CSNbbs

Thought that would get your attention, but no, this is not a replay of the Civil War.

This is about counties changing from one state where they are dominated to another state that is friendlier to them, following a legal process.

Rural Oregon

Not sure if I like this - seems it would increase polarization. Next thing you know, upstate New York and downstate Illinois are also on the run. Maybe the Rio Grande strip would join New Mexico. On the other hand, it is also huddled masses yearning to be free - of being a minority in a red or blue state.

The Greater Idaho map is interesting. Idaho as a coastal state?

meh

I'd like to find a way to model the outcomes of this somehow to see what would happen from this proposed transformation.

I have to imagine there are a million little things that no one thinks about that could be positive or negative.

I've thought things like this make some sense for large population states like California, Texas, and Florida, as it would help even out some of the current population imbalances in the Senate. And by lumping Texas and Florida in as possibilities, I think it could be done in a way that isn't meant to upset the balance of power in Washington DC, but rather is meant to increase the responsiveness and capacity of state and local governments to reflect their electorate, while also increasing representation in the Senate.

But I think it makes zero sense for something like this in a less populous state like Oregon. Just move to Idaho. There are millions of democrats in the South and no one is talking about Atlanta, New Orleans, or Houston forming their own states or merging with neighboring states or anything else.

Reminds me of this:

For More Than 150 Years, Texas Has Had the Power to Secede…From Itself
A quirk of a 19th-century Congressional resolution could allow Texas to split up into five states

(02-19-2020 10:59 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]. There are millions of democrats in the South and no one is talking about Atlanta, New Orleans, or Houston forming their own states or merging with neighboring states or anything else.

This is about rural areas merging with neighboring states, not the large population centers that already have power and control.

To copypasta myself elsewhere:




I watched a high level long format discussion with Jordan Peterson and Rex Murphy and Rex asks Jordan about the stability and polarization of the US. To my surprise he said he didn't think it was that polarized, and his evidence was things were way nastier under Nixon. A quick reading of the history of Kent State suggests that's a credible claim. That's before my time so I have no context on that.















These maps, to me, yield these rough divisions:

(02-19-2020 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 10:59 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]. There are millions of democrats in the South and no one is talking about Atlanta, New Orleans, or Houston forming their own states or merging with neighboring states or anything else.

This is about rural areas merging with neighboring states, not the large population centers that already have power and control.

If you think large populations centers already have power and control, I would like to introduce you to the state of Texas.

(02-19-2020 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 10:59 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]. There are millions of democrats in the South and no one is talking about Atlanta, New Orleans, or Houston forming their own states or merging with neighboring states or anything else.

This is about rural areas merging with neighboring states, not the large population centers that already have power and control.

If you think large populations centers already have power and control, I would like to introduce you to the state of Texas.

I'd like to introduce the state of Texas to I-95 from NoVA to Boston and I-5 from San Diego to LA to San Francisco to Portland to Seattle.

I don't like the polarization implied. I think we need to have vocal political minorities in each state. There can be change if they are there, no change if they are gone.

In Texas in my youth, everything was blue. If you won the Democratic primary in May, you were considered elected in November. But the minority keep working at it, and eventually they got their chance when LBJ was elected VP and had to vacate his Senate seat. John Tower won the special election, and became the first Republican to hold an office in Texas that high since...Reconstruction? But now Texas has continued to evolve, and is now a Red state. I think this kind of evolution of political will would be impossible if we all reconfigured into states that were 80% one color.

I understand the frustration of the rural Oregonians or the Northern Californians. I am just not sure this is a good reason to redraw state lines. I will be watching this with interest, and may at some point change my mind or modify my stance.

(02-19-2020 11:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 10:59 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]. There are millions of democrats in the South and no one is talking about Atlanta, New Orleans, or Houston forming their own states or merging with neighboring states or anything else.

This is about rural areas merging with neighboring states, not the large population centers that already have power and control.

If you think large populations centers already have power and control, I would like to introduce you to the state of Texas.

I'd like to introduce the state of Texas to I-95 from NoVA to Boston and I-5 from San Diego to LA to San Francisco to Portland to Seattle.

No doubt that some large, population centers drive power and control - wasn't questioning that. But it is not a rule - plenty of states have situations where the large population centers do not dominate the politics of the state - Texas being one.

(02-19-2020 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 10:59 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]. There are millions of democrats in the South and no one is talking about Atlanta, New Orleans, or Houston forming their own states or merging with neighboring states or anything else.

This is about rural areas merging with neighboring states, not the large population centers that already have power and control.

If you think large populations centers already have power and control, I would like to introduce you to the state of Texas.

Apparently you think Brewster County is the Power.

But go ahead and make your case that rural countries crack the whip over the big cities.

(02-19-2020 11:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]To copypasta myself elsewhere:




I watched a high level long format discussion with Jordan Peterson and Rex Murphy and Rex asks Jordan about the stability and polarization of the US. To my surprise he said he didn't think it was that polarized, and his evidence was things were way nastier under Nixon. A quick reading of the history of Kent State suggests that's a credible claim. That's before my time so I have no context on that.















These maps, to me, yield these rough divisions:

FIFY (in the attachment)

(02-19-2020 10:59 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I've thought things like this make some sense for large population states like California, Texas, and Florida, as it would help even out some of the current population imbalances in the Senate. And by lumping Texas and Florida in as possibilities, I think it could be done in a way that isn't meant to upset the balance of power in Washington DC, but rather is meant to increase the responsiveness and capacity of state and local governments to reflect their electorate, while also increasing representation in the Senate.

But I think it makes zero sense for something like this in a less populous state like Oregon. Just move to Idaho. There are millions of democrats in the South and no one is talking about Atlanta, New Orleans, or Houston forming their own states or merging with neighboring states or anything else.

Your sentence there just hit a thought in history: looking at the rift that led to the Southern Secession and the war, the thing that was the most exacerbating was the Missouri Compromise. And the rationale behind the Compromise was? A last ditch effort to maintain and not upset the balance of power in the Federal system.

Not a critique of the option you note, as a believer in the role of the States in the system, I actually like it. But more and more I hear the rationale that is bolded above --- kind of ominous the consistency that is used when noted in the context not just of the history of the antebellum United States, but in the histories of many systems of state that ripped themselves apart at some point trying to do just that.

(02-19-2020 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 10:59 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]. There are millions of democrats in the South and no one is talking about Atlanta, New Orleans, or Houston forming their own states or merging with neighboring states or anything else.

This is about rural areas merging with neighboring states, not the large population centers that already have power and control.

If you think large populations centers already have power and control, I would like to introduce you to the state of Texas.

Apparently you think Brewster County is the Power.

But go ahead and make your case that rural countries crack the whip over the big cities.

In Texas, all of the major cities are blue - Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. (just look at the map GeorgiaTech posted), yet we have all Republicans in statewide positions and Republicans control the state legislature.

Sure, a singular rural county doesn't hold power, but I wouldn't start to describe Texas as being controlled by its large, urban areas.

(02-19-2020 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 10:59 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]. There are millions of democrats in the South and no one is talking about Atlanta, New Orleans, or Houston forming their own states or merging with neighboring states or anything else.

This is about rural areas merging with neighboring states, not the large population centers that already have power and control.

If you think large populations centers already have power and control, I would like to introduce you to the state of Texas.

Apparently you think Brewster County is the Power.

But go ahead and make your case that rural countries crack the whip over the big cities.

In Texas, all of the major cities are blue - Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. (just look at the map GeorgiaTech posted), yet we have all Republicans in statewide positions and Republicans control the state legislature.

Sure, a singular rural county doesn't hold power, but I wouldn't start to describe Texas as being controlled by its large, urban areas.

A lot of Republicans in the legislature come from urban districts.

But overall, big city politicians have more clout than those from small rural areas. If nothing else, there are more of them.

So, if the big city politicians don't run texas, who does?

(02-19-2020 12:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]This is about rural areas merging with neighboring states, not the large population centers that already have power and control.

If you think large populations centers already have power and control, I would like to introduce you to the state of Texas.

Apparently you think Brewster County is the Power.

But go ahead and make your case that rural countries crack the whip over the big cities.

In Texas, all of the major cities are blue - Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. (just look at the map GeorgiaTech posted), yet we have all Republicans in statewide positions and Republicans control the state legislature.

Sure, a singular rural county doesn't hold power, but I wouldn't start to describe Texas as being controlled by its large, urban areas.

A lot of Republicans in the legislature come from urban districts.

But overall, big city politicians have more clout than those from small rural areas. If nothing else, there are more of them.

So, if the big city politicians don't run texas, who does?

This is a very silly argument we're having. You win - big cities control everything!

(02-19-2020 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]In Texas, all of the major cities are blue - Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. (just look at the map GeorgiaTech posted), yet we have all Republicans in statewide positions and Republicans control the state legislature.
Sure, a singular rural county doesn't hold power, but I wouldn't start to describe Texas as being controlled by its large, urban areas.

But they don't seem to be as blue as the red areas are red. Montgomery County went roughly 75% for Trump in 2016 and 75% for Cruz in 2018. I don't think Harris, Travis, Dallas, or Bexar Counties are that lopsidedly blue. Maybe Travis and Bexar more than the others, and in the 2018 cycle Dallas was surprisingly blue. But the Texas cities tend to be light blue, and the rural counties dark red. In the cities you have a mix of people who vote blue and people who moved in from rural Texas and still vote red. In the rural areas, you have that second group, only they haven't moved yet.

(02-19-2020 01:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2020 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]In Texas, all of the major cities are blue - Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. (just look at the map GeorgiaTech posted), yet we have all Republicans in statewide positions and Republicans control the state legislature.
Sure, a singular rural county doesn't hold power, but I wouldn't start to describe Texas as being controlled by its large, urban areas.

But they don't seem to be as blue as the red areas are red. Montgomery County went roughly 75% for Trump in 2016 and 75% for Cruz in 2018. I don't think Harris, Travis, Dallas, or Bexar Counties are that lopsidedly blue. Maybe Travis and Bexar more than the others, and in the 2018 cycle Dallas was surprisingly blue. But the Texas cities tend to be light blue, and the rural counties dark red. In the cities you have a mix of people who vote blue and people who moved in from rural Texas and still vote red. In the rural areas, you have that second group, only they haven't moved yet.

Man, I leave Texas for two months, and apparently Austin, Houston, and San Antonio are now running the show and calling all the shots.

(02-19-2020 12:04 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]FIFY (in the attachment)

I tried to keep borders as reasonable as possible. Some of your blue areas are blue but a desolate barely populated slice of blue surrounded and deeply outnumbered by red. It would be like trying to carve out the wealthy northern suburbs of Los Angeles as red. Your map may fit preferences better but that's irrelevant if it's impossible or wildly impractical to be enforceable. The borders on the Pacific are either already established or easily helped by geography via the Cascades etc.