Freedom to choose what political system you live under, while maintaining the basic liberties and strength of a nation. Nothing better.

It is our system. Its good, we kinda of fell out of it.

As far as political systems go, federalism is a pretty solid one. Issues that affect the country as a whole are taken care of by the central government, while more local concerns are taken care of where they belong, at the local leve. One potential problem of federalism that can be seen in the U.S. is the slow loss of control by the constituent political units (in our case, the states), as the central authority exerts more and more control.

In the abstract this is a great concept; however, the American Civil War destroyed some of it, World War II did more, and 9/11 has destroyed more. Federal guidelines and requirements destroy more. Not much is left, really.

A foundation for the success of the country. Federalism allows each individual state the autonomy to try new things. Those programs and policies that work will proliferate will spread, those that don't, won't. It's like capitalism for government.

I like the idea that individual states maintain the bulk of sovereignty on government issues. States are different, some promote living conditions that are better suited for a particular individual. If I'm gay, maybe I'd want to live in the San Francisco area. The point is... "choices" and limiting government power over the choices that impact my personal liberty.

As this has slowly been taken apart here, things have gotten worse. It was working fine, but the people who scream about fairness and dictatorships and totalitarianism found ways to dictate their beliefs on others through the courts and such. These are usually the same people that complain about "democracy dying".

I suppose it's better than centralism, but in practice it can lead to small minded backward thinking dominating the agenda.

hmm well all of these people seem to be very educated making the comments but hows this for your basic highschool educated personal. the way I see it is powers are always going to be divided its not avoidable. however the way it is divided is the biggest issue. think of a brother or sisster kind of deal. who's favored more and by which parent its the same deal. when your parents leave or are out of sight who's in controle in the end. now lets put it back into the political view behind the publics eyes (the parents) who's calling the most shots and overiding the other branch or arm. its a battle that will never work out. its funny in a way but its something to do. I do know it is a matter that needs to be adressed but it doesnt really matter who's right in this case.

essential if america is to be united, but in europe union i believe it wont and isn't working very well at all. its a question of unity and history. if there is no bad history between different states it can work well. if there is how do you expect them to agree to anything

Federalism worked well in the 19th and 20th Century, but it is looking increasingly dysfunctional in the 21st. The EU has been very successful as an economic Confederacy-lifting Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland from poverty into democratic prosperity, and likely most of Eastern Europe as well. It has also been an abject failure as a Federation. As the US becomes more populous and diverse, its Federalism is also showing signs of strain-while many of our current problems stem from bad decisions and sheer incompetence, America is simply becoming too large and complex to be directed by centralized authority. The old system of 'checks and balances' has largely broken down, and people feel (rightly) that political decisions are increasingly dictated by professional pollsters, PR gurus, media pundits, political 'fixers' and wealthy donors. By returning power to the states and regions, a more democratic system might be acheived. The Pacific Northwest and New England could run Social Democratic administrations, with high taxes, social liberalism and excellent services. Texas and the Rocky Mountain states could be a Libertarian paradise (though the rugged individualists would have to learn to live without Federal subsidies for agriculture and energy). The Deep South could have the Confederacy it always wanted, with chain gangs, prayer in schools and two guns in every home. And so on. The central government would stick to defense, foreign relations, internal security, monetary policy, and arbitrating inter-regional differences. People who disliked living in one region could move to another, instead of forcing their preferences on everyone else; their votes and opinions would matter far more in a region of 50 million people than in a country of 300 million. I don't expect this to come to pass, but as the Federal Government is rapidly driving itself into paralytic bankruptcy, it would certainly be desirable to create alternative, more effective institutions beyond Federalism.

Run correctly, which it would seem is difficult in itself in today's world, it would appear to be 'good'. As long as each state would retain a certain amount of power to make decisions.

No real problem with federalism. As commentators have mentioned, it works best the larger your society gets. However, it does leave you with some mighty struggles at times over rights, responsibilties and goals of the greater whole clashing with those of the smaller locality. These struggles are avoided in a more centralized form of government.

Local people are allowed to run their everyday affairs. Brilliant!

Federalism as practiced in our republic has been quite successful. The checks and balances placed upon branches of government and the respective limited authority of the federal government has allowed a vibrant devolved system to develop. With information and advancements in military technology shrinking the size of the earth and globalization giving rise to greater complications the central government, to the chagrin of conservatives, has assumed a greater role. Some of these are positive, some negative. There needs to be an understanding that power is best exercised as locally as possible but in a world as connected as ours and under threats to our freedom it must also be able to wield the power to address such situations. The importance of dialog on such matters rests upon the legislatures and will of the people. The Founders in their genius allowed for this dialog to occur by creating such a dynamic system of government. Some of this was by genius, other portions luck and circumstance, but in the end the system has proven itself to be the greatest mankind has developed to date.

Federalism can be good if it's done properly... It can help things especially financially speaking... i think it's a great idea

Federalism decentralizes power allowing for political solutions to be tailored more accurately to meet the particular needs and values of different entities and societies. (For the United States, this means states and localities.) In other words, the lowest common denominator is not usually the best way to maximize standard of living and rule of law. For instance, federalism would allow one state to decriminalize marijuana or assisted suicide while allowing other states to criminalize abortion or gay marriages/unions. Many tend to only want federalism when they lose on the federal level (eg medical marijuana) and fight federalism when they win on the federal level (eg abortion). This type of thinking is, of course, hypocritical without substantial and material reasons why these different issues should be decided on different political levels.

An ignorant view that helped lead to the Civil War. Get some historical perspective, greedy bastards!

Federalism gives too much power to a central government. Local governments know best what is needed to survive and as soon as a federal government can overule the local governments decisions the local government suffers. If the federal government had not been such an ass then the American Civil War would have never happened.

Instead of state and Federal governments sharing Power, all of the people should be sharing the same problems.Failing to understand and share problems is what led up to the civil war,which is around the time when the definition of federalism changed.I am against federalism under eithe one of it's definitions,because I see the problems that both forms of it cause.

Federalism is necessary to assure that the rights of all people are protected. Today, federalism is defined as the sharing of power between central and subsidiary state governments. The ability of states to make decisions for themselves is necessary to preserve freedom. Each region of this country, each state of this country has their own problems. California has the highest population and is running out of energy, but Texas is last in the number of people with affordable healthcare. Each state has their own needs, and they must deal with them with the help of the federal government, hence the definition, "the SHARING of powers between state and federal governments". One more example- a state which has a low crime rate may not need gun control laws, whereas another state which has a high crime rate may. A national gun control law would force a low-crime state to even further deny citizens their right to bear arms. Federalism is necessary to preserve the freedom of the United States of America.

The very essence of micro democracy!

Federalism is the necessary environment for Republicanism. It acts as final arbiter countering the challenges of external threats and localized tyranny.

Again, our country adopts many of hese into one system. Federalism is very important.

I agree with Eric the Federalist.

Federalism is escential to achieve democracy in the world. Federalism is also totally necessary to achive peace in the world. That's exactly why the EU always are expanding, at the moment to also include East-Europe. It's a peace project! Democracy is one of the main pilars in the EU-system. Through peace & democracy we can achieve freedom. That's why federalism always is a peace project! :-)

Interesting that, like "liberal" and so many other words, this one has very much changed its meaning. At the American founding, "federalists" wanted a stronger central government than Jefferson and Madison wanted. While understanding of their fears (some of which were warranted), I'd side with Washington and Adams in that debate. Today, federalism is typically understood as a system of governance that delegates powers among a federal gov't and subsidiary gov'ts (the states). This month, the Federalist Society has become the target of a new witchhunt by Sen. Leahy (D-VT) as though its some crazed bunch of extremists (instead of a very academic association of legal minds who hold occasional debates on subjects of law). In any event, today's "federalists" tend to be skeptical of over-reaching behavior from the federal courts, and thus are again on the "correct" side of a debate in which their role is very much reversed.