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 93
    More: Interesting, South Florida, United States, Articles of Confederation, secession, American Revolution, combine, foreign intervention, Zogby International  
•       •       •

3475 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-11 09:50:51 PM  
7 votes:

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


Aye, there's the rub. Still, silly states like Wyoming have two senators, don't they? Pretty much every person in Wyoming IS a senator, and that's less logical than having two senators for the metro Houston area which, with ten times as many people as the entire state of Wyoming, would STILL be proportionately underrepresented in the senate.

There is precedent to create new states from the splitting of existing states. Maine was born when God took a rib from Massachusetts. Same with West Virginia and Virginia. (And other examples which should or should not be included.) I think, however, that the United States needs to avoid balkanization. The only fair way to reapportion would be to create 50 new governing units of approximately equal size. In other words, if you are going to give Houston two senators, which would be fair, you would also have to combine some silly states into one.

For example:

Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas and Idaho would be combined to form one real state instead of five silly ones.

Same with Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire

Rhode Island and Connecticut

Kansas and Nebraska

And so forth

Let's face it, none of this will ever happen, for many, many reasons, so it might be beneficial for us to learn to live and work united, as specified in the country's name.
2012-11-11 10:52:33 PM  
5 votes:
Republicans should br thinking long and hard over the fact that they can no longer be expected to win any national elections without resorting to dirty tricks, schemes to prevent people from voting, and gerrymandering to the point of blatant racism (they would not have won the house this time around without gerrymandering)
Perhaps it is time to come up with a new platform and set of ideas that people, you know, like? You can't disenfranchise your way to victory forever. This election should have made that clear.
2012-11-11 10:33:20 PM  
5 votes:
I'll just leave this here...

www.perno.com
2012-11-11 10:01:50 PM  
5 votes:
Texas out, Puerto Rico in. Money saved by keeping the flag the same.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-11 07:03:05 PM  
4 votes:
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.
2012-11-11 06:43:10 PM  
4 votes:
Clearly we need to do whatever is most beneficial to the Republican party.
2012-11-11 11:26:10 PM  
3 votes:
I support a two-state solution; America and Jesusland
2012-11-11 11:19:13 PM  
3 votes:
What is it with these retarded maps where they carefully avoid using any existing state boundaries or names? I mean, that one was so frustrated they renamed Hawaii and probably wished they could combine a couple of its islands with Guam but realized that would be exposing their trollary a bit too much. Just go back to playing RPGs already.

We live in a passive-aggressive world. We can't even get shiat like Quebec or Washington D.C. sorted out, forget totally redrawing a map and giving it dumbass names.
2012-11-11 10:35:58 PM  
3 votes:
Punt and start over:

www.marksettle.com
2012-11-11 04:48:37 PM  
3 votes:
I think the split of Texas into five pieces makes more immediate sense.
2012-11-12 01:10:19 AM  
2 votes:

abb3w: An interesting notion; but "five" is what they were promised by the treaty of annexation.


Whatever treaties the Republic of Texas might have made when they joined the union were voided when they seceded. No such promises were made when they re-joined.
2012-11-12 12:49:23 AM  
2 votes:

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Britney Spear's Speculum: I'm seriously considering adding a petition to take down the secession petitions. With the power of the internet, I bet that could get to 25,000 'signatures' before the others do

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO: ignore, and publicly laugh at, all of the secession petitions.


I don't think you can ignore them while also publicly laughing at them. Those two ideas seems mutually exclusive.
2012-11-12 12:34:20 AM  
2 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: I'm seriously considering adding a petition to take down the secession petitions. With the power of the internet, I bet that could get to 25,000 'signatures' before the others do


WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO: ignore, and publicly laugh at, all of the secession petitions.
2012-11-12 12:05:27 AM  
2 votes:

Hunter_Worthington: That's a feature, not a bug.


Gerrymandering is a feature and not a bug?

How much spray paint did you huff before coming to that conclusion?
2012-11-11 11:46:03 PM  
2 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: Those fu(king retards are gonna ruin the site for the rest of us.


But wait there's more!

The State of South Carolina to Secede from the Union and form it's own Government as a Sovereign State
and then
Peacefully grant the State of S.C. to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.

I'm seriously considering adding a petition to take down the secession petitions. With the power of the internet, I bet that could get to 25,000 'signatures' before the others do
2012-11-11 11:05:08 PM  
2 votes:

NeverDrunk23: Mrtraveler01: Because it will help the GOP win?

It is the only thing that matters. Not improving the party, not introducing better ideas to actually help the entire country.

No, change everything just to win. Winning is THE main goal in the GOP, apparently.


Close - Winning NOW is the main GOP goal. Otherwise, why work so hard to piss off America's fastest growing demographic?

/+Muslims, who -- all things being equal -- are natural Republicans
2012-11-11 10:50:09 PM  
2 votes:
i seceded from my cul-de-sac, and will be appointing housepets as senators.
2012-11-11 10:36:49 PM  
2 votes:
fark it...let's start from scratch.

Long live Jefferson State!

upload.wikimedia.org
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com 

Unfortunately, it'd be a Republican state.

/never mind
2012-11-11 10:32:57 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-11 10:31:29 PM  
2 votes:
California needs to be split into 3 or more. SoCal, North California, and Farmer Cal.
2012-11-11 10:14:39 PM  
2 votes:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Texas out, Puerto Rico in. Money saved by keeping the flag the same.


Sold!
2012-11-11 07:28:56 PM  
2 votes:
I have a better idea:

i.imgur.com
2012-11-11 07:09:22 PM  
2 votes:
Wikipedia? Well, ok I guess.

I am sure the Supreme Court will be referencing this Wikipedia article if the matter ever gets that far. What a great find and even better green-light!

An entire legion of US Constitutional Law professionals thank you subby.
2012-11-12 06:01:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:39:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:31:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:23:04 AM  
1 votes:
i158.photobucket.com

/SoCal might need to be smaller.
2012-11-12 09:29:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:27:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:42:35 AM  
1 votes:
At least this puts a whole end to whether or not conservatives are patriotic.

They are not.
2012-11-12 07:51:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:06:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:57:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:51:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:29:49 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:21:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:17:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:17:30 AM  
1 votes:
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 03:07:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:03:59 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:58:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:55:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:54:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:51:58 AM  
1 votes:
2012-11-12 02:50:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:42:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:41:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:35:34 AM  
1 votes:
Do I get more Electoral votes with the purchase of electoral votes of equal or greater value?
2012-11-12 02:34:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:14:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:53:21 AM  
1 votes:
Just give the Florida panhandle to Alabama and Jacksonville to Georgia and be done with it.
2012-11-12 01:46:26 AM  
1 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: Anyway, the ruling in this case was one of convenience overall.

Which makes it totally not settled Constitutional law. Because you don't like it.

Have we found Antonin Scalia's Fark login?


Bevets.
2012-11-12 01:33:13 AM  
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Long live Jefferson State!


The western states really do need to be redrawn.

Western Washington (Bellingham to Vancouver)
Western Oregon (Portland to Roseberg)
SE Oregon + Northern Cali (Grants Pass to Red Bluff)
North-Central Cali (Chico to Merced)
SF Bay Area (Santa Rosa to Los Gatos to west of the Berkeley Hills and San Leandro Hills)
Central Cali (Fresno to Bakersfield)
LA Area (Santa Barbara to Cabazon to San Clemente)
Southern Cali

Eastern Washington + Idaho Panhandle
Eastern Oregon + Southern Idaho
2012-11-12 01:25:38 AM  
1 votes:

jigger: Anyway, the ruling in this case was one of convenience overall.


Which makes it totally not settled Constitutional law. Because you don't like it.

Have we found Antonin Scalia's Fark login?
2012-11-12 01:14:41 AM  
1 votes:

homelessdude: I am sure the Supreme Court will be referencing this Wikipedia article if the matter ever gets that far. What a great find and even better green-light!


States have been allowed to split up. West Virginia from Virginia, and Maine from Massachusetts. (Yeah, that last sounds weird, but look it up.)
2012-11-12 01:14:07 AM  
1 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: Secession is unconstitutional? Where does the constitution prohibit it? Nowhere.

Learn yourself something.


I've seen it.

Doesn't mean that secession is unconstitutional.

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.

Also, look at Chase's argument. When the original 13 colonies signed the Articles of Confederation they formed a "perpetual" union. Did Texas sign that? No? Ok. Then he says that those same states ratified the new Constitution that said it was in order to more a "more perfect" union. Well, that can mean whatever you want. To Chase it meant that it was even stronger than perpetual, I guess. Or it can mean one where states can secede at will. Or, again, whatever you decide is more perfect.

Anyway, the ruling in this case was one of convenience overall.
2012-11-12 01:13:12 AM  
1 votes:

ArmednHammered: Hobo Jr.: I have always thought that California and Texas should be split and Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas should be combined. Maybe Idaho and and Nevada combine. Then make Guam and the Virgin Islands into states.

Splitting California North/South would make no difference. The San Fransisco and Los Angeles liberals would still control everything, nothing would change.


What if CA was split above Marin? A true North/South split into urban and rural CA? And So Cal was split up E/W? You would end up with a Nor Cal whose interests are wildly different than those of So Cal.

SF, LA, OC and SD all have fairly similar interests and represent a logical grouping. The central valley (where all of our food is grown) has vastly different interests and goals from both Nor Cal and West So Cal, and should be represented uniquely too. I agree A split that separates LA and SF makes no sense whatsoever.
2012-11-12 01:04:23 AM  
1 votes:

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


That's not entirely true, they also have Zion and Bryce. And Zion has some wicked slick-rock mountain biking.
Also polygamy porter. Not to mention how fun it is to run up to the top of Angel's landing. So, there is more than just powder. But I'll grant you their only redeeming features involve things they were fortunate enough to have in their state, nothing THEY have done makes them desired.
2012-11-12 12:48:58 AM  
1 votes:

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Britney Spear's Speculum: I'm seriously considering adding a petition to take down the secession petitions. With the power of the internet, I bet that could get to 25,000 'signatures' before the others do

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO: ignore, and publicly laugh at, all of the secession petitions.


Meh.

Should have petitioned for something cool like FEMA re-education camps for all registered Republicans. You know, something we could all get behind.
2012-11-12 12:42:50 AM  
1 votes:

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

Fark that Northern VA wants to secede from the downstate drain on our economy. We don't get the right representation in the statehouse and they take our money. Let us be free. We'll even take DC they at least have a tax base.


I'd support that move in a heart beat. Maybe George Allen would stop sending me mailers anytime he makes a failed attempt at a Senate run.
2012-11-12 12:36:11 AM  
1 votes:
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
2012-11-12 12:34:18 AM  
1 votes:

jigger: Secession is unconstitutional? Where does the constitution prohibit it? Nowhere.


Learn yourself something.
2012-11-12 12:33:38 AM  
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Hunter_Worthington: That's a feature, not a bug.

Gerrymandering is a feature and not a bug?

How much spray paint did you huff before coming to that conclusion?


No shiat. Children even GET that the electoral college is unfair when the principle is used in social research experiments (e.g., the class votes to use crayons to color vs. pencils). I'd like to hear his rationale on why having a 1:110,000 EV:population for WY is fair to someone who lives in CA where their ratio is nearly 1:450,000.
2012-11-12 12:22:29 AM  
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: Wait, since when is secession "unconstitutional"? That doesn't even make sense. It's anti-constitutional, sure, but the document isn't a suicide pact.


Ha. Ha. Ha.

/Might not be a suicide pact in reality, but I doubt anyone gives a fark.
2012-11-12 12:17:22 AM  
1 votes:
Sweet! This could finally be our chance to cut Eastern Washington loose!
2012-11-12 12:12:47 AM  
1 votes:

CmndrFish: cmb53208: Wisconsin could probably be split right down the middle leaving a western half which would be predominately Democrat, with the eastern half being predominately Republican.

As a Milwaukeean, fark this noise to hell and back.

Also splitting Wisconsin seems kind of silly. For equality in the Senate, all of the states would be roughly the size of what Wisconsin is currently.

Honestly if we're actually going to try and solve this problem, I'd propose the Swiss solution. Their upper house is proportioned the same way ours is (set number of representatives for each canton), but extremely small cantons, the Dakotas and Wyomings of Switzerland, are classified as "half cantons" and only get one representative in the upper house.

I'd be quite alright if Wyoming, Delaware, etc. only had one senator and California, Texas, and New York had 3.


That defeats the whole purpose of the Senate, which is that every state be represented equally. We already have the house for proportional representation.
2012-11-12 12:10:54 AM  
1 votes:

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.

But that doesn't help people channel their butthurt the way talking secession does.
2012-11-12 12:10:21 AM  
1 votes:

doyner: Clearly we need to do whatever is most beneficial to the Republican party.


This! It's about time someone on this internet message discussion reading board figured this out. Democracy and liberty are only as good as the number of Republicans that are in power.
2012-11-12 12:03:41 AM  
1 votes:
thepeoplespdx.com
2012-11-11 11:57:02 PM  
1 votes:

tarkus1980: 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.

Obama won more votes than Romney in Ohio. If Ohio apportioned its delegates in the way Nebraska does, with a vote going to the winner of each congressional district and 2 to the statewide winner, Obama would have lost Ohio something like 12-6 despite taking more votes overall.


And if they did it the way a normal state does, the GOP would have ran the table.

punkwrestler: 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.

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.


That's a feature, not a bug.
2012-11-11 11:54:39 PM  
1 votes:

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.


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.
2012-11-11 11:37:39 PM  
1 votes:

LordOfThePings: pxsteel: everyone would probably be a heck of a lot happier

Or not.

[www.kryogenix.org image 500x309]


Thanks. That was easy on the eyes.
2012-11-11 11:22:15 PM  
1 votes:

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.


It's already been done.

i16.photobucket.com
2012-11-11 11:16:23 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-11 11:06:41 PM  
1 votes:

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


Four states. Jefferson (everything north of Tahoe, about 39 North), SoCal (everything south of the Tehachapi Mountains, or 35 North), Pacifica (west of I-5) and Valley (East of I-5).

/actually, the border between Pacifica and Valley could parallel I-5 rather than be exactly on it, I just used that since it's pretty obvious on the map.
2012-11-11 10:56:38 PM  
1 votes:
I've lived here for a long time and splitting the state into 2 isn't going to help.
2012-11-11 10:56:09 PM  
1 votes:

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.


I have passing familiarity with this situation because I portrayed a Texan militant secessionist, Richard Keyes on I Almost Got Away With It. There is a (I suppose) trivial segment of Texas' population that believe they were never a part of the US because of their treaty of (what, 1854?) and that the US has been illegally occupying their state(nation) since. They really believe that they can and should leave ASAP.

\I have nothing of value to add to this conversation, I'm just proud of having had the lead role for an episode of that show.
2012-11-11 10:45:40 PM  
1 votes:

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


That would give them 10 senators and 8 more electorial votes.
2012-11-11 10:43:23 PM  
1 votes:

Hunter_Worthington: 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.


You think that's what it would do? Really?

i2.kym-cdn.com 

/that's adorable
2012-11-11 10:42:01 PM  
1 votes:
An interesting idea, but the state legislatures have to agree to a new state created from part of a current state.

Article 4, Sec. 3:

[N]o new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

I can't imagine the state legislature of Florida voting to split itself.
2012-11-11 10:40:54 PM  
1 votes:
Wait, since when is secession "unconstitutional"? That doesn't even make sense. It's anti-constitutional, sure, but the document isn't a suicide pact.
2012-11-11 10:38:57 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2012-11-11 10:37:08 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-11 10:37:04 PM  
1 votes:

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.


I think it should be split down the middle, with I-4 as the boundary. 

I would have to get a really really good job to have any incentive to live north of I-4 in Florida.
2012-11-11 10:36:05 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Your idea has some promise, until you consider gerrymandering.
2012-11-11 10:34:23 PM  
1 votes:
Or we could take the far more straight forward approach and use a direct election.
2012-11-11 10:34:00 PM  
1 votes:

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!
2012-11-11 10:28:31 PM  
1 votes:
Repubicans suffering from incredible butthurt.l
2012-11-11 07:29:23 PM  
1 votes:

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


Nah, just split Alaska in half, so Texas becomes the 3rd biggest state.
2012-11-11 07:23:17 PM  
1 votes:
Leaving the union is constitutional.

The CSA just did it wrong, like everything else they ever did except cuisine and women.
2012-11-11 06:42:25 PM  
1 votes:
North/South Florida?

Cutting Florida in half?

So.. the Bobbitt amendment?

/Yeah, not proud of that one.
2012-11-11 06:25:49 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-11 05:03:23 PM  
1 votes:

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


I'd say more than five. Like, however many atoms that make that place up.
 
Displayed 93 of 93 comments

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