h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Nice ideas, and I won't for a moment dispute what you're on about. However, the writing is in the form of speculative opinion, whereas the point of most Guide entries is to be informative. The piece could be re-worked to canvass the topic, using statements such as "... in the current political climate it may turn out that QEII is known to posterity as 'Queen Elizabeth the Last'", which drops the rhetorical question form you have used throughout, while retaining the idea. In its present form I doubt this entry would get recommended. Don't be discouraged, though, keep writing!

Cheers,

Guran

Unedited entries can be about anything you want. There are numerous entries that are good and thought provoking, even if they aren't a neutral encyclopaedia article. Dogster has a big political area where he tries to use entries to provoke political debate.

I thought the entry was great. I think its a window into the future. When you give up sovereign power, someone else is going to take over.

The United States is an excellent example. 13 sovereign colonies surrendered a little power to a central government to conduct foreign affairs, protect the nation, and regulate interstate trade. Now the 50 states are beholding to the central government for everything.

I think I may have erred in adding a conversation to the unedited entry instead of to the peer review thread. Oops! In the context of writing a potential edited entry I think my comments were valid. I think I just put it in the wrong spot.

Cheers!

Guran

Actually, two-bit, I think in many ways the US is a model Federal State. Inevitably, Central Government holds some power (arguably too much) but compare that to some States. In the UK, before the Labour government (finally) devolved power to the member nations, nearly 60 million people were under the control of a central government in London. It should surprise no-one that most of the UK's wealth was diverted straight to the English South-East.

This couldn't really happen under a US-style federation.

It depends on the power of the central government. Some states get a lot more money than they put in. West Vergina is an excellent example. Senator Byrd is very powerful, and he enures that his stastes receives huge amounts of money that was taken from the rest of the country.

That's not *most* of the US GNP, though. It's probably true that West Virginia takes more than it puts in but, if West Virginia genuinely needs the money (our opinions on this may vary ) I think that's acceptable. In the example I gave, the English South-East didn't *need* the money (it often leeched it from those that did). It took the money because the UK political set-up allowed it to. There was no federal check on it's powers.

Admittedly, West Virginia probably needs more than most. The Appalachians are shot through with poverty and ignorance.

On the other hand, most of the money that goes there is pork barrel spending that Senators Byrd and Rockfeller can funnel there because they're senior members of the senate.

"Rockfeller" is a great American name

Seriously, though, I think Political corruption can only be countered through getting rid of ignorance, especially in a representative democracy like the United States. Maybe all that money going to West Virginia will sort it out.