Jump to content

Is it time for the US to split?


Recommended Posts

It seems that the divides between the red states and the blue states are becoming insurmountable. So maybe it's time to come to an amicable split? How would this work? Could it work? Are we as doomed as I fear?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've wanted it for years.

The problem is, succession requires specific legal action, all branches of government, along with state legislatures to agree. If they don't, the action is considered treasonous.

Another issue is that our military and the corporations and banks that control the economy are decentralized, and our utility infrastructure is a nation-wide grid. How do you divide these things up?

The only way it could happen is if our Federal government completely implodes or goes bankrupt and states are forced to run on their own and use imminent domain to acquire federal holdings within their boundaries. California is probably the only state that could afford that.

so I'm game
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's quite red states and blue states, it's blue cities and red rural areas. Even Southern cities are liberal. Northern California and rural Oregon and Washington are as red as Nebraska.

But if Trump wins, I am totally cool with the west coast opting out and taking Biden and Kamala.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Destiny Skywalker has the right of this. Secession would it be extremely difficult because the divide is not fundamentally between red states and blue states, even though that's what turns up on electoral maps and state is a factor. It tends to be more between urban and rural, across racial, gender and class lines, education levels and quite frequently by profession and even marital status.

The divide has been fuelled by gerrymandering, which incentivizes ideological Purity within the parties as opposed to moderation between the parties to capture undecided voters. Decentralization and ideological concentration in the mass media is another factor. And, of course, internet and social media siloing.

A huge factor, and one that does not get talked about nearly enough, is how much easier trolling is on the internet than actual sound and rational political discourse. Trolls use a very predictable and well codified playbook that is extremely frustrating to people who are trying to deal with them in any semblance of good faith, yet one that still very few people have figured out how to respond effectively to. As indeed is its intention. So people across the spectrum are mad as hell because they are not being heard, and they are dealing with people who are more interested in abusing the anonymity of the internet then they are in actually coming up with and discussing workable answers to the problems faced by the nation. Eventually, even the the most reasonable people take on a "if you can't beat them join 'em" attitude and so the problem intensifies. It does not take very many trolls to kill good faith discussion in social media and online spaces, even those with thousands of participants, especially if they're poorly moderated, which most are.

A partitioning of the country between red states and blue states will still end up with a lot of liberals in red-state America and a lot of conservatives in Blue State America. The core problem is technology, not ideology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, while California overwhelmingly voted for Biden, California also cast nearly 6 million Trump votes, which is the most votes for Trump than any other state in this election. Beats even Texas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Red State/Blue state really is a false dichotomy, that was invented by the Electoral College.  When the Electoral College was established, it was with the intent of not giving direct power to the people, as well as balancing states needs for each state having an equal say VS states with the highest populations having the most say.  The reason for this was at the time, MOST of the population of the US couldn't even read or write, and the founders of the US didn't want to trust illiterates to vote people in to run the country.  So, the winner take all method was created with the Electoral College, where "supposedly" each state had electoral votes that are cast based on whomever wins the popular vote in that state.  This winner take all philosophy in 48 of the 50 states, I think is outdated.  While this time around, the outcome was favorable (Biden winning), I have always had a problem with a handful of states being the ones who decide who is president.   The problem is that by having a winner take all in the Electoral College, you still see an imbalance, and there are still states that still have undue influence of choosing candidates in the primaries, and having a bigger say in general elections as you would have in a straight up popular vote.  I still see value in the electoral college insofar as being able to declare a clear cut victor, as well as striking a balance between state say VS population say, but I think all states should be allowed to divvy up electoral votes in the way Nebraska and Maine do.  Not that this will be implemented, ever.  Just my 2 cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely see value in ranked choice voting for primaries.  It could be a way to help ensure some populist like Trump doesn't get into office, again. 

For general elections, however, unless/until we abandon the 2-party system, I don't know how this could be implemented.  For example, in Mexico, you have the PAN, PRI, and PRD parties as the dominant 3, with smaller parties forever in the minority, with most of those parties having representation in the Mexican Congress.  I can see a case for ranked choice voting there, particularly in general presidential elections. 

But in the US, pretty much you have a choice between democrat and republican.  Except for a few independents, that is all you have in Congress, and even then, those independents have to align themselves with one of the two parties.  While there is the Green Party, Libertarian party, Constitution Party, etc, NONE of them wield any kind of meaningful power. If a president was selected by RCV, and if they were not Dem or GOP, it would end up being the same effect as an independent being elected to the office, forcing the president to align with either dem or gop, and basically becoming part of that party by default.  If an independent party president didn't align themselves to either party, then they would get nothing done at all.    So, this would mean we would have to replace the 2-party system altogether, and while I would LOVE to see that happen, I don't see the republicans and democrats realistically giving up their control voluntarily. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you’re right. But I feel like ranked choice would give people who don’t like either major party candidate a better reason to vote third party. They could rank their preferred candidate first and a second third partner right after, and then Dem or GOP at the end or not at all. It still might end up as you say with their votes not counting, but I think it’d be easier to give the middle finger to both parties without succumbing to choosing the lesser of two evils.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I think we should have, at the very least, a 3-party system.  I hate the idea of having a choice of Product A and Product B.  I find myself almost always voting against someone than for someone (lesser of 2 evils), too.  And I hate it.  In fact, since 2008 except for this time around, I have voted 3rd party/independent/the non-incumbent, not because I want them, but because I did not like either the Dem or GOP choice, when choosing my local representation.  In the 2004, 2012 and 2016 presidential elections, I voted 3rd party there, too, for the same reasons. 

In theory, and if I could change the system by hand-wave, sure, I would love RCV.  However, I think implementing a true RCV in this country  would probably and literally require a revolution.  Americans will put up with a lot.  Generally speaking, only when something directly affects Americans negatively in the extreme do they even begin to give a fuck. We are really no better than Nazi Germany, in terms of following our leaders off a cliff.  Trump proves that for about half our population.

Edited by Zathras
Link to post
Share on other sites

NO?  What about all the deaths he caused by inaction (or on purpose) with Covid?  What about repealing environmental protections?  What about all the people who have been locked up along our southern border in subhuman conditions?  What about racist policies that barred people entry into the US based on their religion and the part of the world they come from? What about trampling on the rights of Native Americans at standing rock?  What about causing trade wars with China and even our allies?  What about stoking racial tensions causing riots this very year? What about damaging relations with friend and foe alike, that has literally isolated the US from the rest of the world?   What about retweeting messages from white supremacists? I could go on and on, but literally EVERYTHING Trump has done has diminished this country, and divided it. Maybe he doesn't have the death count Hitler had, but every single fucking policy made by the Trump Administration has damaged this country and its people, and it will take decades to undo his 4 years. Trump is a monster, and just like Hitler, half this  country followed him unquestioned like lambs to the slaughter.  I know how everyone compares republicans to Hitler, but in this case, it really is valid.  

Edited by Zathras
Link to post
Share on other sites

But calling him a populist like Hitler was, that has hobbled this country and promoted discord while half the country cheered him on is totally valid.  He is as close to Hitler this country has come to since WW2.  And as for a war, don't count him out yet. He still has about 2 months left. If anyone can or would do it, it is Trump.  At the very least, him pulling out the troops so swiftly will set the stage for future conflicts.

Edited by Zathras
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2020 at 12:05 PM, Darth Krawlie said:

I would be very happy if California seceded, either on it's own, or in a group with Oregon and Washington. Hell I'd take Nevada too if they want in.

 California's Interstate highways would fall apart, without US Government money.

I'd imagine that Nevada would look like Fallout: New Vegas, after a couple of decades of lawlessness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gamevet said:

 California's Interstate highways would fall apart, without US Government money.

I'd imagine that Nevada would look like Fallout: New Vegas, after a couple of decades of lawlessness.

California pays the same amount into federal taxes that it gets back in benefits, which includes highway maintenance.

California could keep taxes the same for citizens and be fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fozzie said:

California pays the same amount into federal taxes that it gets back in benefits, which includes highway maintenance.

California could keep taxes the same for citizens and be fine.

No, because its citizens would need a replacement for Medicare and Medicaid. The US Government also funds another 5% assistance for the State's balance deficit. The feds pretty much spend $160 BILLION in funding for the state.

 

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4263

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gamevet said:

No, because its citizens would need a replacement for Medicare and Medicaid. The US Government also funds another 5% assistance for the State's balance deficit. The feds pretty much spend $160 BILLION in funding for the state.

 

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4263

 

 

And just from individuals, California pays $234 BILLION to the federal government. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...