Women's March

[Okeefenokee]

Someone doesn't know that the articles were illegally replaced.

[jbird4049]

The states should be nothing more than an administrative division.

Ewwwwwww.

I agree with Kath here.

There are real reasons for how the Founders set up our Constitution. One might not agree with the structure, but it wasn't to annoy their descendants.

Just as the original colonies became the original countries with all the parts a country has including embassies, an army, a navy, its own currency, etc. The original States agreed to being united only if they could retain much of their independence and powers. American states can, and some do in addition to the National Guard, its own military including an air force and navy. I think they could even pull their units that are part of the Guard, but they then would lose all that sweet Federal funding of their units.

Really, our Country is vast jigsaw with disparate parts, and trying to run it as if it was one State would be crazy. What kind of state would you run it like? Texas? California? New York? Maine? Florida? Alabama? Each of those States are completely different, and it's only by using such parts like the Electoral College that usually allows the majority to have a majority of the political control without overwhelming the various minority's their rights, or all their influence, be they groups, or States.

This ends the lecture.

[jbird4049]

Like I said, I see both sides. We are the United States, not the United People.

If we weren't about the states being united, we'd just nationally elect 100 senators and 434 reps.

The peeps tell their state how they want to vote. It's always been that way.

(Again, I'm just taking the opposition side. I can argue your side, too. I just don't think the answer is easy.)

We became the United People as soon as the Articles of Confederation were killed for the Constitution. The Civil War tested that and proved that the Federal Government is supreme and the states are not allowed to be "states" in the classic sense of the word. The states should be nothing more than an administrative division.

It didn't help States' Rights when the Confederacy used the continued owning of human beings as the
casus belli, and wanted to spread that Peculiar Institution even if it meant conquering other countries to do so.

So yeah, American States should be allowed to leave, but some fools used the wrong justification. Kinda like bad cases make bad laws. Even believing in the States' right to do what they want, if I were magically transported to back then, I'd be for the Union because of the greater evil of slavery.

[Ex-California]

The States can't leave. Even if Texas or California voted to secede the Federal government would not allow it. I'm being pragmatic here.

Every other large country in the world runs just fine as one large entity. If we would have continued this "group of tiny countries" bullshit throughout the late 19th and 20th Century the US would have never turned into the global hegemony that it is today. The power of the United States lies in the Federal government, and any thought that it is still a bunch of balkanized countries is balderdash.

And what state would the country be run like? It would be run like the United States is now. Not CA, not TX, not NY. No one would even notice to tell you the truth

[Ex-California]

Someone doesn't know that the articles were illegally replaced.

So what if they were? That's ancient history and honestly the best thing the Founders ever did.

If we would have remained under the articles we'd be a weak hodgepodge of separate countries with similar demographics and cultures like South America

[Zlaxer]

Times change.....I would be fine with letting CA go....the State is dying......that will become very apparent as the Boomers retire and get the fuck out of dodge....most tech workers will be replaced by cheap H1B workers....you're state has nothing for the middle class.

[adwinistrator]

Thought experiment:

There is a major natural disaster in one of the 10 highest electoral vote states. Half of that state's population moves to other states. Should the electoral votes be rebalanced? Why, or why not.

[Xenophon]

Why even do that? Get rid of another layer and go 1 citizen = 1 vote

It seems you're willfully blind to the fact that there are competing interests between rural and urban areas. Are the rural areas not deserving of equal representation?

Having rural votes count for more than urban votes by default unequal representation.

Equal representation can only be achieved by one vote per citizen.

Whenever this argument comes up, everyone forgets that nowhere, especially cities is some monolithic bloc. Even here Clinton only got 61% of the votes.

How do you figure that rural votes count more?

[Zlaxer]

Thought experiment:

There is a major natural disaster in one of the 10 highest electoral vote states. Half of that state's population moves to other states. Should the electoral votes be rebalanced? Why, or why not.

How are electoral votes calculated now?

[Okeefenokee]

The States can't leave. Even if Texas or California voted to secede the Federal government would not allow it. I'm being pragmatic here.

Every other large country in the world runs just fine as one large entity. If we would have continued this "group of tiny countries" bullshit throughout the late 19th and 20th Century the US would have never turned into the global hegemony that it is today. The power of the United States lies in the Federal government, and any thought that it is still a bunch of balkanized countries is balderdash.

And what state would the country be run like? It would be run like the United States is now. Not CA, not TX, not NY. No one would even notice to tell you the truth

Sounds like Californians don't really have much of an identity. Stop trying to force that on the rest of us.