

This is not something unique to Florida, it's just where it's the most extreme. Some in the NAACP have been pushing for something to be done on this issue, but it's hard to when any congressman backing it would be accused of being soft on crime.
 
Wait, what? Who DOES'NT consider Mexico part of North America?


Iori,

Mexicans, among others.

Mexicans refer to people from the United States and, to a lesser extent. from Canada as "North Americans" while calling themselves "Americans".

Dilvish - Rhode Island's official name is a result of how the area was settled. Roger Williams purchased and settled land he called "Providence Plantations" while Anne Hutchinson and her followers settled land on what was then called "Rhode Island". (It's called Aquidneck Island now.)

Williams' colony became Providence and the surrounding area, Hutchinson's colony became Newport and that surrounding area. Both cities actually took yearly turns being the state capital between 1853 and 1899. Before that, between 1776 and 1853, each of the 5 county seats took a yearly turn being the capital. Of course, playing "musical capitals" like that is just another example of the same old boring US state governments. ;)


Bill
 
According to Clause 1, Section 4, Article 4 of the Constitution, each state only has to have a republican form of government. All of them have chosen presidential systems. If/when Canadian provences become states, they might have a parliamentary republican form of government.


After suffering through the past two Washingtonian governor races (I lost in 2008), I am almost for amending the Constitution to allow states have constitutional monarcies as a form of government, just so I won't have to listen to another Chris-Dino shouting match. I say almost, because the catch is, I get to be king.
 
Top