Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wikipedia)   Although secession is unconstitutional, the constitution allows for states to split or combine into new states. North and South Florida anyone?   (en.wikipedia.org) divider line 239
    More: Interesting, South Florida, United States, Articles of Confederation, secession, American Revolution, combine, foreign intervention, Zogby International  
•       •       •

3476 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 10:25 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



239 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-12 01:55:44 AM  

fusillade762: Lost Thought 00: Or we could take the far more straight forward approach and use a direct election.

I'm all for getting rid of the Electoral College.


No

I think the founding fathers got it right. In a direct democracy, there would be no such thing as women suffrage or civil rights...

I do think we went down the wrong path somewhere though... Currently, most states have an all or nothing approach to electoral votes - the winner of the popular vote in the state (With the exception of Maine) takes all electoral votes.

I think we would be better served by the congressional district method where each electoral vote is determined by the popular majority in that district (plus two for the majority of the state)

We have a large and diverse nation, and the will of the populous of urban areas should not dictate life in rural areas...
 
2012-11-12 01:58:03 AM  
East Nebraska and West Nebraska.

Do it now. Everything west of Lincoln sucks. EVERYTHING.
 
2012-11-12 01:58:14 AM  

Fenrisulfr: fusillade762: Lost Thought 00: Or we could take the far more straight forward approach and use a direct election.

I'm all for getting rid of the Electoral College.

No

I think the founding fathers got it right. In a direct democracy, there would be no such thing as women suffrage or civil rights...


It's still not a direct democracy, though; we've the Congress, making it a representative democracy. Getting rid of the EC would only affect the presidential elections (wouldn't it?).
 
2012-11-12 02:01:22 AM  
Oh, and the whole "unconstitutional to secede" thing is a whole bunch of nothing. If a state(s) secede, they're not bound by the Constitution anyways. It's all a moot point. It should be "It's constitutional to kick your ass if you secede". That makes far more sense.
 
2012-11-12 02:02:35 AM  

abb3w: I think the split of Texas into five pieces makes more immediate sense.


If that happened, they would end up getting more electoral votes per person. And they'd all vote republican.
 
2012-11-12 02:04:48 AM  
That said, I think it would be beneficial to kill the Senate, give every state two at large congressman in the house, and replace the Senate with a "Soviet Democracy" inspired legislative body. Delegates would be assigned to various sectors of the economy, and based upon what job/career you have/are seeking, you vote for your regional delegate.
 
2012-11-12 02:14:28 AM  

Fenrisulfr:

We have a large and diverse nation, and the will of the populous of urban areas should not dictate life in rural areas...


So somehow it's better that the fate of the entire nation hinges on farking Florida and Ohio? I don't see how I should be overjoyed that those two states receive an inordinate amount of attention and pandering at the expense of states with counties that have greater populations than all of Ohio.
 
2012-11-12 02:26:40 AM  

Smallberries: California needs to be split into 3 or more. SoCal, North California, and Farmer Cal.


As long as we agree that SoCal includes SF and Marin, as they are more closely aligned with LA and SD. and NorCal is everything above Marin and Sonoma/Napa. You know, the actual geographic North and South, none of this SF is nor cal and LA is so cal silliness.
 
2012-11-12 02:27:23 AM  
The funny thing is we'd end up with a So Cal with 50 electoral votes a central Cal with 4 and a Nor cal with 1. =P
 
2012-11-12 02:30:44 AM  

video man: That said, I think it would be beneficial to kill the Senate, give every state two at large congressman in the house, and replace the Senate with a "Soviet Democracy" inspired legislative body. Delegates would be assigned to various sectors of the economy, and based upon what job/career you have/are seeking, you vote for your regional delegate.


Nyet Tovarish,

We need to go back to where the (Governor/Legislature) of each State (And build in safeguards to prevent political machines from controlling) appointed senators. The Senate represents the interest of the states, and the House represents the people (At least that's what I understood from my civics class so many years ago....)

Remember, the US is supposed to be a federation of states - One central authority to represent the will of 50 different states - NOT to control them.
 
2012-11-12 02:31:00 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: The funny thing is we'd end up with a So Cal with 50 electoral votes a central Cal with 4 and a Nor cal with 1. =P


Sorry, EV minimum purchase: 3
 
2012-11-12 02:34:56 AM  

LordOfThePings: Uchiha_Cycliste: The funny thing is we'd end up with a So Cal with 50 electoral votes a central Cal with 4 and a Nor cal with 1. =P

Sorry, EV minimum purchase: 3


really? everyone gets at least 3? I had no idea, I figured 1 was the min.
So I guess it will be, iono, 51, 3 and 3 and there will just be more congressmen and EVs.
 
2012-11-12 02:34:57 AM  

Fenrisulfr: fusillade762: Lost Thought 00: Or we could take the far more straight forward approach and use a direct election.

I'm all for getting rid of the Electoral College.

No

I think the founding fathers got it right. In a direct democracy, there would be no such thing as women suffrage or civil rights...

I do think we went down the wrong path somewhere though... Currently, most states have an all or nothing approach to electoral votes - the winner of the popular vote in the state (With the exception of Maine) takes all electoral votes.

I think we would be better served by the congressional district method where each electoral vote is determined by the popular majority in that district (plus two for the majority of the state)

We have a large and diverse nation, and the will of the populous of urban areas should not dictate life in rural areas...


Well before that then you must make sure every district is absolutely equal in size. That way parties can't lump all their opponents into one district while the other districts have 2 people each. One could argue that if you are going to do that why not just do away with state boundaries for house districts and let them cross state lines.

The size of the House is also a problem. The House hasn't changed size in over 100 years, the average size of a House district use to be 212,000 in 1911, in 2010 the average district size went up to 710,767. Isn't that a bit much, when they are supposed to be drawn based on common concerns?
 
2012-11-12 02:35:34 AM  
Do I get more Electoral votes with the purchase of electoral votes of equal or greater value?
 
2012-11-12 02:36:23 AM  
North and South California makes more sense.
 
2012-11-12 02:37:28 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: really? everyone gets at least 3? I had no idea, I figured 1 was the min.


It's equal to your representation in Congress. Two senators, one or more representatives.

Uchiha_Cycliste: Do I get more Electoral votes with the purchase of electoral votes of equal or greater value?


Thank you, come again.
 
2012-11-12 02:41:26 AM  
You guys got some hurr in your durr.

But please, carry on.
 
2012-11-12 02:41:31 AM  

LordOfThePings: It's equal to your representation in Congress. Two senators, one or more representatives.


I knew the EV and congressman were equal. I don't see how the number of senators comes into the discussion WRT the number of congressman. Again, I always assumed the smallest states would have one congressman and one EV. From what you say they have a min of 3 congressman and 3 EV, and thus a min of 5 representatives, 3 congress and 2 senators.
 
2012-11-12 02:42:41 AM  

WaffleStomper: You guys got some hurr in your durr.

But please, carry on.


how the fark did you escape from my ignore list?
Heh, guess it won't matter in about 10 seconds. I'll see you in hell derp-meister.
 
2012-11-12 02:45:06 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: WaffleStomper: You guys got some hurr in your durr.

But please, carry on.

how the fark did you escape from my ignore list?
Heh, guess it won't matter in about 10 seconds. I'll see you in hell derp-meister.


cdn.stripersonline.com
 
2012-11-12 02:45:24 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: I knew the EV and congressman were equal. I don't see how the number of senators comes into the discussion WRT the number of congressman. Again, I always assumed the smallest states would have one congressman and one EV. From what you say they have a min of 3 congressman and 3 EV, and thus a min of 5 representatives, 3 congress and 2 senators.


Um, you're confused. Sometimes "Congressman" is used as a shorthand to refer to your Representative only, but Congress is the Senate and the House. Smallest delegation is 3, (2+1, as I said).
 
2012-11-12 02:45:31 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: LordOfThePings: It's equal to your representation in Congress. Two senators, one or more representatives.

I knew the EV and congressman were equal. I don't see how the number of senators comes into the discussion WRT the number of congressman. Again, I always assumed the smallest states would have one congressman and one EV. From what you say they have a min of 3 congressman and 3 EV, and thus a min of 5 representatives, 3 congress and 2 senators.


No. One house member + 2 Senators=3 EV minimum.
 
2012-11-12 02:46:21 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: LordOfThePings: It's equal to your representation in Congress. Two senators, one or more representatives.

I knew the EV and congressman were equal. I don't see how the number of senators comes into the discussion WRT the number of congressman. Again, I always assumed the smallest states would have one congressman and one EV. From what you say they have a min of 3 congressman and 3 EV, and thus a min of 5 representatives, 3 congress and 2 senators.


I thought that Congressthing is the correct description of both Representatives and Sentators when spoken of collectively (i.e. "The New Hampshire Congressional delegation is all female this year"), but we hardly ever use it that way anymore.
 
2012-11-12 02:47:41 AM  
punkwrestler:
The size of the House is also a problem. The House hasn't changed size in over 100 years, the average size of a House district use to be 212,000 in 1911, in 2010 the average district size went up to 710,767. Isn't that a bit much, when they are supposed to be drawn based on common concerns?


I agree with you there - You have states like Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana where one rep is supposed to cover the entire state, where others may only have to cover a few square miles.... I don't have a ready solution that i can pull out of my A** for that, but those are things that need to be addressed.

My concern is that a large swath of the entire US is considered/dismissed as "Fly By" territory, yet if they were somehow able to secede, we would be seriously farked...
 
2012-11-12 02:50:59 AM  

LordOfThePings: Uchiha_Cycliste: I knew the EV and congressman were equal. I don't see how the number of senators comes into the discussion WRT the number of congressman. Again, I always assumed the smallest states would have one congressman and one EV. From what you say they have a min of 3 congressman and 3 EV, and thus a min of 5 representatives, 3 congress and 2 senators.

Um, you're confused. Sometimes "Congressman" is used as a shorthand to refer to your Representative only, but Congress is the Senate and the House. Smallest delegation is 3, (2+1, as I said).


Yup I was, when you said :representation in Congress" I didn't know you were lumping together congress and the senate. Now I got it. So it's possible to have one congressman, but there is always a min of 3 EV. I learned something new today, and thanks for clarifying my misconceptions.
 
2012-11-12 02:51:58 AM  
 
2012-11-12 02:54:23 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Uchiha_Cycliste: LordOfThePings: It's equal to your representation in Congress. Two senators, one or more representatives.

I knew the EV and congressman were equal. I don't see how the number of senators comes into the discussion WRT the number of congressman. Again, I always assumed the smallest states would have one congressman and one EV. From what you say they have a min of 3 congressman and 3 EV, and thus a min of 5 representatives, 3 congress and 2 senators.

I thought that Congressthing is the correct description of both Representatives and Sentators when spoken of collectively (i.e. "The New Hampshire Congressional delegation is all female this year"), but we hardly ever use it that way anymore.


I can't tell if serious, or making a good joke. Was congressthing really a term for all representatives? If so, wow! if Not, ha!
 
2012-11-12 02:54:40 AM  
With all this complaining about the EC, I find it amazing that a person losing the popular vote has won election only 4 times, and 2 of those (3 if you believe Bush stole Florida) were caused by backroom deals for EVs.
 
2012-11-12 02:55:11 AM  

jigger: It's utterly ridiculous to rely on the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, ie the government of the US, right after the Civil War, to determine the legality of secession from the US.


The Supreme Court of the United States is the legal arbiter of disputes about the Constitution of the United States.

Listen, if you want to revolt, good luck with that. I wouldn't recommend that course of action, but you have the right to revolution. But when the Supreme Court says something is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. You need an amendment, or a later Supreme Court decision overturning the previous decision to change that, you can't just say, "but I think they were biased, so we should just ignore that." That carries no legal weight.

jigger: So the Articles of Confederation were in effect in 1845?


The Constitution was still in effect.

The Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution. It ruled -- and regardless of your opinion of whether or not it's "ridiculous", that ruling is the law of the land -- that the intent of the founders, expressed by the words "more perfect Union", was that the Union be perpetual, as a non-perpetual Union could not be more perfect than the perpetual Union it replaced.
 
2012-11-12 02:58:03 AM  

Fenrisulfr: punkwrestler:
The size of the House is also a problem. The House hasn't changed size in over 100 years, the average size of a House district use to be 212,000 in 1911, in 2010 the average district size went up to 710,767. Isn't that a bit much, when they are supposed to be drawn based on common concerns?

I agree with you there - You have states like Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana where one rep is supposed to cover the entire state, where others may only have to cover a few square miles.... I don't have a ready solution that i can pull out of my A** for that, but those are things that need to be addressed.

My concern is that a large swath of the entire US is considered/dismissed as "Fly By" territory, yet if they were somehow able to secede, we would be seriously farked...


Is your representative supposed to represent people or dirt?
 
2012-11-12 03:03:14 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Fenrisulfr: punkwrestler:
The size of the House is also a problem. The House hasn't changed size in over 100 years, the average size of a House district use to be 212,000 in 1911, in 2010 the average district size went up to 710,767. Isn't that a bit much, when they are supposed to be drawn based on common concerns?

I agree with you there - You have states like Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana where one rep is supposed to cover the entire state, where others may only have to cover a few square miles.... I don't have a ready solution that i can pull out of my A** for that, but those are things that need to be addressed.

My concern is that a large swath of the entire US is considered/dismissed as "Fly By" territory, yet if they were somehow able to secede, we would be seriously farked...

Is your representative supposed to represent people or dirt?


Depends on the house. Many of the sparsely populated states need the extra representation to get the funds that would be otherwise diverted to the more densely populated areas. Otherwise, funding for things like roads, dams, aqueducts, and infrastructure in general would be far to anemic. Like it or not, farmers need good roads to traverse, too.
 
2012-11-12 03:03:59 AM  
Uchiha_Cycliste:

I can't tell if serious, or making a good joke. Was congressthing really a term for all representatives? If so, wow! if Not, ha!

Feel free to pass it on, and tell the easily fooled that we get the word from the oldest continually operating representative assembly in the world, Iceland's Althing.
 
2012-11-12 03:07:58 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Uchiha_Cycliste:

I can't tell if serious, or making a good joke. Was congressthing really a term for all representatives? If so, wow! if Not, ha!

Feel free to pass it on, and tell the easily fooled that we get the word from the oldest continually operating representative assembly in the world, Iceland's Althing.


Thanks for clueing me in. I almost feel bad about misleading fools in the future in this way, almost.
 
2012-11-12 03:09:19 AM  
Splitting's not going to happen, at least not in any productive way. Neither party is going to allow the other to get new safe Senate seats.
 
2012-11-12 03:15:30 AM  
Anything in constitutional with a 2/3 vote.
 
2012-11-12 03:17:30 AM  
www.midwestsportsfans.com

Mike Polk Jr. already had this well covered for Ohio, with his Ohio Secession Compromise Plan. Really, the only thing that you might be able to argue is that Toledo belongs in "Old Ohio".

/Good luck, Zanesville
 
2012-11-12 03:17:37 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: I didn't know you were lumping together congress and the senate. Now I got it. So it's possible to have one congressman, but there is always a min of 3 EV. I learned something new today, and thanks for clarifying my misconceptions.


You are using your terminology incorrectly.

Each state has at least three congressmen.

Each state has two senators.

Each state has at least one representative.

Congress is made up of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

So it's not possible to have only one Congressman, the minimum is three. It IS possible to have only one Representative.
 
2012-11-12 03:21:52 AM  

Nobodyn0se: Uchiha_Cycliste: I didn't know you were lumping together congress and the senate. Now I got it. So it's possible to have one congressman, but there is always a min of 3 EV. I learned something new today, and thanks for clarifying my misconceptions.

You are using your terminology incorrectly.

Each state has at least three congressmen.

Each state has two senators.

Each state has at least one representative.

Congress is made up of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

So it's not possible to have only one Congressman, the minimum is three. It IS possible to have only one Representative.


Would it be fair to say that the media these days is not quite as exacting as they should be with these terms? And can I use my misunderstandings demonstrated here as proof? I knew that both senators and congressional representatives were my representatives. I had no idea that senators could fall under the catch-all of congressman. Never knew that until now. Thanks.
 
2012-11-12 03:23:35 AM  

iollow: Anything in constitutional with a 2/3 vote.


Of what, the Avenue B School Glee Club?
 
2012-11-12 03:29:49 AM  

LordOfThePings: iollow: Anything in constitutional with a 2/3 vote.

Of what, the Avenue B School Glee Club?


He seems to be aware that a presidential veto can be over-ridden, He seems also to believe that congressman can create any amendment they want to the constitution and that it will be passed. Likewise he appears to think that the Supreme court can't strike down an amendment for being un-constitutional. I question that last piece of the puzzle. He seems to think that if congress decided to pass a law authorizing torture that the supreme court couldn't strike it down.
 
2012-11-12 03:37:26 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Likewise he appears to think that the Supreme court can't strike down an amendment for being un-constitutional. I question that last piece of the puzzle.


I think you'll find that if the Constitution has actually been amended (a process which requires consent of 3/4 of the states, incidentally), the amendment is Constitutional by definition.
 
2012-11-12 03:48:11 AM  

Hunter_Worthington: Mrtraveler01: Hunter_Worthington: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Hunter_Worthington: That would be a waste of time. The better thing to do would be allocate Electoral Votes to the candidate winning the majority of the House Districts in the state, i.e., if Florida had a majority GOP delegation, the GOP candidate would get the whole state's electoral vote.

That would end that "swing state" nonsense.

Gerrymandering FTW!

Well, yeah, spread that to Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and a few others, yeah. That's it exactly.

Why do you want to give politicians more incentive to gerrymander their districts?

Because it will help the GOP win?

That would be one benefit, yes. The others would be to limit the "madness of the masses", reinforce the federal organization of the nation, and help give the states more say in the direction of the Federal Government.


So a fascist government is your idea of "benefit?"
 
2012-11-12 03:51:25 AM  

LordOfThePings: Uchiha_Cycliste: Likewise he appears to think that the Supreme court can't strike down an amendment for being un-constitutional. I question that last piece of the puzzle.

I think you'll find that if the Constitution has actually been amended (a process which requires consent of 3/4 of the states, incidentally), the amendment is Constitutional by definition.


I therefore weasel out of it by saying I think he's wrong about the 2/3rds, Ha ha!
 
2012-11-12 03:59:50 AM  

LordOfThePings: Uchiha_Cycliste: Likewise he appears to think that the Supreme court can't strike down an amendment for being un-constitutional. I question that last piece of the puzzle.

I think you'll find that if the Constitution has actually been amended (a process which requires consent of 3/4 of the states, incidentally), the amendment is Constitutional by definition.


This.

State Constitutional amendments can be struck down, as California's Proposition 8 may be soon, but only if they conflict with the Federal Constitution.
 
2012-11-12 04:10:25 AM  

Non-evil Monkey: State Constitutional amendments can be struck down, as California's Proposition 8 may be soon, but only if they conflict with the Federal Constitution.


Ah, good point.

But in reference to the U.S. Constitution, I suppose there could be disagreement over whether the process of amendment specified in Article V was followed. In which case the Supremes might be asked to arbitrate whether the Constitution had been successfully amended. And once an amendment is enacted, they interpret the real-world application of it.
 
2012-11-12 04:15:32 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: I'm really confused why the state of Dearborn doesn't actually include Dearborn, Michigan.

Other than that, yeah, "Superior" got a shout-out!

/If the adorably grizzled plaid wearing bearded rapscallion hermits in the UP haven't been able to secede from the lazy trolls in the LP who didn't even fight a real war with Ohio to get the UP in the first place (did I piss off all Michiganders yet?), I doubt North/South Florida would ever happen


Don't you need, like, a bigger population to actually get your own state? Like, 30k or 50k or something? The UP's biggest city is Marquette, and it only has maybe 3000 people total, especially if you take away all the weekend travelers, hunters, and campers.

As a proud Southern Troll, I say we just let the up stew in it. They like to biatch, but without our tax money going to fund their government services and our tourist dollars to actually give them something to live on, they'd all be shack dwelling hermits writing anti-technology manifestos by candlelight. They'll get over it.

/State of Superior my ass...
 
2012-11-12 04:16:20 AM  

pxsteel: Considering haw partisan we have become, most northerners did not like being lead by Bush, most southerners don't like being lead by Obama. I think the time is coming for a northern US and a southern US.

Free trade and movement would remain. The Northern US would have a more liberal government the Southern gov would be more conservative.

everyone would probably be a heck of a lot happier


The south would collapse
 
2012-11-12 04:22:23 AM  

punkwrestler: The trouble with that is not all house districts are created equal. IN VA there is a difference of 600,000 people between the most populated district and the least populated district.


Um yeah, they don't work like that. Districts are, at least at the beginning of each redistricting usually within 1-5% of each other. VA's post-census redistricting started this election cycle, so the districts should be pretty damn close. It is possible for districts to change over ten years, but I would be surprised if by that much, though its entirely possible, but they were not created that way. So with in a state, the districts are actually created equal, though through emigration/ingratiation they could get unbalanced.
 
2012-11-12 04:28:56 AM  

soj4life: The south would collapse


There are a lot of arguments against a split like this, and I agree with them all. But I have a hard time accepting this one. As a Northern boy who, by virtue of being married into the Military, as spent way too many years in the south, I wouldn't mind seeing it collapse into a socio-economic hellscape of their own creation. Too many of them champion idiot positions that would lead to their own destruction, and it's only because the adults in government they keep complaining about bailing them out or aptly ignoring them at times that they don't find themselves starving in the streets.

Seeing them finally realize what their policies amount to sounds a little vindictively appealing, I have to admit. We'd help them out of it, eventually, but only after they've learned their lesson. It's like when your teenager gets so drunk that he gets busted by the cops and ends up having to spend a night in lockup with a huge hangover and misdemeanor charges the next day. Sometimes you have to let people who get too big for their britches screw up bad enough that they won't do it again.
 
2012-11-12 04:55:42 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Smallberries: California needs to be split into 3 or more. SoCal, North California, and Farmer Cal.

As long as we agree that SoCal includes SF and Marin, as they are more closely aligned with LA and SD. and NorCal is everything above Marin and Sonoma/Napa. You know, the actual geographic North and South, none of this SF is nor cal and LA is so cal silliness.


The Bay Area stands with Humboldt and Mendocino as well. If SoCal wants the Bay Area as part of the deal, it should be a coast/inland split instead. It would suck to lose Tahoe though.
 
Displayed 50 of 239 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report