As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

We have too many rectangular states [Colorado secession talk]

AresProphetAresProphet Registered User regular
Splitting this from [chat] because it deserves some discussion. Some counties in northern Colorado want to secede from the state over concerns that they aren't receiving adequate representation in the state legislature, and are sending more revenue to the state than they are receiving in services.

As usual, the issue is more complex than it appears. My own opinions in a separate post, to keep the OP impartial.

ex9pxyqoxf6e.png

Posts

  • Options
    AresProphetAresProphet Registered User regular
    The Colorado secession thing is less about urban and rural ways of life and more about, well, here are some maps:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57588393/several-counties-want-to-secede-from-colorado/

    This article has the map of counties that are proposing such a measure. Keep this in mind.

    http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/colorado/percent-of-people-of-all-ages-in-poverty#map

    This is a map of poverty levels in the state. Note that the counties in question are neither the poorest nor the wealthiest.

    http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/colorado/median-household-income#map

    Here's median income. All but two of the counties have median incomes of $40k or higher (one is within a percentage point of that level) which with rural costs of living is not awful. One thing to note: the largest county leading this charge (both geographically and population-wise, with more residents than the other counties combined) is Weld County. Despite 14% of its residents living in poverty, the median income is north of $55,000. It is also home to Colorado State University, which explains the following map:

    http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/colorado/percent-of-people-25-years-and-over-with-bachelors-degree-or-higher#map

    Weld County has the most college graduates per capita of any of the counties in question by nearly a 50% margin. You should poke around in the racial demographics on that site to see what it's really like. Mostly white, with a sizable Hispanic population.

    This reeks of a small handful of Weld County lawmakers using their superior political clout (thanks to the size of the county) to rally other, less-powerful counties (most with 15,000 or fewer residents) to their cause. It stinks of oil and gas money. If I was an energycompany drilling in northern Colorado and I wanted more lax regulations, I'd lobby the most powerful legislators in the region first and foremost and basically just buy out the votes of the rest. The best line from this article:
    But for all the uncertainty, there was one common thread: barely veiled anger at how rural counties perceive they’ve been treated by the Democrat-controlled state legislature this year.

    Weld County Commissioner Sean Conway called it “a nightmare session.”

    “This was the worse legislative session I’ve ever seen,” he said, “how they treated people, how they called bills up on the same day without giving people a chance to testify.”

    Colorado has made national headlines this year in having passed a full slate of progressive laws, including tough new gun-control laws, new rights for illegal immigrants, regulations for legal marijuana, and many other controversial pieces of legislation.

    Several commissioners said the back-breaker was Senate Bill 252, a new measure that requires rural electrical cooperatives to double the amount of renewable energy they offer to customers by 2020
    . Gov. John Hickenlooper recently signed it into law, despite heavy lobbying to veto it. The bill’s opponents say it will increase rural customers’ electricity bills by mandating what they say are unrealistic — and expensive — goals.

    Many of the more than two dozen county commissioners attending the meeting noted that SB 252 was their final straw.

    “[Senate Bill] 252 is a perfect example of where they rammed it down our throat,” said Yuma County Commissioner Trent Bushner. “They turned a blind eye to satisfy [Hickenlooper’s] buddies in the environmental groups.”

    Apparently, it's too much of a burden to increase renewable energy requirements in one of the sunniest and windiest parts of one of the sunniest and windiest states in the nation.

    Furthermore, the role of state revenue from the oil and gas industry is grossly exaggerated. The main reason spending on these counties roads and schools is neglected is because of the passage of things like TABOR (which prevents the state from raising taxes without a state-wide vote, leading to state revenues that haven't kept up with the state's growing population) and Amendment 23 (which allowed state lawmakers to cut education spending in response). In a twist of irony, TABOR was passed 20 years ago due to the outsize influence of rural state legislators.

    We're in this mess because of them, and now they want to bail out.

    ex9pxyqoxf6e.png
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    That's kind of adorable.

    I sort of imagine all those counties walking out and just going in circles around the state because they're not allowed to cross the street without holding a grown-up's hand. And then they give up and go back and it turns out mommy and daddy never even noticed they left.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    I agree with this threads title, but not with the way these idiots propose to fix the issue.

    Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota & North Dakota should be combined into a single state. It'd have about 4,710k people, sitting it just below South Carolina and above Louisiana as state number 25 by pop.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    I agree with this threads title, but not with the way these idiots propose to fix the issue.

    Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota & North Dakota should be combined into a single state. It'd have about 4,710k people, sitting it just below South Carolina and above Louisiana as state number 25 by pop.

    I think this is perhaps the most I've ever agreed with you.

    A similar (nationwide) proposal.

    I thought that this wasn't the craziest proposal. Entirely unrealistic - not even getting into the nightmare of logistics, gerrymandering, and all that...but not entirely crazy.

  • Options
    spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I say get rid of the states altogether. They have arbitrary lines and are too large to adequately represent the interests of everyone in them. Why should my tax dollars go to rural towns in upstate NY but not to Northern NJ, which is an area much more related to where I live, or to rural Vermont, which I am just as connected to as upstate NY (I.e., not at all)? It is just silly.

  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    I say get rid of the states altogether. They have arbitrary lines and are too large to adequately represent the interests of everyone in them. Why should my tax dollars go to rural towns in upstate NY but not to Northern NJ, which is an area much more related to where I live, or to rural Vermont, which I am just as connected to as upstate NY (I.e., not at all)? It is just silly.

    /facepalm

  • Options
    a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    I say get rid of the states altogether. They have arbitrary lines and are too large to adequately represent the interests of everyone in them. Why should my tax dollars go to rural towns in upstate NY but not to Northern NJ, which is an area much more related to where I live, or to rural Vermont, which I am just as connected to as upstate NY (I.e., not at all)? It is just silly.

    There has to be some level of government between the cities/counties and the feds. I wouldn't mind the state lines being re-drawn though.

  • Options
    NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I agree with this threads title, but not with the way these idiots propose to fix the issue.

    Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota & North Dakota should be combined into a single state. It'd have about 4,710k people, sitting it just below South Carolina and above Louisiana as state number 25 by pop.

    I think this is perhaps the most I've ever agreed with you.

    A similar (nationwide) proposal.

    I thought that this wasn't the craziest proposal. Entirely unrealistic - not even getting into the nightmare of logistics, gerrymandering, and all that...but not entirely crazy.

    That map reminds me waaay too much of Shadowrun's 2053 map.

    newSig.jpg
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    I say get rid of the states altogether. They have arbitrary lines and are too large to adequately represent the interests of everyone in them. Why should my tax dollars go to rural towns in upstate NY but not to Northern NJ, which is an area much more related to where I live, or to rural Vermont, which I am just as connected to as upstate NY (I.e., not at all)? It is just silly.

    There has to be some level of government between the cities/counties and the feds. I wouldn't mind the state lines being re-drawn though.

    IDK you look at so much of the fuck-Muppetry that's been going on in US politics lately and its almost all the rural+burbs crowd going fuck you people in cities.

    I mean how many times have you heard stuff like "NoVa is nice, but fuck the rest of the state" insert, Austin, The NC research triangle, Memphis/Nashville, etc etc

    "Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the West. Alabama in between"

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I agree with this threads title, but not with the way these idiots propose to fix the issue.

    Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota & North Dakota should be combined into a single state. It'd have about 4,710k people, sitting it just below South Carolina and above Louisiana as state number 25 by pop.

    I think this is perhaps the most I've ever agreed with you.

    A similar (nationwide) proposal.

    I thought that this wasn't the craziest proposal. Entirely unrealistic - not even getting into the nightmare of logistics, gerrymandering, and all that...but not entirely crazy.

    I think the biggest problem with it is that it would violently exacerbate the problems people already have with state legislatures. If you live in New York on the tiny fringe surrounding the city, good luck ever getting anything done in your community at the state level. Same if you live in Denver; the Ogallala state legislature is going to be dominated by rural interests.

    I mean, the population density of Denver is way the hell higher than anywhere else in the state, but there are only 600k people in Denver and ten times that many in Ogallala state as a whole. And conversely, there are 4 million people in NYC, outweighing the other New York state residents by a margin of two to one.

    And the re-drawing state lines every time there's a census thing would be (while necessary in this setup) a logistical nightmare vastly larger than the initial redistribution.

    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • Options
    MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited July 2013
    I say get rid of the states altogether. They have arbitrary lines and are too large to adequately represent the interests of everyone in them. Why should my tax dollars go to rural towns in upstate NY but not to Northern NJ, which is an area much more related to where I live, or to rural Vermont, which I am just as connected to as upstate NY (I.e., not at all)? It is just silly.

    Because we impinge on the glory of the American falls to make sure you guys have power AND we pay more for power than you do down there <3


    EDIT: Basically, my point is is that these things are a little more interconnected than you think.

    MechMantis on
  • Options
    FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    I say get rid of the states altogether. They have arbitrary lines and are too large to adequately represent the interests of everyone in them. Why should my tax dollars go to rural towns in upstate NY but not to Northern NJ, which is an area much more related to where I live, or to rural Vermont, which I am just as connected to as upstate NY (I.e., not at all)? It is just silly.

    There has to be some level of government between the cities/counties and the feds. I wouldn't mind the state lines being re-drawn though.

    IDK you look at so much of the fuck-Muppetry that's been going on in US politics lately and its almost all the rural+burbs crowd going fuck you people in cities.

    I mean how many times have you heard stuff like "NoVa is nice, but fuck the rest of the state" insert, Austin, The NC research triangle, Memphis/Nashville, etc etc

    "Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the West. Alabama in between"

    I think it goes both ways, in regards to rural and urban interests clashing. It's hardly a one way street.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    I say get rid of the states altogether. They have arbitrary lines and are too large to adequately represent the interests of everyone in them. Why should my tax dollars go to rural towns in upstate NY but not to Northern NJ, which is an area much more related to where I live, or to rural Vermont, which I am just as connected to as upstate NY (I.e., not at all)? It is just silly.

    There has to be some level of government between the cities/counties and the feds. I wouldn't mind the state lines being re-drawn though.

    IDK you look at so much of the fuck-Muppetry that's been going on in US politics lately and its almost all the rural+burbs crowd going fuck you people in cities.

    I mean how many times have you heard stuff like "NoVa is nice, but fuck the rest of the state" insert, Austin, The NC research triangle, Memphis/Nashville, etc etc

    "Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the West. Alabama in between"

    I think it goes both ways, in regards to rural and urban interests clashing. It's hardly a one way street.

    It's not often going the other way since there's not a ton of places where the city outnumbers the not-city. Not in the legislature anyway.

  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    lets make the largest cities their own states with appropriate representation

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    lets make the largest cities their own states with appropriate representation

    In terms of state wide workings it would be great.

    But consider what the Federal senate would look like.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I agree with this threads title, but not with the way these idiots propose to fix the issue.

    Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota & North Dakota should be combined into a single state. It'd have about 4,710k people, sitting it just below South Carolina and above Louisiana as state number 25 by pop.

    I think this is perhaps the most I've ever agreed with you.

    A similar (nationwide) proposal.

    I thought that this wasn't the craziest proposal. Entirely unrealistic - not even getting into the nightmare of logistics, gerrymandering, and all that...but not entirely crazy.

    I think the biggest problem with it is that it would violently exacerbate the problems people already have with state legislatures. If you live in New York on the tiny fringe surrounding the city, good luck ever getting anything done in your community at the state level. Same if you live in Denver; the Ogallala state legislature is going to be dominated by rural interests.

    I mean, the population density of Denver is way the hell higher than anywhere else in the state, but there are only 600k people in Denver and ten times that many in Ogallala state as a whole. And conversely, there are 4 million people in NYC, outweighing the other New York state residents by a margin of two to one.

    And the re-drawing state lines every time there's a census thing would be (while necessary in this setup) a logistical nightmare vastly larger than the initial redistribution.

    And yet upstate almost always dominates the state senate and downstate residents (NYC, Long Island, West Chester) pay much more in taxes to the state than they get back in benefits from the state. I think that a sane system would group NYC with its surrounding commuting communities in NY, CT and NJ, instead of arbitrarily excluding CT and NJ but including upstate.

  • Options
    Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I agree with this threads title, but not with the way these idiots propose to fix the issue.

    Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota & North Dakota should be combined into a single state. It'd have about 4,710k people, sitting it just below South Carolina and above Louisiana as state number 25 by pop.

    I think this is perhaps the most I've ever agreed with you.

    A similar (nationwide) proposal.

    I thought that this wasn't the craziest proposal. Entirely unrealistic - not even getting into the nightmare of logistics, gerrymandering, and all that...but not entirely crazy.

    I would just like to say that this map looks cooler, and the state names sound cooler than what U.S. has now.

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I agree with this threads title, but not with the way these idiots propose to fix the issue.

    Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota & North Dakota should be combined into a single state. It'd have about 4,710k people, sitting it just below South Carolina and above Louisiana as state number 25 by pop.

    I think this is perhaps the most I've ever agreed with you.

    A similar (nationwide) proposal.

    I thought that this wasn't the craziest proposal. Entirely unrealistic - not even getting into the nightmare of logistics, gerrymandering, and all that...but not entirely crazy.

    My god, those state names are terrible.

  • Options
    knitdanknitdan In ur base Killin ur guysRegistered User regular
    What's the stupidest possible way of naming these things? Ok, let's go with that.

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    edited July 2013
    Atchafalaya looks like it came about by someones cat walking across the keyboard and they just said "fuck it, it'll do"

    In all honesty, even if they did this at current population growth rates chances are they would be unrepresentitive again within 50 years. To keep it fair you would have to redraw the US every 50 years.

    Casual on
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    BIG THICKET

    SHIPROCK


    OP, is this actually a serious issue in terms of being discussed as a real possibility? Or is it more like when the old guard in Texas starts hollering about how maybe America could do without one of the stars on it's flag (that is, nobody is actually putting it on the table)?

    And how would it even work? Are they proposing to become new little states? if they are, they realize that they would actually end-up having less political power, not more, right?

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    knitdanknitdan In ur base Killin ur guysRegistered User regular
    Looking at the names, it's primarily based on geographic features, but not always.

    The Atchafalaya Basin is a large wetland and swamp in southern Louisiana; the largest in the US actually.

    King I assume would be as a tribute to Martin Lither King, although how much of a tribute is it really to name one of the shittiest parts of the country after someone.

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2013
    quoting myself from [chat] from two weeks ago:
    ronya wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    the threat of a low-level democratic body being hijacked by an organized concentrated interest because its local opposition is too diffuse is an omnipresent one

    the only real permanent cure is to dissolve the body and revert its powers to a sufficiently senior level of representation, such that elected representatives are actually representative, due to a diffusion of interest imposed by sheer size

    all American states are arguably too small, even California and Texas, since both tend to be dominated by one of their national parties each. But "dissolve Texas" is hardly going to be on the average American's political horizon.

    The problem is that sufficient popular support in elections is unduly difficult by design of those in power.

    I'm sorry, if you're expecting even well-run democracies to continually probe for opposition, you're going to be permanently disappointed

    (for the sake of consistency, I should point out that I have argued before on [chat] that deliberately hampering populism under the weight of bureaucratic institutions is a big part of stabilizing a liberal welfare state. You want the kind of people who can mobilize "popular support" at local levels to stay far, far away from the reins of power. Only distant bureaucrats poll; all votes are driven by enthusiasm, and all local enthusiasm is driven by concentrated interest.)

    I would posit there's a difference between probing for opposition and rigging the system to ensure a lack of opposition.

    nope

    there is no body here that can deliver an uncontested opinion on just how much give an incumbent majority is obliged to let the loyal opposition have

    noting that your country has vigorous notions on what constitute legitimate kinds of electoral districts to begin with, and won't readily tolerate, e.g., non-geographical seats. I have no clue why you think this stuff has some simple uncontested point of fairness.

    I don't think you have a firm grasp on how districting works in practice in the US maybe?

    Gerrymandering isn't just some dream someone came up with to explain why Republicans continue to control legislatures with less than a majority of votes.

    I know what gerrymandering is, thanks

    I also know that your country cannot tolerate any of the 'mathematical' solutions because of ethnic enfranchisement concerns, but won't tolerate dedicated non-geographical ethnic representation either, or non-equal votes of representatives

    so, out of a balance of political imperatives, you've wound up with a system where continual adjustment of electoral boundaries is necessary, and you are shocked, shocked! that this has forced your governments to retain archaic politicking over the drawing of these boundaries

    Are you seriously just saying DWI in regards to how fucked up our legislature is?

    I really don't get your point here, unless it's just dismissive, wanking pragmatism.

    no, I am asking you to accept that there is no uncontested level of obligation toward the opposition in American political culture, because (for complicated reasons) all the systems where such a level of obligation would either be cleanly identified or would not be necessary are all intolerable

    ergo ____ ?

    ergo there is no meaningful standard that distinguishes failing to probe for opposition in good faith vs. ensuring a lack of opposition in bad faith...?

    In terms of takeaways, you could stop, for instance, blaming outcomes you don't like on the difficulty of mobilizing support. Indeed, it is probably too easy for people who would like to attack you to mobilize support. This follows directly from acknowledging that - again, for complicated and real reasons - your system is obliged to be complicated, and complicated systems are vulnerable to gaming by concentrated organizations.

    I'm not blaming a lack of mobilized support.

    I'm blaming a legislature that can be won without winning a majority of the vote.

    you realize that this doesn't happen because Evil People ran for election, it happened because your country tends to avoid proportional representation, and that your country avoids proportional representation because it has an aversion toward either having non-geographic seats (mixed member) or having individual seats filled with someone who won a minority in that district (single transferable vote). That latter necessarily voids the intuition of having your local representative represent your local issues - your political culture must discard the idea of "your community" nominating a representative to go to the central state government, and instead acknowledge that it is simply voting for a central government. This has proven hard.

    Americans have trouble deciding what level of government is legitimate. "As local as possible" is obviously inconsistent with an egalitarian redistributionist outlook. Insofar as politics has to regularly intrude upon distributive issues, localism is going to be problematic, and I'm fairly certain that most forumers here do not wish to therefore discard redistribution at all.

    The notion that your central government is only legitimate if your community receives some adequate level of representation, rather than you alone being enfranchised, is fundamentally in conflict with a society that conceives of individuals (rather than groups) possessing rights.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    I refuse to live in a state called Gary unless every state gets a generic first name. Bob, Mary, Steve, Todd. Whatever. But Gary cannot sit between Sangamon and Firelands. That is not fair at all.

  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I agree with this threads title, but not with the way these idiots propose to fix the issue.

    Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota & North Dakota should be combined into a single state. It'd have about 4,710k people, sitting it just below South Carolina and above Louisiana as state number 25 by pop.

    I think this is perhaps the most I've ever agreed with you.

    A similar (nationwide) proposal.

    I thought that this wasn't the craziest proposal. Entirely unrealistic - not even getting into the nightmare of logistics, gerrymandering, and all that...but not entirely crazy.

    I would just like to say that this map looks cooler, and the state names sound cooler than what U.S. has now.

    It would make Massachusetts worse than it is now. There's some disconnect between Boston and Western Mass, but nothing like the political disconnect between Boston and northern Maine. They'd be better to rework New England to keep rural Maine with vermont, new hampshire and upstate New York, and keep boston with worchester, portland and providence.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    JeanJean Heartbroken papa bear Gatineau, QuébecRegistered User regular
    Personally I think New England rocks and is just fine the way it is now :)

    "You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
  • Options
    a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I agree with this threads title, but not with the way these idiots propose to fix the issue.

    Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota & North Dakota should be combined into a single state. It'd have about 4,710k people, sitting it just below South Carolina and above Louisiana as state number 25 by pop.

    I think this is perhaps the most I've ever agreed with you.

    A similar (nationwide) proposal.

    I thought that this wasn't the craziest proposal. Entirely unrealistic - not even getting into the nightmare of logistics, gerrymandering, and all that...but not entirely crazy.

    I would just like to say that this map looks cooler, and the state names sound cooler than what U.S. has now.

    It would make Massachusetts worse than it is now. There's some disconnect between Boston and Western Mass, but nothing like the political disconnect between Boston and northern Maine. They'd be better to rework New England to keep rural Maine with vermont, new hampshire and upstate New York, and keep boston with worchester, portland and providence.

    Like the page says, it's more an art project than a serious proposal. There weren't any real considerations made for cultural ties, etc, just minimizing the population variance between states and using existing county lines.

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Would these counties even have enough population to declare themselves a state? Don't you need a million people? So if they broke away they would just become a US territory, under to control of the federal government.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    MillMill Registered User regular
    Can't remember where in the constitution, but the whole thing is pretty much dead on arrival since you can't make new states out of existing states (WV is kind of weird given it's circumstances).

    As amusing as the map of 50 states put together based on having equal populations, I can't help but feel that it wouldn't practical even if it was a series proposal and even if you could get the constitutional amendment to make it happen. Seems like it would be easier just to go with a proportional representation system, given that most of the political differences are a result of urban v rural.

  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Mill wrote: »
    Can't remember where in the constitution, but the whole thing is pretty much dead on arrival since you can't make new states out of existing states (WV is kind of weird given it's circumstances).

    As amusing as the map of 50 states put together based on having equal populations, I can't help but feel that it wouldn't practical even if it was a series proposal and even if you could get the constitutional amendment to make it happen. Seems like it would be easier just to go with a proportional representation system, given that most of the political differences are a result of urban v rural.

    i think there's some desire to have states have something of a more coherent body politic in general. sure you could just abolish the senate or rig up states such that they have the same populations roughly, but you still end up with the fact the New York state has a hard time administering coherent state-wide laws that are relevant and appropriate to NYC and Buffalo and the upstate sticks.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    MillMill Registered User regular
    You could set it up so that there are still states, but have it be largely irrelevant when it comes to writing federal laws. In events where a law has a different impact based on geography, chances are pretty good that will still be factored with or without the current setup of picking elected representatives and senators.

  • Options
    zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    I didn't really post that map as any sort of a realistic proposal. It was just something somewhat interesting I saw in the past election that was tangental to the topic at hand.

    Realistically, it's too radically different to be workable in our current system. There are just too many different problems that would come up to change to a system where our 'state' lines are balanced based on population instead of the relatively arbitrary lines of most states today.

    That said, it could - possibly - be doable - with a technological solution in the future. There would still be county seats of government, so defining states by changeable groupings of counties seems like it could be theroretically possible. While it might be a bit confusing when the lines were readjusted, using similar technology to networking / work from home stuff along with some sort of future expansion on modern 'ad hoc' teaming where members join and leave as necessary (like in development projects) you could possibly create a workable model of flexible governance that way.

    Hell, do something like team balancing - if a state or district needs to gain / lose population, put it up to a vote if counties want to shift, then assign them to change if nobody elects to. Remote voting or voter profiles, tied to some bastardized parliamentary system could be doable too.

    I don't think it's an entirely unworkable model where government could be flattened out, but nothing that would / could realistically ever happen in the United States. In some ways, having local / county government, state government, and Federal government is a bit of an anachronism with so many aspects of state government basically reproducing Federal government and adding a ton of inefficiencies.

    But hey, an interesting thought exercise, and interesting to see how disproportionate a lot of representation is.

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    While almost all those changing the us state style maps would be fairer and better than what we have now, they will never happen. And sadly its for exactly that reason. The republicans wouldn't survive in any map which was fair. They just couldn't win if the south, rural areas, small states, and old people weren't hugely over-represented.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    As an aside, my parents live in Fort Collins and think that secession people are essentially just a bunch of crazy fringe gun nuts.

    It's kind of an interesting discussion plumbing out the motivations, but it's kind of hard to keep going here because it's fundamentally a stupid idea that won't ever actually happen.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Would these counties even have enough population to declare themselves a state? Don't you need a million people?

    Nope.

  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Can't remember where in the constitution, but the whole thing is pretty much dead on arrival since you can't make new states out of existing states (WV is kind of weird given it's circumstances).
    Sure you can, as long as both Congress and that state agree.

  • Options
    AresProphetAresProphet Registered User regular
    Not trying to abandon this thread, just stuck phone posting for a few days which makes it harder to give proper responses.

    Unlike secession from the nation, there is nothing illegal per see about seceding from an existing state. There is precedent, albeit from the 19th century.

    I think this is more of a play for attention than anything serious. A couple of county commissioners want to ride the back of the individualist/Tea Party movement into something approaching the political relevance they had in the early 90s before population growth in Colorado exploded

    ex9pxyqoxf6e.png
Sign In or Register to comment.