3
3
0
The political/ideological divide in America isn't geographical. This is not a North vs South or an East vs West battle. It's largely defined by urban/suburban vs rural constituencies. Why not allow these separate peoples to go their separate ways? The likely consequence would be that there would be 90 United States and presidential candidates would be forced to campaign in fly-over country since they would control the majority of electoral votes.
Please, don't just vote. Explain your vote. And don't explain your vote by negative comments about the other options.
Please, don't just vote. Explain your vote. And don't explain your vote by negative comments about the other options.
Posted in these groups: 
Voting
Voting
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
If you carve out city states, I'm not sure the fly-over country would control the majority of the electoral votes. The new city states would each get two Senators, plus they'd control most of the population (so they'd get most of the Representatives too). Currently, over 80% of the population lives in urban settings, so most of the electoral votes would go there. That is, unless someone argues that only specific cities (i.e. cherry picking) should become city states.
I'm not a fan of changing the US structure to accommodate the changing whims of our society. I'd prefer reforming our campaign process to take away the incentives to elect politicians who appeal to the extremes. I want politicians who are incentivized to work together to solve problems, not to perpetually campaign and fundraise to stay in office, while never solving any problems. That's what we have now...problems linger without solutions, while politicians of all stripes stay entrenched. It would also be nice if the politicians would actually somewhat agree on the problems that need to be solved. They seem to be living in completely different realities.
I'm not a fan of changing the US structure to accommodate the changing whims of our society. I'd prefer reforming our campaign process to take away the incentives to elect politicians who appeal to the extremes. I want politicians who are incentivized to work together to solve problems, not to perpetually campaign and fundraise to stay in office, while never solving any problems. That's what we have now...problems linger without solutions, while politicians of all stripes stay entrenched. It would also be nice if the politicians would actually somewhat agree on the problems that need to be solved. They seem to be living in completely different realities.
(5)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Great suggestions but all require better educated, better informed constituencies. Sadly, with civics removed from school curriculums (curricula, if you prefer) and popular and news media flying cover for the progressive Left, that seems to be our greatest challenge
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Not just no, but hell no. I absolutely hate the fact that in certain states (Illinois, Arizona, Georgia, and a couple others), anyone living outside the major metro area is (more or less) irrelevant, because that metro area has a larger population than the rest of the states combined. Hate it. My home state (Michigan) used to be that way until the recent exodus from Detroit, and it always ticked me off how much Detroit ruled state politics.
BUT.... Slicing off these metro areas and creating city-states creates a LOT of problems. First, where do you draw the boundary? Is it JUST Detroit? Or is it Detroit Metro? How do you determine where the suburbs stop for a metro? ESPECIALLY in a state like California which would have city states butting against each other. For city-states like Memphis, Louisville, St. Louis, NYC, or Chicago which cross state borders, do you take from both states to make one? Do you make two?
But that is just logistics... it could be worked out EVENTUALLY. The big problem is governance. States have a LOT more cabinets, departments, and responsibilities. The larger cities often have very robust governance and social programs, but they still pale in comparison to what the state can leverage. Which means this will cause a MASSIVE expansion of government bureaucracy and government jobs. Which means more taxes to pay for everything.
Additionally, how do we handle this in 20 years? We make the artificial cutoff for an independent city state at (for example) 2 million people in the metro area. That leaves us at 34 city states. In the 2040 census, when San Jose and Nashville, both of which are JUST shy of 2 million (and growing) both top 2 million, while Cleveland and Pittsburgh, both of which are only a little over 2 million (and shrinking) drop below 2 million, do we create new city-states? Do we absorb the shrunken city-states?
Next, you have the issue of current states losing their capitol. What happens when Phoenix is no longer part of Arizona, or Atlanta is no longer part of Georgia? What happens when California moves its capitol from Sacramento - just over the 2M mark - to San Jose - just under the 2M mark? Now Sacramento is no longer at 2M, but San Jose is above it, as all of those state workers move to their new capitol.
Penultimately, this would create a MASSIVE expansion of the US Senate. You think it is hard getting anything done with 100 Senators? Try 190. (And I know, the house has 435 - but there is a distinct difference in the way the two house operate.)
Finally, I don't think it will solve "flyover country" Of the top 25 populous metro areas, Here are the new "city-states" that are not on either coast (9/25, with only 5 ever being considered part of "flyover country"):
(3) Chicago - Illinois has ALWAYS been a campaign stop, especially for Democrats. This won't change.
(4) Dallas (5) Houston, and (24) San Antonio - Texas has ALSO always been important, and has never been considered "flyover" despite being centered between the coasts
(10) Phoenix - this may raise the profile of Phoenix (which is already becoming more important), but it will reduce the REST of arizona to being un-important. Which means it will actually create MORE "flyover country"
(14) Detroit - This one may make a difference. Separating out Detroit will make the voice of the rest of Michigan matter, and the rest of Michigan is not so sparsely populated (like Arizona is) that they can safely be ignored.
(16) MSP - Removing the twin cities from Minnesota will effectively split their electoral votes almost in the middle - twin cities 6, rest of state 4. It will effectively make BOTH able to be safely ignored.
(19) Denver - See MSP, with one less electoral vote.
(20) St. Louis - This one may work because it will draw from two states for their own electoral pool, while only siphoning off a couple from each of the other states.
BUT.... Slicing off these metro areas and creating city-states creates a LOT of problems. First, where do you draw the boundary? Is it JUST Detroit? Or is it Detroit Metro? How do you determine where the suburbs stop for a metro? ESPECIALLY in a state like California which would have city states butting against each other. For city-states like Memphis, Louisville, St. Louis, NYC, or Chicago which cross state borders, do you take from both states to make one? Do you make two?
But that is just logistics... it could be worked out EVENTUALLY. The big problem is governance. States have a LOT more cabinets, departments, and responsibilities. The larger cities often have very robust governance and social programs, but they still pale in comparison to what the state can leverage. Which means this will cause a MASSIVE expansion of government bureaucracy and government jobs. Which means more taxes to pay for everything.
Additionally, how do we handle this in 20 years? We make the artificial cutoff for an independent city state at (for example) 2 million people in the metro area. That leaves us at 34 city states. In the 2040 census, when San Jose and Nashville, both of which are JUST shy of 2 million (and growing) both top 2 million, while Cleveland and Pittsburgh, both of which are only a little over 2 million (and shrinking) drop below 2 million, do we create new city-states? Do we absorb the shrunken city-states?
Next, you have the issue of current states losing their capitol. What happens when Phoenix is no longer part of Arizona, or Atlanta is no longer part of Georgia? What happens when California moves its capitol from Sacramento - just over the 2M mark - to San Jose - just under the 2M mark? Now Sacramento is no longer at 2M, but San Jose is above it, as all of those state workers move to their new capitol.
Penultimately, this would create a MASSIVE expansion of the US Senate. You think it is hard getting anything done with 100 Senators? Try 190. (And I know, the house has 435 - but there is a distinct difference in the way the two house operate.)
Finally, I don't think it will solve "flyover country" Of the top 25 populous metro areas, Here are the new "city-states" that are not on either coast (9/25, with only 5 ever being considered part of "flyover country"):
(3) Chicago - Illinois has ALWAYS been a campaign stop, especially for Democrats. This won't change.
(4) Dallas (5) Houston, and (24) San Antonio - Texas has ALSO always been important, and has never been considered "flyover" despite being centered between the coasts
(10) Phoenix - this may raise the profile of Phoenix (which is already becoming more important), but it will reduce the REST of arizona to being un-important. Which means it will actually create MORE "flyover country"
(14) Detroit - This one may make a difference. Separating out Detroit will make the voice of the rest of Michigan matter, and the rest of Michigan is not so sparsely populated (like Arizona is) that they can safely be ignored.
(16) MSP - Removing the twin cities from Minnesota will effectively split their electoral votes almost in the middle - twin cities 6, rest of state 4. It will effectively make BOTH able to be safely ignored.
(19) Denver - See MSP, with one less electoral vote.
(20) St. Louis - This one may work because it will draw from two states for their own electoral pool, while only siphoning off a couple from each of the other states.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Lots of interesting points. Most seemed based on the belief that the creation of city states would be mandatory. I don't believe I mentioned that anywhere. Certainly, it would have to be the voluntary decision of the citizens. In that light, how do you feel about eastern counties in Oregon voting to secede and attach themselves to Idaho?
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CPT Jack Durish I think it is still problematic in light of Article IV, Section 3. But if both states agree (or for a city-state, both the state and city) and Congress approves.. Go for it.
Even then, it will cause headaches, especially in determining representation. But that is, again, logistics.
The big problem would be if a bunch of blue states did it as a plot to increase their representation and electoral count. (I say blue not out of partisanship, but because most urban areas are blue, so the GOP would not benefot from such a scheme.) Imagine California spinning off 8 city-states and gaining 16 Senators. But, even then... If Congress, the city, and the state agree, it is legal, even if underhanded.
Even then, it will cause headaches, especially in determining representation. But that is, again, logistics.
The big problem would be if a bunch of blue states did it as a plot to increase their representation and electoral count. (I say blue not out of partisanship, but because most urban areas are blue, so the GOP would not benefot from such a scheme.) Imagine California spinning off 8 city-states and gaining 16 Senators. But, even then... If Congress, the city, and the state agree, it is legal, even if underhanded.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SFC Casey O'Mally - The Dems benefit from the current system because the densely populated urban areas, most under Dem control, are the plurality of those states in which they exist. If removed, the states would likely shift Red
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CPT Jack Durish - This is entirely possible in a few states - Michigan with Detroit, Illinois with Chicago, Minnesota with MSP, and even New York with NYC. Georgia would become solidly red again instead of it's current purpleness, as would Arizona if Atlanta and Phoenix split off, respectively. But.... being a political skeptic, I don't see the Democratic party willing to give up that advantage, and let these cities break away, risking the loss of those "anchored" electoral votes (nor would Republicans let Houston or Austin break off and free up those electoral votes). Which means neither the city (or the state, in the case of Texas) nor Congress would approve.
My concern is what I mentioned above, where a states spins off multiple cities to gain senators (and theoretically, electoral votes, as each city-states is guaranteed a minimum of 3 votes, probably 5, even for the "marginal" city-states). California could safely spin off LA, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose, each with an additional 2 electoral votes, and STILL remain a blue state with probably 60-62 total electoral votes.
My concern is what I mentioned above, where a states spins off multiple cities to gain senators (and theoretically, electoral votes, as each city-states is guaranteed a minimum of 3 votes, probably 5, even for the "marginal" city-states). California could safely spin off LA, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose, each with an additional 2 electoral votes, and STILL remain a blue state with probably 60-62 total electoral votes.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google