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  
•       •       •

3474 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 10:25 PM (1 year 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 05:10:07 AM

Shadowknight: 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.


The only way to teach them a lesson is what we should have done 8 generations ago, limit the ability of the states to create laws that oppress their citizens. Along with that, to prohibit the display of the CSA.
 
2012-11-12 05:31:28 AM

soj4life: Shadowknight: 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.

The only way to teach them a lesson is what we should have done 8 generations ago, limit the ability of the states to create laws that oppress their citizens. Along with that, to prohibit the display of the CSA.


Eh, I don't think that prohibiting the display of the CSA is a good idea. Kind of goes counter to basic freedom, and people in this country have the right to be goddamn idiots if they want. Honoring it like some sort of proud heritage should be publicly shamed, but the law should stay out of it.

As far as prohibiting laws that oppress citizens, that should go without saying frankly. The fact that we don't, and that civil rights is still in debate or pushed off until more "important matters" are dealt with (basically tabling it forever if they could) is pure lunacy. However, passing a law like that would be hard, as it would be subjective and always up to interpretation. I mean, obvious ones like Jim Crow laws or segregationist policy would be a no brainer to most thinking people. But what about someone arguing against speed limits, because it inhibits their freedom? Or stop signs, for that matter, since in a free country they would take their own damn chances and accept the consequences, damn it!
 
2012-11-12 05:57:29 AM

vpb: I have wondered about this.

You have states that are insignificant in the electoral college but have oversize representation in the senate. And you have states where it's the other way around.

If you could combine small states they could matter more in the electoral college, if you could divide states like New York, they would matter more in the Senate.

It's a matter of trading Senatorial influence for Presidential influence I think.


California is "significant" in the electoral college because it has a lot of people. Its significance is proportional to its size.

The ridiculous over-representatiom of some states in the seante is one of the worst flaws of our republic. We should not create any more sparsely-populated states.
 
2012-11-12 06:11:22 AM

Kibbler: vpb: I have wondered about this.

You have states that are insignificant in the electoral college but have oversize representation in the senate. And you have states where it's the other way around.

If you could combine small states they could matter more in the electoral college, if you could divide states like New York, they would matter more in the Senate.

It's a matter of trading Senatorial influence for Presidential influence I think.

California is "significant" in the electoral college because it has a lot of people. Its significance is proportional to its size.

The ridiculous over-representatiom of some states in the seante is one of the worst flaws of our republic. We should not create any more sparsely-populated states.


I think the founding fathers saw it as more of a design feature than a flaw. Prevent tyranny of the majority, and all that. Granted, they could not have foreseen how big or populated our nation wold ultimately become and how that balance would ultimately be disrupted by the sheer size and density of our city centers verses ran dome country sides.

I think oversized voting for undersized populations still has a place, but it needs to be modified in some way so that we don't have tyranny of the minority instead, where a tiny but rabid population can gridlock all progress despite an overwhelming majority support. How that would work, I have no idea.
 
2012-11-12 06:24:11 AM
Just came in here to quote my granddad:

"We should give East Texas to Louisiana, the panhandle to Oklahoma, and South and West Texas back to Mexico. The central part's the only one that seems to have a damn lick of sense."
 
2012-11-12 06:39:01 AM

tinderboxer: 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.


That's the way the districts were created to start with the one with-300000 in the southwest corner of the state to create republican turf and make sure no big Democratic cities were in it. The + 300000 is in Northern Va a really big district that they squeezed as many Democrats in as possible, so to make sure NoVA only has 3 house districts even though it's the most populous region of the state.
 
2012-11-12 07:05:23 AM

urban.derelict: Combine virginia and west virginia, enough of this sh*t, they're the ONLY instance of 'country' and 'west country'... f8ckin' rednecks


EABOD.

Broad stereotypes are broad. And usually inaccurate.
 
2012-11-12 07:06:03 AM

Shadowknight: Kibbler: vpb: I have wondered about this.

You have states that are insignificant in the electoral college but have oversize representation in the senate. And you have states where it's the other way around.

If you could combine small states they could matter more in the electoral college, if you could divide states like New York, they would matter more in the Senate.

It's a matter of trading Senatorial influence for Presidential influence I think.

California is "significant" in the electoral college because it has a lot of people. Its significance is proportional to its size.

The ridiculous over-representatiom of some states in the seante is one of the worst flaws of our republic. We should not create any more sparsely-populated states.

I think the founding fathers saw it as more of a design feature than a flaw. Prevent tyranny of the majority, and all that. Granted, they could not have foreseen how big or populated our nation wold ultimately become and how that balance would ultimately be disrupted by the sheer size and density of our city centers verses ran dome country sides.

I think oversized voting for undersized populations still has a place, but it needs to be modified in some way so that we don't have tyranny of the minority instead, where a tiny but rabid population can gridlock all progress despite an overwhelming majority support. How that would work, I have no idea.


1) I think the Founding Fathers came up with it as a way to entice smaller prospective states to come into the union. I don't think they were being farsighted, noble, wise, omniscient, all of the usual bullshiat superpowers we attribute to them. They were cutting deals to get a nation started, not lounging on Mt. Olympus and designing Super Republic.

2) We already have a tiny minority of the nation's people electing senators who can and often do block legislation., The populations of Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Utah and Nebraska combined is under 13 million. They have 16 seats in the Senate. California has has 37 million people and has two seats. The ratio of misrepresentation is about 24:1.

If you consider just Alaska, the Dakotas, Montana and Wyoming, they have less than three million people and eight seats in the Senate. The ratio is now 48:1. It takes 48 Californians to equal the Senate representation of one citizen in any one of those four states.

To put this another way, imagine if California had 96 seats in the Senate, to 2 seats in each of those states. Now representation would be proportional.

Now imagine if California had 4608 seats in the Senate. Now California would be overrepresented compared those states by a ratio of 48:1.
 
2012-11-12 07:22:24 AM
All those southern states. Combine!

It'll be called: "Whitesylvania".
 
2012-11-12 07:38:14 AM

Kittypie070: Gyrfalcon 2012-11-11 10:32:57 PM


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

So Cal, No Cal, and Cal Worthington and his dog Spot.

HAAHH!! XD


I was shocked to find out that Cal Worthington expands past California. I saw a Worthington commercial in Alaska, FFS.
 
2012-11-12 07:44:03 AM
I don't think there are a lot of folks who habitually browse both the Politics and Geek tabs. Weaver95, me, and maybe a few others.

Nevertheless, Fark, I am disappoint.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-12 07:44:40 AM
Please keep acting crazy, tea baggers. It's working... I swear.
 
2012-11-12 07:48:26 AM

Parthenogenetic: I don't think there are a lot of folks who habitually browse both the Politics and Geek tabs. Weaver95, me, and maybe a few others.


www.celluloidheroreviews.com

"How many assholes do we have in this thread, anyway?"

YO!
 
2012-11-12 07:49:36 AM

Anonymocoso: All of this dividing and recombining the states is going to run into a big problem:

Nobody wants Utah or any part of it.

/Except on powder days.
//That means snow, Floridians


The Inland Empire. Utah, Idaho, Western Colorado, Northern AZ, maybe Utah.

All united by a common religion already.
 
2012-11-12 07:49:44 AM

Spaced Lion: Parthenogenetic: I don't think there are a lot of folks who habitually browse both the Politics and Geek tabs. Weaver95, me, and maybe a few others.

[www.celluloidheroreviews.com image 425x233]

"How many assholes do we have in this thread, anyway?"

YO!


You're on the list now.
 
2012-11-12 07:51:51 AM

Shadowknight: soj4life: Shadowknight: 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.

The only way to teach them a lesson is what we should have done 8 generations ago, limit the ability of the states to create laws that oppress their citizens. Along with that, to prohibit the display of the CSA.

Eh, I don't think that prohibiting the display of the CSA is a good idea. Kind of goes counter to basic freedom, and people in this country have the right to be goddamn idiots if they want. Honoring it like some sort of proud heritage should be publicly shamed, but the law should stay out of it.

As far as prohibiting laws that oppress citizens, that should go without saying frankly. The fact that we don't, and that civil rights is still in debate or pushed off until more "important matters" are dealt with (basically tabling it forever if they could) is pure lunacy. However, passing a law like that would be hard, as it woul ...


Germany prohibited all Nazi paraphernalia and displays after WWII.

Its not unprecedented. If anything, we regularly allowed the CSA states to celebrate their war heroes to this day, which creates this sort of 2nd country mentality. I think that was kind of counter-productive to the USA over all.
 
2012-11-12 07:55:42 AM
I think we need to abandon the Electoral College and representative government and become a true democracy. Every person votes on every issue.
 
2012-11-12 07:58:39 AM

syrynxx: I think we need to abandon the Electoral College and representative government and become a true democracy. Every person votes on every issue.


Or everyybody tweets on every issue. If you're in favor, tweet "LULZ". If not, "U MAD THO?"
 
2012-11-12 08:36:17 AM
Look guys, it's cute what you're talking about and all, but anything that suffixes with reform is not going to work in the USA.
 
2012-11-12 08:42:35 AM
At least this puts a whole end to whether or not conservatives are patriotic.

They are not.
 
2012-11-12 09:23:51 AM

Parthenogenetic: I don't think there are a lot of folks who habitually browse both the Politics and Geek tabs. Weaver95, me, and maybe a few others.

Nevertheless, Fark, I am disappoint.

[i.imgur.com image 619x460]


I'm in every tab save sports. I don't get that one.
 
2012-11-12 09:27:47 AM

abb3w: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: I'd say more than five. Like, however many atoms that make that place up.

An interesting notion; but "five" is what they were promised by the treaty of annexation.


Which was never ratified by the Senate. The treaty is irrelevant because it was never enacted.

Texas was admitted into the Union by a joint Congressional resolution.
 
2012-11-12 09:29:03 AM

talan123: At least this puts a whole end to whether or not conservatives are patriotic.

They are not.


They're part of the Benedict Arnold Brigade - part of the 101st Keyboarder Division.
 
2012-11-12 09:32:05 AM

Vangor: Uh, how about Central Florida and North/South Florida? We're the least psychotic part of the state. I said least, so still rather psychotic.


This, please. We'll add jobs through moderating the derp north and south of us. Everyone wins.
 
2012-11-12 09:42:18 AM

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Parthenogenetic: I don't think there are a lot of folks who habitually browse both the Politics and Geek tabs. Weaver95, me, and maybe a few others.

Nevertheless, Fark, I am disappoint.

[i.imgur.com image 619x460]

I'm in every tab save sports. I don't get that one.


Shadowrun map of North America, circa 2070
 
2012-11-12 10:23:04 AM
i158.photobucket.com

/SoCal might need to be smaller.
 
2012-11-12 10:39:07 AM

Parthenogenetic: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Parthenogenetic: I don't think there are a lot of folks who habitually browse both the Politics and Geek tabs. Weaver95, me, and maybe a few others.

Nevertheless, Fark, I am disappoint.

[i.imgur.com image 619x460]

I'm in every tab save sports. I don't get that one.

Shadowrun map of North America, circa 2070


Or you could go with Crimson Skies:
tekeli.li
 
2012-11-12 11:31:04 AM

ramblinwreck: Yeah, I can't exactly leave MS if they wanted to leave and become part of Jesusland, so I'm definitely not cool with this...


If Indiana wanted to leave, it would probably have to change its capital from Indianapolis to Carmel.
 
2012-11-12 11:31:35 AM

Parthenogenetic: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Parthenogenetic: I don't think there are a lot of folks who habitually browse both the Politics and Geek tabs. Weaver95, me, and maybe a few others.

Nevertheless, Fark, I am disappoint.

[i.imgur.com image 619x460]

I'm in every tab save sports. I don't get that one.

Shadowrun map of North America, circa 2070


My only exposure to the Shadowrun universe was on the Sega.
 
2012-11-12 11:39:19 AM

andrewagill: [i158.photobucket.com image 621x733]

/SoCal might need to be smaller.


Pretty close to what I was thinking, though I would cut across at 35 degrees north (Tehachapi Mountains) and 39 degrees north (Lake Tahoe), or essentially both ends of that long northwest/southeast line segment that forms most of the California-Nevada border.
 
2012-11-12 11:54:09 AM
Trade gambling on 29 EVs in Florida for a guaranteed big chunk for the Dems? I'm all for that. The Cons would never win another election.
 
2012-11-12 12:09:09 PM
Just make the Florida panhandle part of Alabama. They'll fit right in.
 
2012-11-12 12:31:44 PM

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Parthenogenetic: I don't think there are a lot of folks who habitually browse both the Politics and Geek tabs. Weaver95, me, and maybe a few others.

Nevertheless, Fark, I am disappoint.

[i.imgur.com image 619x460]

I'm in every tab save sports. I don't get that one.


Ditto
 
2012-11-12 02:39:45 PM

andrewagill: i158.photobucket.com


I've seen that map posted before, but it has a few issues. While it solves the cultural differences between the northern counties and the rest of the state by breaking them off into Jefferson State, it doesn't address the similar differences between the major metro areas and the more rural counties in the Central Valley, inland desert and Sierra Nevada range.

At a minimum, the Bay Area counties should be their own state. Same deal with Los Angeles and the Inland Empire. Maybe lump in San Diego with LA, maybe break it into its own state. Orange County is geographically closer to LA, but they might culturally align better with San Diego.
 
2012-11-12 03:21:24 PM

Dinjiin: andrewagill: i158.photobucket.com

I've seen that map posted before, but it has a few issues. While it solves the cultural differences between the northern counties and the rest of the state by breaking them off into Jefferson State, it doesn't address the similar differences between the major metro areas and the more rural counties in the Central Valley, inland desert and Sierra Nevada range.

At a minimum, the Bay Area counties should be their own state. Same deal with Los Angeles and the Inland Empire. Maybe lump in San Diego with LA, maybe break it into its own state. Orange County is geographically closer to LA, but they might culturally align better with San Diego.


Honestly, you could create another thirteen colonies out of California. I think taking a couple of steps to make sure that Silicon Valley and Hollywood aren't represented by the same senators would go a long way. And if you go that far, it's pretty clear that Jefferson is a completely different state anyway.

The area would get 4 extra senators and, due to the vagaries of Public Law 62-5, might also get some extra representatives.

/Public Law 62-5 also needs to go.
//We have three times the population of 1911, but the exact same number of House members?
 
2012-11-12 04:25:08 PM

andrewagill: We have three times the population of 1911, but the exact same number of House members?


At the least, it would make lobbying efforts more difficult as you'd have to spread around more money.
 
2012-11-12 06:01:38 PM

semiotix: vpb: You have states that are insignificant in the electoral college but have oversize representation in the senate. And you have states where it's the other way around.

If you could combine small states they could matter more in the electoral college, if you could divide states like New York, they would matter more in the Senate.

It's a matter of trading Senatorial influence for Presidential influence I think.

No. North and South Dakota have three electoral votes each. As the Great State of Unified Dakota, they'd have...three. Four at the most.

The Electoral College magnifies the importance of small states for exactly the same reason that the Senate does. This is why, except for Virginia/West Virginia in the chaos of the Civil War, no state has ever been split up. No other state wants to see their own power diluted like that. And it's why there will never be Unified Dakota--they'd be throwing away two Senators and a Representative for nothing.


Uh...Kentucky and Maine would argue you on that whole "no state has ever been split up" before, as would Virginia (TWICE) and Massachusetts (which actually lost MOST of its territory in a split).

You see, the first state (and arguably the one relatively non-controversial split of a state) was Kentucky, formed from the former Kentucky County of Virginia back in 1792 (and being only the first state both west of the Alleghenies and NOT part of the original fourteen settlements by the British; legal white settlement was technically only allowed after 1776 due to a British ban on settlement beyond the mountains). Even then it took eight years to actually be ratified as a state; it took the better part of six years for Virginia to agree, and two more years for the original Thirteen Founding States plus Vermont (which itself had recently joined the US after spending from 1776 to 1791 as a de facto independent country resulting from competing territorial claims by New York and New Hampshire).

The next state to enter the Union from a split of a pre-existing state was Maine, which actually was part of (and basically a quasi-territorial holding of) Massachusetts (!) until 1820 (until that point, it was the District of Maine); Maine was admitted as a free state as a compromise to allow admission of Missouri as a slave state (pretty much Missouri was NOT going to be admitted as "slave" unless there was an equivalent state admitted as a non-slaveholding state; this sort of "slave state/free state" gerrymandering continued right up to the point of the Civil War).

The third (and last) time a state was functionally split was during the Civil War itself, with West-By-God Virginia in an act which is really best described as a bit of Epic Legislative Trolling. :D

You see, Virginia (like a lot of other states on the border of the Confederacy like Kentucky and Missouri) had competing "Confederacy" and "Union" legislatures; quite unlike Kentucky and Missouri, Virginia's de facto government was the Confederate legislature, but there was a "rump government" of Union loyalists (the "Restored Government of Virginia"residing in the west part of the state with its provisional capital at Wheeling (much as Kentucky's provisional Confederate government resided in Bowling Green).

So pretty much the rump government got themselves formally recognised by the United States as the legitimate government of Virginia (!) (easy enough to do as they DID have de facto control of that part of the state)...and then THEMSELVES passed an initiative that they would approve the splitting of the Union-controlled section of Virginia off into the new state of West Virginia...and, well, seeing as they were considered the legitimate legislature of Virginia by the US government, this passed with ease and everyone involved smiled and nodded over the fact that the rump Virginia legislature had just approved splitting itself into the state of West Virginia which just happened to be the Union-controlled parts of Virginia. :D

As for what happened to the rump government--they ended up moving to Alexandria (right across the Potomac from DC) as a de facto "government in exile" until 1865 when they became the provisional government of post-Civil War Virginia.

(And it's probably because of THAT bit of creative Bending Of The Spirit Of The Law why we'll never functionally see a state created from the split of another state. :D The rural parts of states, despite the whargarbl they give over the urbanised parts of states, won't let them go--they want the tax revenue. :D)
 
2012-11-12 08:01:23 PM
I guess if you want to hand over control of the senate to republicans you could this. All splitting texas would do is create 8 more senate seats for the republicans. Which would be better than the silliness farkers keep masturbating to which is letting texas secede. While texas is a lot of things its also the second largest economy in the united states quickly on path to over take california. Not to mention the home for most of the US refining and most of its usable oil, and much of the military.
 
2012-11-12 08:54:13 PM

vpb: Each of which would be entitled to two senators, regardless of how small it's population?

Kevin72: That would give them 10 senators and 8 more electorial votes.

bmfderek: At least three of those five new states would be blue.


The light dawns. There might also be different governors gerrymandering the House districts.

The All-Powerful Atheismo: If that happened, they would end up getting more electoral votes per person. And they'd all vote republican.


You seem to have missed bmfderek's observation.
 
Displayed 39 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 »






Report