Michele Bachmann at the state capitol in Des Moines, Iowa, speaking to supporters (picture Gage Skidmore)
One of the basic ideas of federalism is that citizens of the federation all have equal rights, regardless of which member state they might live in. Their rights with respect to the state level might vary, each member state being entitled to decide its own rules for itself, but member states are not entitled to limit or interfere with the rights enjoyed by citizens at the federal level.
Discussion of this point during the 1930s revealed that federalism must necessarily be democratic. Democratic member states could not share a federation with undemocratic ones: either the citizens of the democratic states would lack democratic rights at the federal level, if they are to have no more rights that the citizens of the other states is to be respected, or there would be an unequal allocation of rights among the citizens of the federation. Neither of these outcomes would be tolerable.
As a result, the various schemes for federation in Europe all assumed that Nazi Germany was their mortal enemy. Germany could only be admitted into the federation once democracy had been restored there, but the federation would be much weakened as long as Germany was not a member. Remember this whenever a nutty Eurosceptic tries to tell you that the EU is the extension of the Nazi vision of Europe: in fact, it is the negation of that vision, it is the exact opposite.
That detour into the history of federalist thinking was provoked by a news report today about the American presidential election, in which the voters of Ames, Iowa, a town of 60,000 people in the American Midwest, are choosing who should be the Republican candidate for president. Theirs is not the final say, of course, but it is by far the most influential, because they choose first.
There will be a series of caucuses and primaries in the winter and spring of 2012, but in Iowa the first contest between the candidates has already happened. Michele Bachmann was the winner – she was born locally herself, which probably helps – but, more importantly, candidates who fair badly here often drop out. Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota came a poor third and has done just that.
The American system gives one part of the country a privileged position in the electoral contest, and as a result will see American politics tilt disproportionately in the direction of the interests and values of the people who live there. These interests and values are rural and conservative: if you want to know why America intervenes in agricultural markets, here is why. A fairer electoral system would treat all voters equally, rather than giving some of them a headstart.
PDF 
Loading ...
So, if I get you right, what we need is a European Union that is more federal than the USA? Great…
And, basically, you agree with the constitutional court of Karlsruhe when they say that Europe can’t be democratic as long as Germany doesn’t get the 123 MEPs they deserve, France their 97, the UK their 93, and Malta just two thirds of a single MEP? Perfect!
And what else? Should we replace the Parliament with an assembly of all 501 million European citizens to make sure its decisions are REALLY democratic ? Let’s do it.
Wonderful. So federalism is about turning off our sense of political reality and about finassieren – losing time about niceties that actually translate into practice the idea of federating people AND states? Excellent.
The USA is actually not the only country giving different weights to citizens’ votes across the country, like this study (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=fr&file=35708) shows.
Guess what: France has far bigger unbalances between its constituencies than the USA. Should we exclude France from the EU from that account?
I would be very satisfied if the EU liked the US with a presidential election and primary system that involve citizens directly and at the same time recognizes each state. I would not complain.
If we want federalism to be about absolutely perfect mathematical equality, we’ll only attract bookworms. Federalism is not about that.
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. We actually agree. Geography is a factor in politics: see what I have previously written here http://www.federalunion.org.uk/keep-cornwall-whole/)
In writing the rules for the federal level, one cannot ignore the nature and character of the member states themselves; this is where the apparently unequal distribution of MEPs comes from (“degressive proportionality”). The bold claims that you refer to in the Karlsruhe judgment, like you, I do not accept. But different forms of inequality arise in different ways and always launching the presidential race in the same small town is a form of inequality that is surely unnecessary. If it must be a small town, why not a different one each time?
And in the case of France, which you quote, that is completely the opposite of what I am saying. How a member state treats its citizens in this respect is basically a matter for each member state – if there is variation in the allocation of seats in the national parliament, each member state can choose this for itself – because it is in the context of the federal level that we are thinking about this. Were I in France, I do not think I would be happy with such a wide variation between the largest and the smallest constituencies, although the aim of the coalition government in the UK to get closer to equalising the size of different constituencies is not going to be easy to achieve.