USA3X 2050 - a no-fault divorce

[LVZ]

USA3X 2050 - one solution to a hopelessly divided nation - 6 step rehab program

http://www.gooplusplus.com/">

"Whenever something is wrong, something is too big." --- Leopold Kohr

[Canuckistanian]

1. This is another one of those "managed secession" theories, no?

And done by the year 2050?

[LVZ]

2. theory? not exactly - more like a concept for regional evolution. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

Whose concept?

Other than your post, I can't find any other info on it.

[LVZ]

6. 2008 City-Data thread ...

http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections/459875-divided-states-america-3.html

[LVZ]

12. Czechoslovakia's peaceful Velvet Divorce

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-velvet-divorce.htm

The Velvet Divorce is the name given to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia into two separate countries, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which went into effect on 1 January 1993. The name Velvet Divorce references the Velvet Revolution of 1989, which led to the end of Communist rule in Czechoslovakia.

Velvet in both instances points to the peacefulness of the events, in contrast to the violent revolutions and secessions elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. Throughout its history, Czechoslovakia had suffered from a cultural clash between the Czech and Slovak populations, and the Velvet Divorce was a peaceful transition into two independent countries.

[hayu_lol]

5. I can see the practicality of CA,OR, and WA joining and perhaps...

associating in some ways with Canada. That might work.

[Angleae]

13. If the country breaks up, WA & OR will not join with CA.

WA+OR together maybe, but defeinately not with CA. There is no way WA & OR will let themselves be put under CA rule.

[LVZ]

14. So what would they do? Join the red states? Go it alone?

In our hypothetical 3-way split, let's call the western nation Pacifica.

Currently, California has 37 million people. The other Pacifica states, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Alaska, and Hawaii have about 32 million. With population trends, it is likely that the non-California states would have equal or greater population than California in the future.

However, since California is clearly the biggest player, any new nation would likely incorporate protections that prevent excessive influence of any single state. Mostly likely the capital city would be located outside of California, quite likely in Oregon.

Combined, Washington and Oregon, at only 11 million combined population, are unlikely to stand on their own and I doubt that Canada would want to get involved by offering to annex them. But who knows?

What I cannot see is Washington or Oregon staying with the red states where they have little in common.

[Angleae]

16. Do you really think NV, AZ, AK, & UT would join CA?

Rather than stay with the rest of the red states. That leaves CA (33.8mil), OR (3.4m), WA (5.9m), CO (4.3m), NM (1.8m), HI (1.2m). CA has 2/3 of the population and would get 2/3 of the votes in the govt.

[LVZ]

19. Your population figures are out-of-date and growing more so and "yes".

Pacifica states:

Washington 6.6 million
Oregon 3.8 million
Nevada 2.6 million
Arizona 6.6 million
New Mexico 2 million
Colorado 5 million
Utah 2.8 million
Alaska 0.7 million
Hawaii 1.3 million
California 37 million

non-California states (2009): 32 million

Given population trends in the West, by the time any voluntary split takes place, the non-California states would equal or exceed California's population, putting those states on equal footing with California. Since California would be the biggest player, I am sure that safeguards would be put in place acceptable to both California and the other Pacifica states. It is also quite possible that California itself would choose to split into two states.

In any case, progressive democratic regional rule would be far preferable to the current situation where distant regressive "red states" (mostly the South and prairie states) have de facto control of public policy, resource distribution, health care and economic systems, regulation and oversight, etc.

Regional and economic ties are already strong in the Pacifica states, even Utah. Having grown up in Utah, I can assure you that both ordinary Utah citizens and public officials would place economic, cultural and religious ties to Nevada and California well ahead of any political leanings to more conservative states. The same practicality would apply to Alaska regarding Pacific coast states.

[LVZ]

21. Divided States of America

I think we have to accept the fact that the US will be divided, especially since 20% is supposedly Evangelical Christian, a GOP base. --minibrings

We do unless we start seriously considering alternatives. Years ago it used to be shameful for individuals to get divorced. So, many couples stayed in miserable relationships that were destructive to both sides and often to children.

And while among individuals divorce should still not be a first option, there comes a time when we must be adult enough to recognize that people (and nations) can grow apart and one should be mature and objective enough to do what is best for all concerned, whether that is "to work it out" or to peaceably go our separate ways.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia decide to peacefully separate into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. That decision has been good for both sides. Divisions within the USA are far deeper and more fundamental than between these two European nations.

It is time that the USA have the courage that our founding fathers did in seceding from the British Empire. IMO, it would be best for the USA to divide into more cohesive nations more representative of its citizens. Unlike the American secession from the British Empire, there is no reason that it cannot be done voluntarily and peacefully.

After 200 years, the USA is no longer "united" and has not been for a long time. It is long overdue that we, as a nation, seriously consider a no-fault divorce as the best option for ourselves and our children.

Undoubtedly, if peaceful division occurred, the separated nations would still have close ties economically and culturally, just as the USA and Canada have. As in the European Union, free movement of citizens from one separate nation to another would likely remain available.

Societal and governmental competition between nations would be a positive thing likely to force politicians of each new nation to "do the right thing" in order to avoid out-migration to what may be considered a superior society in another American nation. More choices should lead to better governments.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections/459875-divided-states-america-congress-democrats-republican-3.html

[DonCoquixote]

3. Florida ruins that

As for all of the red, we do have a lot of Blue

[LVZ]

20. It is not all about politics - regional and economic ties will often trump politics.

In a voluntary split, I would expect some migration to the other two nations. Residents voting with their feet would likely put pressure on each new nation to reform its ways, to avoid further exodus, specifically, a brain-drain affecting a nation's long-term economic condition. Competition and fear of failure could yield good lessons and incentives toward better governance for each new nation.

[NuclearDem]

4. And I don't see how Iowa could be in one country and Nebraska in the other

[XemaSab]

7. Not to mention splitting north and south carolina AND north and south dakota

:shrug:

[Tunkamerica]

8. North and South Carolina aren't all that close. (spiritually, not geographically speaking)

[XemaSab]

9. I would think North Carolina would be a better match with the south

than with the northeast.

[LVZ]

10. North Carolina demographics have changed a lot - more high tech - less like the deep south. n/t

[Tunkamerica]

15. I'm assuming you're an expert on NC. Or at least the south.

Otherwise that would be ... uninformed.

[XemaSab]

17. I'm totally not an expert

Aside from three months spent in the Carolinas working on a project, I know nothing about them. :P

[LVZ]

18. Research Triangle Park is the largest research park in the United States.

It is one of the most prominent high-tech research and development centers in the United States and is comparable to the more widely recognized Silicon Valley. It was created in 1959 by state and local governments, nearby universities, and local business interests. Karl Robbins bought the land where the park is now built. The park is 7,000 acres (2,833 ha) situated in a pine forest with approximately 630 acres (255 ha) for development. The park is an unincorporated area, and state law prohibits municipalities from annexing areas within the park.<2>

As of 2007, the park included over 130 R&D facilities, with more than 39,000 employees working for a total of 157 organizations. The park is adjacent to Interstate 40 and the Durham Freeway. It is managed by the Research Triangle Foundation, a private non-profit organization.

The park is home to the largest IBM operation in the world; the company has around 11,000 employees in RTP. The park hosts one of GlaxoSmithKline's largest R&D centers with approximately 5,000 employees.

Companies and institutions in or near the Research Triangle Park

* American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC)
* ABB
* AF & Associates, Inc.
* AT&T
* Audio Advice, Inc.
* AudioCodes
* Aviat Networks
* BASF
* Bayer
* BE&K
* Becton Dickinson
* Bekaert
* Biogen Idec
* Biomedomics
* BioResource International
* Böwe Bell & Howell
* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
* ChannelAdvisor
* Cisco Systems
* Coleman Insights
* Credit Suisse
* Cree Inc.
* Diosynth
* DunnWell, LLC
* DuPont
* DynCorp
* Eisai Co.
* EMC
* Environmental Protection Agency
* Extreme Networks
* Family Health International
* Fidelity Investments
* General Electric
* Geotek Mapping
* GlaxoSmithKline
* Hatteras Networks
* International Business Machines (IBM)
* ICF International
* iContact
* International Society of Automation (ISA)
* Integrated Laboratory Systems
* International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
* Intersil
* Intersouth Ventures
* Kendle International
* K&L Gates
* LabCorp
* Lenovo
* MED-EL Corporation
* Merck & Co.
* Microsoft
* Monsanto Company
* Motricity
* National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
* National Humanities Center
* National Semiconductor
* NetApp
* Nortel Networks
* North Carolina Biotechnology Center
* Nufarm
* Ogilvy
* Overture Networks
* PBM Graphics
* Pharmaceutical Product Development
* Premier Research Group
* Qualcomm
* Quintiles
* RadarFind Corporation
* Red Hat
* Research Triangle Institute
* ReverbNation.com
* RTI International
* S&R Communications Group
* SAS Institute
* Scenera Research
* Semiconductor Research Corporation
* Sigma Xi
* Sony Ericsson
* Southern Capitol Ventures
* Spirent Communications
* ST Ericsson
* Sumitomo
* Syngenta
* Talecris Biotherapeutics
* Teleflex Medical
* Tekelec
* TechZoomIn Inc
* Triangle United Way
* Troxler Electronic Laboratories
* Underwriters Laboratories
* United States Forest Service
* United Therapeutics Corporation
* Unithink Inc
* Verizon
* Virante
* Web Tax Office
* Wyeth

[Tunkamerica]

23. According to a new survey and a “brainpower index,” Durham is the fourth smartest city in the nation

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/10490545/article-The-fourth-smartest-city-in-the-nation-?instance=main_article

[JoePhilly]

25. I'm in Wake County NC ... and we go to SC from time to time ...

And my view is the two states are like different countries in many ways.

As some one mentioned, the RTP area is a huge research zone ... nothing like it in SC.
The University system in NC is vastly superior to that of SC.
The cities of NC, Raleigh, Charlotte, even the Greensboro / Winston Salem areas ... significantly different from SC cities.

Religiously, both states are heavily Christian, but from my experience, NC is more diverse, in that the Evangelical Baptist influence isn't as dominant as what I find in SC. NC certainly has plenty of Evangelicals, but it also seems to have more of a "moderate Methodist" flavor, and from what I can tell, more Catholics (which might reflect migration of Northern folks to NC).

Economically, I don't think the ties are very close. NC has lots of financial companies in Charlotte, high tech and biotech. At one time tobacco was a major connection I suppose, but that doesn't seem as fundamental anymore. Tobacco usage also seems to split. SC is far more smoker friendly than much of NC. That's something I notice every time we go there ... in almost every gas station you go into, the place is filled with smoke. So if you don;t smoke, but you go in, you come out and smell like smoke for the next 45 minutes. There are some places we won't stop because you can literally smell the smoke from 50 yards away.

There probably are some points of connection. The beaches and tourism ...

With this said, I think NC could join the north earlier in the progression that it does.

[LVZ]

11. Iowa and North Dakota, in a voluntary split ...

While Nebraska and Iowa may conjure up similar images to many Americans, much of central and eastern Iowa are more like neighboring Illinois and Wisconsin than Nebraska. Iowa has been a light blue state for many years. Except for border city Omaha, Nebraska is a very red state and has been since I can remember.

Similarly, North Dakota shares the same "Dakota" name with South Dakota but North Dakota's overall demographic trends and economic ties are moving it closer to neighboring Minnesota.

In a voluntary split, based on politics, regional ties, and economic ties, I am fairly certain that Iowa would choose to be with its Illinois and Wisconsin neighbors. I think it is also likely that North Dakota would do likewise, although it may be one of the last to join (step 6).

The center of power in the "red" southern + prairie states would likely be in Texas. If you were a citizen of Iowa or North Dakota, would you choose to be subject to the policy whims of Texas (or another southern state) or the more democratic industrial states of the northeast and midwest?

[elehhhhna]

22. Most of the oil & gas producing land & coast is all in that one one "state". Gonna be

a loooooooooooooooooong civil war, dude.

[LVZ]

24. Huh? Which state do you imagine that to be? Both oil and gas deposits are widespread in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil-producing_states#North_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

Offshore and oil-shale potential is even more broadly spread.

The more progressive Pacifica and New American Republic (East/Midwest) nations would likely trade freely with each other. The "red states" would probably find that to be a good policy too, since they are less economically developed than the other two nations.

[elehhhhna]

26. I have a clue about US O&G and the Red has the advantage.

Including the human capital (knowledge workers) and have I mentioned port, pipeline and storage capacity? And a foreign border that serves overland import/export?

[LVZ]

27. Red states have most, Pacifica a lot, the upper midwest/northeast not much oil, abundant natural gas

Natural Gas deposits

BTW, California and Alaska have current combined oil production greater than Texas with even greater longer term potential. Your concern about oil also assumes that the demand for new alternate energy sources does not render oil to be "yesterday's news" by the time a hypothetical USA3X nation split takes place. Furthermore, your concern also assumes that Pacifica, the northeast American states, and Canada (with surplus oil supplies) would not be cooperative with each other.

Oil Production

[elehhhhna]

28. The shale plays in the NE , etc., must be frac'd in order to extract the nat. gas.

The tar sands in Canada are messy and difficult to exploit. Bottom line: not easy. Not clean. And certainly not cheap.

Oil & gas will be a primary source of energy, at least in the U.S., for the remainder of our lives, LVZ. Whether we LIKE it, or not. You see, the the consistent, widespread delivery of oil & gas alternatives is simply not an easy puzzle to solve. There are many practical problems to be solved.

I'm not the self-appointed defender of O&G. I'm just a pragmatic realist.