At this point, I think I'm in favor of the balkanization of the US.

[DanTex]

Split into a number of smaller countries with an EU-style free trade and free travel agreement and a common currency.

Let the red states have their tax cuts for the rich, and let us have social democracy, high-speed trains, green energy, and so on.

With the country split 50-50, nothing happens. It's just gridlock. Nobody gets what they want.

And it's no secret which states want what. At this point, with the exception of a few swing states, we already know how states are going to vote for the presidency, and what kind of conrgresspersons they will send to Washington. Red states and blue states want different things, so why not let everyone have what they want?

And it will also provide for a natural experiment comparing political ideologies. People who think supply side economics actually works, have at it! Then check in 20 years and see how it worked.

[citood]

1. If you look at the county by county electoral map

For recent national elections, it will become apparent that this is not a difference that is held at the state level.

This is a conflict between large population centers and the surrounding rural areas. Even the deepest blue state is at least 25% red, and vice versa.

[SusanCalvin]

58. Yep. Look at the big cities in TX. nt

[snooper2]

2. You know in Dallas county it is like 55% dem vs 45% repuke right?

[DanTex]

5. Yes, I do. And I also know my old hometown of Austin would get screwed in the deal.

Just thinking out loud.

[angrychair]

3. As much as I like that idea

The divisions in our country are not as cut and dry.
I live in Washington state, which most would consider a very blue state, in many ways it is but in some ways it is not. The Cascades are a very real divide here... King county (county that includes Seattle) is the main reason our state is blue.
In the 2012 election Washington went for Obama 52/48

I actually worry how many votes Johnson and Stein will pull from Clinton here (as Washington went heavily for Sanders and has a disportionate number of "Bernie or bust" people)...depending on what that number is could determine who takes Washington's EV.

Many are working hard here to help Clinton win, including me, but no one should assume Washington is a blue state until election results are in.

My point is that our country is in a intractable mess and are only hope for resolution is that our children are smarter than us.

[Aristus]

26. Regarding the subject of the OP, re: Balkanization - I think if we actually became

the Republic of Cascadia, the Washington State portion of the republic would just be west of the Cascades. The eastern portion of the state would probably join Idaho in whatever permutation of Balkan-style state they wanted.

I just spent last weekend in Spokanistan. I couldn't believe all the Trump posters I saw...

[ismnotwasm]

67. Naw--the Olympic Pennensula is red as well

I saw a huge "Lumberjacks for Trump" sign outside of Forks...

[Igel]

59. They weren't so cut and dried in the Balkans, either.

Balkanization isn't just the breaking up of the territory by, oh, ethnicity and religion.

It's also the feuds, blood shed, ethnic cleansing, and general hatred that involves not being able to tolerate those unlike you so much that not only can you not find a compromise, you find the idea of compromising with "them people" to be morally offensive. If you can't rule over them and control them to assimilate them, the second best option is putting them in a ghetto of sorts.

Yeah. "Progressive."

[world wide wally]

4. One of our biggest problems is the lack of equality in our representation

A state like North Dakota gets a congressional representative at the rate of let's say 1 in 225,000. On the other hand, a place like New York gets one representative for like every 700,000 citizens.
And both states have two Senators.
How is this equal?

[NobodyHere]

6. It's not suppose to be equal

[world wide wally]

8. That's a shame

[former9thward]

10. No its not.

It how our country has remained stable since the end of the Civil War while so many have came to pieces.

[DanTex]

12. So you're in favor of unequal representation? Seriously?

[R.A. Ganoush]

13. That's what the House is for Dan

You may not like it, but it's an effective counter-weight and a brilliant strategy.

It's not supposed to be fair, it's supposed to work. And it's allowed this grand experiment to work for over 200 years.

YMMV of course.

[DanTex]

17. Yup, genius to under-represent people in Queens and over-represent people in Wyoming.

The same kind of genius that brought us Jim Crow.

[R.A. Ganoush]

21. How is that though when NY has more representation

In the House than Wyoming?

[DanTex]

23. Because there are more people in NY.

Wyoming has more representation than my household. Same reason. I guess it would be fun if my household got 2 senators and one representative, but it wouldn't be fair, and I wouldn't pretend that it was.

[TransitJohn]

74. This is simple arithmetic, not rocket surgery.

The number of House seats is capped at 435. Every State is guarenteed at least one Representative. Ergo, Wyoming has disproportionately large influence in the Electoral College.

[ileus]

30. Then convince the people of Wyoming they shouldn't get a say.

and see how that turns out...

[DanTex]

32. They should get a say. The same amount of say as people in Queens.

[yeoman6987]

35. Oh my.....

[cleanhippie]

48. That's nonsense. The census taken every decade determines the apportionment of congress persons.

Each congressional district is roughly the same population and gets one congressperson to represent them.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml

Each state gets two senators, regardless of population.

It's very fair.

Gerrymandering, otoh, is the problem.

[CBGLuthier]

40. Are you actually claiming that Congress works? As a concept, as a fact? Really?

Grand experiment my ass. That smacks of American Exceptionalism to me.

[R.A. Ganoush]

45. Do you have a point aside from your opinion?

Do you have a point aside from your opinion?

Any suggestions as to a better system are welcome.

[JanMichael]

47. wrong. not for 200 or 230 years. it broke in 1860ish. nt.

[MicaelS]

18. So if you get you way..

Why have Senators at all? Just have a unicameral House.

You ought to know the reason the Founders set things up the way they did. They were terrified of mob rule and what happened in Rome. And they did not want he large population centers to dominate the country.

And yes, I'm quite happy with the way things are. Seriously. I like having a bicameral system. Fix the gerrymandering problem, yes, but leave the rest alone.

[DanTex]

19. Good point. We probably shouldn't have senators at all.

We should have a proportional representation parliamentary system.

The founders were wealthy slave owners who wanted to look out for the rights of wealthy slave owners.

I'm sure a lot of them would be thrilled that low-population states with virtually no minorities get far more influence than urban states with higher AA and latino populations. What is strange is that people on a progressive message board are also happy about that.

Would you feel the same way if Queens and the Bronx had 20 times more senators per capita than Wyoming and North Dakota? Hmm.

[MicaelS]

29. Did you read what I wrote?

I like the system as is. So A BIG FAT FUCKING NO!!!! to more Senators.

No matter how many ways you ask "have you stopped beating your wife" type questions, I do not agree with you, period.

[DanTex]

31. Of course you like the system the way it is. It serves your interests.

You don't live in Queens, so what benefit would it be to you personally if people in Queens had equal representation in the government?

[cleanhippie]

49. Stop with the bs, please. Each population bloc of approx 700k people gets one representative.

Ffs, man, these are facts.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml

[DanTex]

56. Apparently you've never heard of the Senate. Figures.

[cleanhippie]

60. The senate has nothing to do with population and everything to do with State representation.

I thought you knew that. Figures.


Which makes every post where you complained about queens being under represented compared to Wyoming as asinine as it is ignorant.

[DanTex]

64. Funny that people are coming out of the gungeon to defend a system that underrepresents minorities.

Not surprising though. I'm pretty sure that if it were residents of Queens that had some 20x as many senators per capita as Wyoming, y'all wouldn't be so excited about that.

[cleanhippie]

68. Keep telling yourself that.

You have a nice day.

[world wide wally]

33. Assume you keep the Senate at 2 per state.

How does that make representation in the house fair?

And the other form of obstruction is the filibuster. It is far too easy for one single Senator to block something 59 Senators may favor by simply filling out a form.
No wonder Congress is so dysfunctional . To top it all off, their approval rating is in single digits and yet incumbents win 95% of the time.
And while we're at it, Texas gets to rewrite our history textbooks because they have a large proportion of school age children (sales = profit... Texas = Republican)

[DanTex]

9. Yup, that's a huge problem.

I worked out the math with a friend once. If NYC had the same per capita representation in the senate as Wyoming, there would be 10 senators from Brooklyn, 9 senators from Queens, 6 from Manhattan, 5 from the Bronx, and 2 from Staten Island. Total of 32.

Give or take.

I'm thinking if that were the case, the GOP would be pretty anxious to make things more equitable.

[cleanhippie]

50. Then your math is wrong.

Nothing you're saying is accurate at all.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml

[DanTex]

57. That link verifies my math. Thanks for posting!

[cleanhippie]

61. You can tell yourself whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

Facts, however, don't care how you feel.

[DanTex]

65. The fact is people in Wyoming have close to 40x as many senators per capita

as people who live in Queens. And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be too happy about it if it were the other way around.

The only reason conservatives are happy with the unequal representation is because it is favorable to conservative white people and unfavorable to minorities. It's a form of Jim Crow.

[cleanhippie]

69. Senators aren't apportioned per capita, duh!

You've gone off the rails.

[DanTex]

70. LOL. Yes, that is exactly the problem. It's unequal representation.

You think unequal representation is a good thing, and it's pretty obvious why.

[cleanhippie]

72. FFS,that's why we have the House of Representatives.

but you knew that already and have decided to spew nonsense anyway, and it's pretty obvious why.

[DanTex]

73. LOL. Wouldn't want to have too much equality, would we?

One chamber of congress where those "other people" get the same representation as good rural Christian white people is enough, right? The white aristocracy needs to cling to power somehow!

[Exilednight]

15. The reason the Senate is divided the way it is is to make sure

states with large populations do not run roughshod over states with small populations. The House is designed to give weight to those with large populations.

[maxsolomon]

39. Overrepresenting the interests of Rural states and regions is what keeps America in constant crisis

And the Senate is Exhibit A. It should be burned to the ground.

39 million Californians and 500K Wyomians get the same representation. A 78:1 ratio. Absurd.

[Exilednight]

41. And that's why you have the HOR. The number of house seats is based

on your states population.

People complain about the Senate until there is a Republican in the WH and his party is controlling the HOR.

[maxsolomon]

42. No, I complain about the Senate then, as well.

I would complain less if there were any rhyme or reason to the size of states, or PR & DC had any representation in Congress.

CA would do well to split into 3 states: N, Central, and S.

[Exilednight]

43. PR will never become a state. They don't want to pay personal income tax.

DC will not make it unless we get a filibuster proof Senate, the House and the Executive. I don't understand how DC isn't a state based on the whole no taxation without representation thing.

[Humanist_Activist]

25. On thing that should be done is the repeal of Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929...

Which fixed the number of Representatives to 435, leading to the absurdity that you are pointing out. The country has nearly tripled in population and has added 2 states since then. That means that, before factoring in population growth, the House permanently lost at least 2 representatives. All you need to do to lose representation in the House is have slightly slower population growth, that's it, in the next census, you are less represented. Its undemocratic, I believe its unconstitutional, and indefensible.

[Codeine]

7. It's all moving our direction.

For all the negative shit that's around us we really do need to acknowledge that shit is sliding inexorably our way, and has been doing so for a while now. Purple states are bluing and red states are purpling.

[former9thward]

11. What?

The GOP now holds more seats in Congress and the state legislatures than they did in the 1920s.

[LanternWaste]

14. A rational mind realizes both premises may validly exist simultaneously.

"Purple states are bluing and red states are purpling..."
"The GOP now holds more seats in Congress and the state legislatures than they did in the 1920s."

A rational mind realizes both premises may validly exist simultaneously, despite petulance for its own sake attempting to convince one otherwise.

[bluesbassman]

20. People blur the Presidency with actual governing.

The DNC made that mistake too, which led to having a R majority in the House.

As capeable as PBO was and is, he was not able to govern by himself. That's a good thing, but it also illuminated how dysfunctional and obstruction minded the GOP is at the national level. Without some serious Democratic headway made in the House and Senate, I'm HRC encountering much of the same resistance that Obama has faced.

[Codeine]

36. Demographics are demographics.

The GOP is doomed. One can only gerrymander an unrepresentative majority for so long.

We won the culture war as well. That shit is done.

[former9thward]

37. If demographics are demographics then we should be gaining seats not losing them.

That argument (which I have heard for decades) makes no sense.

[Calista241]

71. And Hillary is going to be up for reelection in 2020.

After 12 years of Dem rule, i fear the consequences if the Repubs keep control of another round of redistricting.

[upaloopa]

16. No state budget alone can pay for all we get from the federal government.

A better idea is to turn the whole country blue

[ananda]

22. Well, I wouldn't mind if my county became a state.

We don't have congressional representation here
because of gerrymandering.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

34. +1 !

[geek tragedy]

24. So, where do Iowa and North Carolina fit in?

12 years ago, Virginia and Colorado were considered part of the GOP red wall, now they're part of our blue wall.

After 2012 Iowa looked like a Blue State and NC looked like a Red state.

They're looking the opposite now.

And what the heck is the deal with Ohio?

[DanTex]

27. Good questions. I don't have the answers. But I'm sick of being held back by the GOP.

The real reason we haven't made the progress we should have in the last decades is the GOP. That's the only reason. It's obvious.

Even if (when) Hillary wins, it will be more gridlock and incremental progress. It's so obvious what we need to do. But we can't.

Yeah, I get that there are purple states. But I'm sick of getting dragged down by the red ones.

[JoePhilly]

28. No. I want it all!!

Every state.

Let them move off the grid in huts made of sticks.

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. States are not monolithic structures with every body stamped from a mold.

We already have problems with some states who do not want to extend ondivides rights equally to citzens. We would be creating a number of race or religious based try animal governments. THe states that most rely on federal funds, a majority in the south, would be third world countries. The wbole nation would fall into a depression

[baldguy]

44. Just be sure to get those nukes out of the Red states first.

[roamer65]

46. I'm not ready to give up on the republic.

[eleny]

51. No thanks

I'm in Colorado and would be ringed by right wing nut bags. It's a very scary thought.

[Cal33]

52. I think your state-by-state idea is excellent. As for those who prefer the county-by-county one,

let me say this: The heavy-population counties wouldn't be able to survive as such,
because they wouldn't have enough land for farming. They'd be forced to depend on the
low-population counties for food, water ..... etc. ..... They'd be doomed before long.

With the state-by-state option, I think eventually many, if not most, of the liberally
minded people in the red states would sooner or later move into the blue states, and
conversely, conservative people in the blue states would move over into the red ones.

It will take some time, but eventually the blue states will be prospering, and the people
living in the red ones will be going through their own self-made hell. Only then will
some of them begin to question their own values. As for the diehards, well, nothing
will help them change.

The possibility of some hungry and angry red state making war on a prosperous blue
neighbor is there, of course. And so are other more pleasant possibilities: when they
see almost all the blue states doing well, and all the red states not doing well at all,
they might begin to demand change from their big business over-lords.

[Matrosov]

53. Perhaps the South should've won

Then us dirty Yankee socialists and communists could've had ourselves a nice little progressive utopia that still would've been far more successful than that cesspool known as the CSA.

Don't believe me? Well, several metrics show that a far-left place like Denmark has higher social mobility than 'The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.'

[icymist]

54. This is one of the more dumb things I've heard being discussed here.

Primarily, you are saying that these guys died in vain. We should never let an asshole like Rrump divide this country like this.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

55. Nah. Just redraw.

[alp227]

62. Apparently Jesusland includes Communist, leftist, atheist, anti-American Hollywood too... n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

63. Yes. Like many places it would be an enclave surrounded by rightist dominionist uber-Americans.

Think Republic of Orange County and the Nixon Library writ large and all around.

All such idealistic ideas of 'balkanization' and secession and redrawing map boundaries ignore the reality that the diversity of America is much finer grained than it was in 1860.

[Martin Eden]

66. Pollution knows no boundaries

Wind blows, water flows, warming is global, resources are finite, and ecosystem destruction is irreversible.

Balkanization is capitulation, not productive experimentation. People would be punished, not helped.

[Fluke a Snooker]

75. I would split if we could make sure we keep our money

If we split the rich would move to the red states. We must make sure that before that happens, all money stays in our states.