Pennsylvania becomes a rational state
Pennsylvania becomes a rational state and candidates for state office, citizens, state legislators and lobbyists behaved rationally in the economic sense; in my view the citizens would have the most power. State legislators are ordinarily the most powerful people in the ordinary political environment, with lobbyists being the second most powerful, people amongst these four groups (Harris and Fleisher, 2005). The candidates for state office have power, but for a limited duration. State legislators can be regarded as being the most powerful since they pass legislation which governs the state, and this makes them very powerful.
They have the power to decide how people will conduct their affairs, the freedom given to them, sectors which should receive more revenue, the foreign policy among other privileges (Nownes, 2006). Lobbyists on the other hand influence decision making by state legislators on behalf of lobby members or interest groups. They usually have valuable connections with the politicians which they use to influence them to make certain decisions. They are in turn rewarded by the people they work for, which are seen as being immoral by some people (Power and Rae, 2006).
In the ordinary society, the citizens are the least powerful since once they elect state legislators and other people to power, these leaders only look out for their own interests. The ordinary citizens are the people who end up suffering. This can explain the current situation where people do not have access to affordable housing and health insurance, whereas billions of dollars are being given out for economic stimulus plans which are not clear. In case every party behaved rationally, the leaders who are elected into power would follow their principles, as opposed to the financial or economic motives.
They would not scheme to enrich themselves or their families and would serve the people who elected them. Lobbyists on the other hand would not be able to influence state legislators to make decisions which are against their principles or the will of the people. This means that the citizens would have an opportunity to elect people who stand up to what they believe in, and have confidence that they will not turn against them. This means that citizens will have the ultimate power in such a society.
This makes them the most powerful group, since they have the votes to elect the person they believe in. Question 2. Assuming that my mum and I run into an aunt in mall, who blames federalism for pollution, poor infrastructure, weak legislation and limited health insurance, yet my mum has no idea what my aunt is talking about, I would give her the following explanation; I would first start by explaining federalism as a system of governance where the sovereignty or state is divided into constituent political units and a central governing authority.
I would give her an example of our country which has a federal government which runs state activities using the constitution, and the state government which make state laws under state constitutions (Carey et. al. , 2000). Each state has its own laws which govern the state system and run the state affairs (Filippov et al. , 2004). However, there are some people who are against this system of governance due to the weaknesses inherent in it. Aunt Parsley appears to be one of these people. I would then proceed to explain to my mum some of these weaknesses.
The major weakness which is inherent in the federalism system is the fact that states are forced to survive with the resources which they have (Mauk and Oakland, 2002). Though the federal government tries to make sure that the needs of each state are met, this does not happen in most of the times (Buchanan, 2001). States which have fewer resources are forced to use them efficiently to meet the needs of the people who live in such states (Smith, 2005). On the other hand, states which have abundant resources also use them for development.
This creates a form of inequality between states with abundant resources and those which have fewer resources. As a result of this inequality, some states which have limited sources of revenue and limited resources may face problems which aunt Parsley was discussing. I would clarify that when she complained about her marriage and pollution, the complaint centered on legislation, and this is possible when there are many states with different resources and sources of revenue (Waltenburg and Swinford, 2000). The problem of her son Oregano was related to inadequate health and insurance.
Finally the problem of infrastructure is related to lack of revenue. These are all problems which can be traced to federalism. However, I would inform my mum that other people, including me, do not see federalism as the major cause of all these problems highlighted by aunt Parsley. I would tell her that there are many states which have few resources but are very developed due to good quality leadership. I would explain that the problems can be traced to leadership, since we cannot complain about revenue and the US has the largest economy in the world. References.
Buchanan, J. M. (2001). Federalism, Liberty, and the Law. Washington: Liberty Fund. Filippov, M. , Ordeshook, P. C. , Shvetsova, O. V. (2004). Designing federalism: a theory of self-sustainable federal institutions. London: Cambridge University Press. Carey, J. M. , Niemi, R. G. , Powell, L. W. (2000). Term Limits in the State Legislatures. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Harris, P. , Fleisher, C. S. (2005). The Handbook of Public Affairs. New York: SAGE. Mauk, D. , Oakland, J. (2002). American Civilization: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Nownes, A. J. (2006).
Total Lobbying: What Lobbyists Want (and how They Try to Get It). London: Cambridge University Press. Power, T. J. , Rae, N. C. (2006). Exporting Congress? : The Influence of the U. S. Congress on World Legislatures. Pittsburgh Press: Univ of Pittsburgh Press. Sbragia, A. M. (2001). Debt Wish: Entrepreneurial Cities, U. S. Federalism, and Economic Development. Pittsburgh: Univ of Pittsburgh Press. Smith, J. (2005). Federalism. UK: University of British Columbia Press. Waltenburg, E. N. , Swinford, B, (2000). Litigating federalism: the states before the U. S. Supreme Court. Washington: Greenwood Publishing Group.Sample Essay of RushEssay.com