system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: More people would be satisfied, and less would be marginalized, if divisive political issues were settled on state and local levels instead of federally

At the time of the ratifying of the Constitution, there were about 250,000 men who would have been considered eligible to vote, with about 4 million persons living within the United States. Over 230 years, the population has grown massively and voting rights have expanded. 157 million people were registered to vote in 2016, with a population of around 330 million. With hundreds of counties hosting populations larger than the intended voting bloc of the constitution, people would be better served by more localized voting on divisive issues. 
Just to list a few examples:
Texas should be able to build a border wall and California should be able to offer easy immigration simultaneously. 
New Yorkers and Utahns should be able to look at abortion differently and apply those differences to their law set. 
Colorado should be able to legalize marijuana, while North Carolina extends the criminal penalties for possession of it, and Arizona legalizes it medically. 
If Washington votes for government provided healthcare and Kentucky doesn’t, good on both parties!
While West Virginia mines for coal, Maine can set goals to be fully wind powered. 
A lot of regulations placed by federal regulatory agencies (such as the EPA, the USDA, and really the organizations under the Presidential cabinet) would better serve the population at more localized levels. 

I realize that to varying degrees, these examples are in place. States do have differing laws. And my point is, this is exactly how it should be! On many of the major issues of our day, there is a divide that is typically close to 50/50 on a national level, but in most states the same issues will have a stronger consensus one way or another. I really don’t need my ideas to influence laws for someone thousands of miles away from me- I just want it to affect *my* day to day life! But once laws change (or sometimes when they don’t) on state levels, it seems like it needlessly becomes a national battle over ideologies. 
Most people today seem to think that Biden or Trump winning the election (and corresponding numbers of senators, with ripple effects in the judicial branch) will make the United States better/worse the next 4 years, and on some level, of course it will. But instead of around 80 million (about half of today’s registered voters) people choosing that next four years for 160 million plus all the non-voters, isn’t it better for 80 groups of a million to determine the next four years for 80 groups of 2 million voters? Laws being more specialized by state/county is all that’s needed in most cases, and our state/county levels fit the population levels with which the Constitution was created for. Then people wouldn’t have to feel like their whole world is crashing down for four years when a Republic/Democrat is in office when their state and 20 others voted against one person. 
It seems like a relatively simple solution to a lot of tension, hatred, and people feeling abused by the system. Is there a reason everything has to go to a national level when populations of different places throughout the country have such varied history, financial needs, religious beliefs, social views, and environmental factors at play?

Edit 1: I understand how Federal action has been beneficial to minority groups in the past. There’s a difference between the 13th *constitutional amendment* and the federal government deciding exactly how people can use their property, what their health insurance options are, etc. Civil rights have been put into place, I’m not arguing against those. 

Edit 2: I’d really appreciate it if people would address the  question in relation to something outside of civil rights. I know the federal government has had positive impacts on civil rights in states that were behind the curve- I have already expressed that there is a difference between the tiny percentage of civil rights laws and the thousand of others. Namely, civil rights laws are mostly going to go back to enforcement of the 14th amendment (or others). My point is that (as the constitution states in its 10th amendment) anything outside of the powers given to the federal government ought to be determined by states and/or citizens.

Edit 3: Perhaps my title should have been “More people would be satisfied, and less would be marginalized, if issues unrelated to the constitution and its amendments were always settled on state and local levels instead of federally”.
gpt
Do you think that black people would be less marginalized in the US South today if there hadn't been federal interventions like the civil rights and voting rights act, or decisions like Brown vs Board of Education and Loving vs Virginia had not happened?

> ... Just to list a few examples: Texas should be able to build a border wall and California should be able to offer easy immigration simultaneously. ...

Do you also think that the federal government should not be involved in border control?  If you do think that the federal government should have authority over border control can you talk about how you think authority over border policy (such as immigration) should be split between the states and the federal government.   If you do not think that the federal government should be involved in border control, can you elaborate on what authorities you think the federal government should have?

There is certainly some legitimate controversy or difference in opinion about what kinds of stuff should fall under the authority of the states and what kinds of stuff should fall under the authority of the federal government, but this notion that states should be able to set the policy on federal borders is pretty out there.