SabinStargem

Charisma has always been a major driver of politics, be it Republican Roman, Great Britain during WW2, or now. The only thing that is really different, is that we have better records of what modern politicians get up to. I recommend watching Historia Civilis's coverage on Rome, particularly the "His Year" subseries.

The big strength of the Outer Region, is politics and location - by occupying key spots far away from the American mainland, that inherently means that they are key points where trade, military basing, and other such things are concerned. Also, many territories don't have state rights - which should be corrected by making them into proper states, or releasing them from America's grasp. On top of that, the Outer Regions could get a special perk - any territorial acquisitions the US makes, by default goes to the Outer Region. If Cuba willingly joined the USA, that is where they would go. If Mexico was somehow conquered, that too becomes part of the Outer Region. This makes the mainland regions less willing to take the nation to war, unless it is important. If the rewards of conquest went to the smallest brother, the bigger brothers are less inclined to shake down nations.

Anyhow, I think the problem of territory and population count would start resolving itself as decades pass. Each region is meant to compete with each other, and by extension, that means effectively using their lands to house people, produce resources, and so forth. Thing is, people can still freely migrate anywhere within the states, so a badly lead region will have them losing population to other regions and the states therein.

Alongside my assumption of a reworked Constitution, is that economics itself will receive a dedicated section where UBI is guaranteed. This would allow people to have greater political and economic agency, since they are not tied down to land by work nor means. If they got free basic shelter, food, healthcare, and transport, citizens can just pick up stakes to find greener pastures. Without being able to hold people hostage through requiring work, each region needs to have good living conditions to attract people into their respective lands. This is not dissimilar to the times of the Black Death, where laborers had the freedom to choose the circumstances of work, because the lords had to jockey to get the skills of a limited supply of workers.

Trade. A state that is troop poor or reluctant to let them be borrowed, can instead offer money or some other assistance to get help from another state. The training standards would presumably be per state...but the regional government can hold a program. For example, "we train 6,000 of Colorado's state guard for 7 months, we get to rent them for X dollars, and for up to Y months at a time."

The important thing is to give states enough agency to say no, or to have fair terms with their regional president.

The vote is for cooperation between executive branches, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Regional Houses, Courts, or the National Senate would agree to cooperate with executives. In any case, there is a 4th President - the Outer Region, which consists of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Djibuti, and other small yet significant territories. I am of the mind that with a lack of raw land and people, the Outer Regions should get some sort of outsized advantage to compensate. A president's vote being equal to their peers is probably simple enough to do the trick.

I figure that states would regulate their region - for example, if a president wants troops from their region, the individual states have to agree to supply the troops. This puts an onus on a regional president to negotiate terms with states and other regions if they want to do stuff. Mind, I think there would have to be an exception for natural disasters like hurricanes and forest fires, with a footnote that deployed troops have to be unarmed.

We want a certain degree of gridlock, where no one has too much authority, but not so much rigidity that nothing can be done. Kinda like how traffic lights and road layouts dictate how a city operates. Political divisions and systems are architecture designed to address chaos.

I figure the division would resemble this picture. States with a fair chunk of territory straddling the dividing lines between regions can hold a popular vote, to decide which side they belong to. This roughly carves up the contiguous nation into 1/3rd portions, each having major centers in California, Texas, and New York. Obviously not perfect, but this should give all three some access to global trade and enough landmass to be useful. The important thing is for all three regions to be jockeying to be #1, but not quite succeeding, pushing each other to do better for their citizens, science, freedoms, and so forth.

In any case, my proposal makes a big assumption: that the current Constitution and Bill of Rights are replaced by a new version. It is my belief that it is likely for the United States to have a 2nd American Civil War. If that is the case, the political board as we knew it would have been overturned. Our Constitution is about 250 years old, invented in a time where the horse was the fastest mode of communication, and only 13 states existed. The framers were intelligent, but there was limits to their knowledge, simply because there wasn't much precedent for the political order they engineered. After all, they tossed out the Articles of Confederation because they weren't fit for purpose. The fitness and purpose of our current Constitution isn't good enough for today's world.

Rules to eliminate gerrymandering and the electoral college, formalizing popular voting, reworking the powers and limits of each branch, and so forth, would be needed.

I do not believe so. As I said, "Figurehead President". The way I figure, if the four regional presidents are in a deadlock about something, the Figurehead Pres can cast a tie-breaking vote. Seeing as that figurehead is elected by the four regional presidents, the figurehead should be relatively neutral. Impeachment of a bad Figurehead can be done through either popular vote of the entire nation, or three of the four regional presidents agreeing to remove the Figurehead.

IMO, the purpose of a Figurehead President is to give the appearance of a unified mission to people.

Personally, I think that the USA should be divided up into four regional blocs - West Coast, Middle America, East Coast, and all of the external territories like Hawaii, Alaska, and others as an Outer Region. Each of them can have their own president elected by popular vote, and those four presidents select a previous president from one of the regions as a Figurehead President, who represents the nation as a whole - such as diplomacy with the EU, making public national policies the regions have agreed upon, and so forth.

This divides up the executive into branches. Each region can have their own house and court, with a supreme court & senate drawing an equal amount of members from the four regions. This means we get regional laws, and then a national version when 3 out of 4 regions manage to agree on something.

I feel that the root of America's issues comes from too few people representing too many people, which also means the few have too much power and no incentive to really care about folk.

The license to grope girls of any age only belongs to white dickheads, apparently.

If Jon Stewart became the Ronald Reagan of progressiveness, I wouldn't complain.

If Zelensky is any indication, comedians make for excellent heads of state and ministers of war. A good leader not only has wits, but also the voice to convince people of a vision.

Comedians have a day job of making people agree with them, without needing bribes or institution to back them.

My money is attacking Mexico without a declaration of war. Brown people are down there, it justifies the ICE budget, and other bullshit.