For a more perfect union, 49 states from sea to shining sea
Hi!
Some time ago, the news/politics/discussion site Slate had an article on (hypothetical) secession by US. states, and the possible consequences thereof. The discussion following that article contained a number of posts advancing the idea that that this or that state should secede, based on the argument that secession would be advantageous to that state. Apart from the expected "Free Texas" posts, there was also one espousing the notion that once Idaho was on its own, things would get so much better for its population.
I cam to think of the opposite reason for secession - that a state should secede not because what is good for its inhabitants, but because what is good for the inhabitants of the other 49 states.
So, I present this as the discussion topic: If you were to cut loose one state, and you had to cut loose exactly one but had complete freedom in choosing which one, which one would it be?
Since there are 50 states and only 10 possible alternatives in a poll this will have to do without the poll feature.
Anyway, what occured to me when reading the responses were two suggestions:
1. Let Idaho have their freedom! Let them be led by their own, President Palin and vice-president Craig! However, once they are their own country, the interestate commerce statute in the constitution does not apply anymore. The 49 other states should not allow Idahoans to trade with them, nor should they allow people to cross the border from Idaho to USA, nor should the airplanes from the republic of Idaho be allowed to enter US. airspace. Idahoans have a border to Canada, let them conduct all their business with the outside world through that border.
2. OK, lets assume that Texas makes good on its secession statue. If that would have happened before the 2008 presidential election, the electoral college would have voted 365-139 in favor of the democrats. To win in that electoral college, a party would need at least 252 votes. (That would be a tie in the EC, and the party would have to hope to be victorious in the tiebreak.) Let us continue with this mental exercise, and see which states the DOP would have to flip in order to win in 2012 without Texas. Let us assume that the GOP hangs on to all of its present states, and flips the states which were closest to it in the 2008 election.
We then get:
Current GOP states: 139 votes in the EC
North Carolina, +15: 154
Indiana, +11: 165
Florida, +27: 192
Ohio, +20: 212
Virginia, +13: 225
Colorado, +9: 234
Iowa, +7: 241
New Hampshire, +4: 245
Maine, +4: 249
Pennsylvania, +21: 270
So there you are! The GOP would, it seems, to have to flip 10 states all in one go. That is one heavy lift. Considering that some GOP voters would emigrate from the USA to Texas, and vice versa, the job for the GOp machine would be that much harder still.
I don't really "want" any of the States to secede, particularly. I also would not care if they chose to do so.
There are, I think, really only 3 states that could viably secede and have some measure of success on their own: Alaska, Texas, and California.
At this point in time, there is no way in hell California could succeed even if we wanted to leave the union. We just don't have our crap together that well right now. Were that to happen however, I believe we could, hypothetically, do rather well.
Even though I don't think either of the other States would ever secede, there are at least comparatively strong movements for it there. At first glance one would think Texas would have the biggest chance for it, and that may be, but I think a second harder look would show that Alaska would be a more likely candidate. They do have (supposedly) an awful lot of oil up there...
So, short answer: None, but if I had to pick, Alaska. I think of all the States, even Texas, they already consider themselves a very separate entity (speaking generally).
__________________
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
Last edited by I_luv_saber; 09-14-2009 at 06:50 AM..
I think it would be awesome if California was to leave, or just fall in the ocean. We could get rid of all the celebrities that think they know everything about politics, Pelosi and Boxer would go away, and without California, the US would elect much more conservative presidents.
__________________
Obamacare: If at first you don't succeed, lie, lie, lie again!
I think it would be awesome if California was to leave, or just fall in the ocean. We could get rid of all the celebrities that think they know everything about politics, Pelosi and Boxer would go away, and without California, the US would elect much more conservative presidents.
Yea, that last president from California did nothing to advance conservatives in the US
Would the kicked out state have to use stay and play? Would they get their own Olympic team?
__________________
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid" David St. Hubbins
Last edited by jessicasimpson; 09-14-2009 at 11:30 AM..
Interesting. I think you'd have to look at which state has the largest net federal tax burden. That is, the difference between all federal aid received and all federal taxes paid.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/62.html "In fiscal year 2004, New Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota received substantially more from the federal government than they paid in taxes, while New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Illinois paid much more in taxes than they received in spending."
New Mexico is highest, but I think North Dakota or Mississippi would be missed less. So either of those would be fine by me.
Careful about letting North Dakota go. They used to have the highest concentration of nuclear weapons of any geographical area in the word. I'm sure there are still weapons of mass destruction in the area around Minot and east west, south and north somewhat. If they wound up their own country, we'd probably have to invade them before too long on account of the Bush Doctrine.
__________________
Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?
Interesting. I think you'd have to look at which state has the largest net federal tax burden. That is, the difference between all federal aid received and all federal taxes paid.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/62.html "In fiscal year 2004, New Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota received substantially more from the federal government than they paid in taxes, while New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Illinois paid much more in taxes than they received in spending."
New Mexico is highest, but I think North Dakota or Mississippi would be missed less. So either of those would be fine by me.
Okay, more serious answer. How about Hawaii? They are in the list of highest ratios of spending to tax, they're geographically remote, they have a strong sovereignty movement and their independence would probably have relatively little impact on their tourism industry.
Of course a certain faction would inevitably claim that this would retroactively de-citizenize the president.
__________________
Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?
Careful about letting North Dakota go. They used to have the highest concentration of nuclear weapons of any geographical area in the word. I'm sure there are still weapons of mass destruction in the area around Minot and east west, south and north somewhat. If they wound up their own country, we'd probably have to invade them before too long on account of the Bush Doctrine.
Upon further reflection, all of the states with the highest tax burden rates are pretty low in population. So, it would probably have to be Virginia.
california oregon washington new york, or massachusetts. nobody wants socialism.
California........socialist? New York (aka the concrete jungle)........socialist? Please look up the word socialism.
__________________
Ahmadinejad's wife to Ahmadinejad: Why are you always smiling? Nobody likes you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjwyQnEdATA- Set Adrift on Memory Bliss by my loves BSB
__________________
Ahmadinejad's wife to Ahmadinejad: Why are you always smiling? Nobody likes you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjwyQnEdATA- Set Adrift on Memory Bliss by my loves BSB
I think a more interesting idea would be a re-partitioning of the states.
If we were to chop down the larger states (Northern and Southern California), and combine some of the smaller states (Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire), we could have much larger congressional districts and significantly shrink the size of the House of Representatives.
A much smaller House with larger districts would eliminate many of the intensely partisan districts we have now, and also allow more accountability with fewer reps having more responsibility.
__________________
- Wisdom is the knowledge of how much you don't know.
I think a more interesting idea would be a re-partitioning of the states.
If we were to chop down the larger states (Northern and Southern California), and combine some of the smaller states (Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire), we could have much larger congressional districts and significantly shrink the size of the House of Representatives.
A much smaller House with larger districts would eliminate many of the intensely partisan districts we have now, and also allow more accountability with fewer reps having more responsibility.
How can Rhode Island be a state when it's smaller than Los Angeles COUNTY???
If we were to chop down the larger states (Northern and Southern California), and combine some of the smaller states (Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire), we could have much larger congressional districts and significantly shrink the size of the House of Representatives.
I don't see how, since districts are based on the population, not the size of the area covered. That's why Wyoming has one House member and Massachusetts has ten.
However, you could reduce the size of the Senate by combining states. But this isn't an especially good idea either.
Quote:
A much smaller House with larger districts would eliminate many of the intensely partisan districts we have now, and also allow more accountability with fewer reps having more responsibility.
I disagree with this, too. It all depends on how the districts are drawn. In Pennsylvania, we have been losing congressional districts after each successive census since the 1930s, when we had an all-time state high of 36. Now, we send 19 reps to the House. Each time we shrink, districts get merged and redrawn (and gerrymandered) through the redistricting process following each census. And because this is handled by the state assembly, there is no incentive to make the districts any less partisan.
Also, fewer Congresspeople representing more citizens means less democracy.
How can Rhode Island be a state when it's smaller than Los Angeles COUNTY???
We've been in the United States longer?
Massachusetts didn't want us?
Connecticut was concerned with expanding westward, not eastward, including settling part of Ohio. Not entirely sure why that was more convenient, but I can imagine they didn't feel like dealing with Roger Williams either....
__________________
Visit my non-fencing blog, mostly about food, at Coset The Table!
I think a more interesting idea would be a re-partitioning of the states.
Hell, I'd be happy if we could just get away with re-districting California. I'm not a fan of the rigged jigsaw puzzle that we have now. Man, I still can't believe that last measure failed. A more fair and balanced plan you could not find.
There has been a very weak undercurrent movement to split California in two. It would never, ever happen though. Hell, right now we can't even get our water situation organized.
__________________
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
Linear Mode
