The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As county governments are already fully discussed in the Local government in the United States article, the County government in the United States article is redundant. Strongly suggest merging the county government article with Local government in the United States. 71.139.153.191 ( talk) 01:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Wouldn't County (United States) be a better merge target? I agree that the article isn't needed and should be merged somewhere. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 01:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply

That might be even better. 71.139.153.191 ( talk) 01:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Support merger to County (United States). IMO, the article topic is worthy of a separate article, but the new article County government in the United States is (1) redundant with existing articles in both its scope and its specific content and (2) essentially devoid of references (indeed, it could be characterized as original research). The county article appears to be a more appropriate redirection target than the Local government article, as county government is more of a focus of the county article. -- Orlady ( talk) 02:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support merge to County (United States) per Orlady. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 02:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose There is significant content specific to county government to warrant a separate article. County government is inherently significant as a level of government to warrant its own article. Furthermore, this article was created out of a need to deal with issues arising from the category of the same name. There is no way all the content that is worthy of coverage can fit into the local government article, and it is still a matter of debate as to whether or not county government is local government at all. Greg Bard ( talk) 03:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support merge to the county (US) article. Or perhaps we could merge some content to it and some content to the local government article? This is closely connected ( too much so) to both of them; the title and some of the contents are more suitable for the county article, but tons of the contents are more suitable for the local government article. Nyttend ( talk) 04:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Since County government in the United States consists of content already in one or both of the other articles plus unreferenced original research, there isn't all that much that's appropriate to be merged. Possibly the main issue here is where the title should redirect. -- Orlady ( talk) 14:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply

That occurred to me as well. I'd support a redirect to County (United States). In fact, I'm going to start the BRD and redirect it now, and we can discuss it over there, maybe? — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and redirected it and started a discussion at Talk:County_government_in_the_United_States#Redirect_to_County_.28United_States.29. If there's anything worth merging we can get it from the history, I think. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• oppose County government is an extension of state government, not to be confused with local municipalities' governments. Merging them only causes increased confusion and reduces wiki's value as a reference. Redddbaron ( talk) 11:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)PS If you feel you have to merge for some reason, then the only reasonable place to merge county government is into state government, since structurally, county government is state government in every state I know about. Unless someone can reference me a state where counties are not an arm of the state government? However, I see no reason for merging at all. Redddbaron ( talk) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Question: Are there any references that unambiguously show that counties in fact function as an extension of state government? In every state I'm familiar with, counties are fully autonomous authorities within the bounds set out by the state. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Sure! Here is a good online one that simply states it unambiguously. http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/Overview.aspx but you can also find the three main models in text books. At least you could 35+ years ago when I went to school. What they teach these kids now-a-days I have no idea. http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/HistoryofCountyGovernmentPartI.aspx Redddbaron ( talk) 13:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, but I don't see anything that unambiguously states that county governments are in today's world arms of state government. These references discuss the origins of counties, but then go on to describe how the function of counties has greatly expanded. So no, I'm not convinced. Once again, in all the several states in which I've lived, counties operate autonomously within the bounds set out by the state. The state only extremely rarely directly intervenes in the operations of a specific county (such as when there is a fiscal crisis or some sort of malfeasance). This is for all practical purposes directly analogous to how municipalities operate. Indeed, if you follow Gregbard's line of reasoning, then townships are also extensions of state government. older ≠ wiser 13:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Indeed, this says "The longest-lasting, and potentially most profound, change in county governments was home rule. In general, this new concept simply meant that state legislatures would give their counties grants of broad, general powers, under which the counties could actually function as units of local government." I think the sources you provide more clearly support counties being units of local government in today's world, regardless of their origins. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• "Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." ..... "These regional variations in county government structure and importance were repeated as the nation expanded westward in the century after the Revolution. Virginia’s strong counties became the model system for the southern colonies, while Pennsylvania’s system of at-large election to strong county governments was replicated throughout most of the western United States. New England maintained (and maintains to this day) its greater vesting of authority in cities and towns." How unambiguous do you need? Redddbaron ( talk) 14:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC) The concept started as county governments being "an arm of the State" and as the United States expanded the new states copied the model. I really haven't studied GregBards rational or his arguments. So I'll let him argue his own case. All I noticed was that he stated that county governments are an extension of State Government, and that is true. Whether your township statement is true or not, I don't know. Do you have any reference that unambiguously states that townships are an extension or an "arm of the state"? There are a lot of townships in the USA. Do you even have a reference that states as a general rule they are modeled in a fashion that makes most of them extensions of State Government? Redddbaron ( talk) 14:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Yes, the quotes you selected are about the origin of county government. The issue at hand is how they currently operate, and from what I see at the pages there, county government has evolved far beyond the original forms and currently are a form of local government. No, I don't think townships are an extension of or an arm of the state in the same way that I don't think counties are. The origin of townships parallel that of counties. They were originally administrative subdivisions of a county. If we go by the origin of counties being administrative subdivisions of the state, the townships therefore are merely a third-level arm of the state government. However, in practice, just as counties have evolved beyond the original form, so have townships. Both are in today's world forms of local government. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Evolved is an interesting choice of words. hmmmm How to explain it...... OK try this. County governments are the local branches of state governments. Each state has its own right to decide how much administrating jurisdiction and power it delegates to its counties. But there is a clear distinction structurally between federal, state, and municipal governments. EXCEPT where municipal governments have been merged into county governments ie Now under state jurisdiction. You'll not see county governments "merging" into state governments. That's because county governments ARE branches (or arms or extensions) of state government. When that happens between county and state, you see instead the statement that the county government was eliminated. (ie they closed down that branch) I think the issue you are missing has to do with an equivocation of the word "local". A "local" branch, even a powerful branch, of the state government is still part of the state government structure. Municipalities are also "local" but in a different sense. They are not part of the state government structure. To make an analogy comparing it to business models. You may have a "local" McDonalds, but it is just a part of the larger McDonalds corporation, you may also have a "local" mom & pop burger joint that actually is locally owned and run.(with the exception being if they get bought out by the bigger chain) Counties are that "local" branch of the larger entity, while municipalities are generally locally ran. (with a few exceptions where they got "bought out" by the state ie. merged with the county) Redddbaron ( talk) 14:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• That's all fine and good from a theoretical and historical perspective. Practically speaking, and the way I read it, NACO agrees with this, counties currently function as units of local government, regardless of how they may have originated. As for your analogy, counties (at least in the states I'm familiar with, are for all practical matters treated on much the same basis as municipalities with regards to state oversight and governance. That is, the state authorizes the counties to perform certain functions and requires them to perform certain other functions, and beyond that it is up to the counties as to how that is done. The state does not generally have any role in the day-to-day operations of counties and there is no formal hierarchy by which counties are administered by the state. older ≠ wiser 15:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redddbaron, your own sources on my reading contradict your point. Obviously they describe how early state constitutions conceptualized county government in order to contrast it with how counties function now, which is as local governments. What part of Changes in structure, greater autonomy from the states, rising revenues, and stronger political accountability ushered in a new era for county government. says to you that counties are branches of state government? As for the fact that states mandate certain responsibilities for counties, so what? States mandate certain responsibilities for cities and towns as well, how do you then claim that municipal governments aren't agencies of the state? The fact is that none of them are. Note that the federal government also mandates certain responsibilities to the states, which certainly doesn't make states agencies of the federal government.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Sighs... This will be my last post because I can already see the wall of willful ignorance that caused Greg Bard to go off his rocker. That same feeling is starting to build up in me too. So before I get banned and censured or whatever you guys do here at Wiki, I will simply bow out and let you guys keep thinking the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It is not worth the aggravation to me to continue this any more. I wish you all well. I mean that sincerely. I will go back to editing agricultural and ecological wiki pages and leave the political pages to people more suited to a political mentality. Taking this off my watch list so I am unlikely to answer. If you wish to message me use my talk page. Cheers. PS I may not be discussing it any further, but my vote still stands, for what it's worth. Redddbaron ( talk) 16:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.