16 ms·

I've long advocated redrawing state borders, similar to how they're shown in http://www.tjc.com/38states/ http://www.tjc.com/38states/ The main factor is that

I've long advocated redrawing state borders, similar to how they're shown in http://www.tjc.com/38states/ http://www.tjc.com/38states/ The main factor is that cities (metro areas) should not cross state boundaries, because this creates an administrative nightmare. Look at all the problems between NJ and NY because the NYC metro area includes all of northern NJ, but it has its own separate state government. There's many, many places in this nation where different parts of a state have entirely different cultures, and really shouldn't be in the same state together. "Upstate" NY and NYC are a prime example here, but so are Chicago and rural Illinois, plus maybe the Seattle and Portland areas and the eastern sides of their respective states. Maybe a lot of people would be happier with their states broken up so they don't have their local politics dominated by people hundreds of miles away who don't share their values, and would prefer to team up with similar parts of neighboring states (eastern WA and OR might want to just join Idaho for instance). themagician is correct though: there'd be little agreement on how to redraw things. My idea for dealing with that is to make it voluntary, at the county level, and proceed county-by-county at moving state lines around, or having referenda elections on larger changes (such as folding Rhode Island either into the eastern half of Connecticut, or combining both of those with Massachusetts). Combine this with an election system that allows people to make multiple choices. For instance, let a voter in Spokane WA rank the following choices in their order of preference: 1. stay in WA with Seattle, 2. Become part of a separate, independent state of eastern WA, 3. Become part of a new state that includes eastern WA and OR together, 4. Become part of a new state that includes #3 and the ID panhandle, 5. Join ID. The fundamental theme is that people in every locality should have the right of self-determination, something that politicians usually seem to sneer at. If voters in Charlotte, NC don't want to be part of that state any more, they shouldn't have to be, and if they can get the counties surrounding them to join them in creating a new state, or just merging with TN or VA, they should have that right. Of course, there are big issues of feasibility which must be considered. But a lot of break-ups wouldn't be that hard to do, such as separating NYC from upstate NY.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
What about a queer person in Eastern Oregon who wants Oregons more progressive laws, rather than living under Idahos?
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  When in Rome... If you're that out-of-step with the people around you, you'd be better off just moving, instead of trying to force everyone around you to adopt your mindset. Minorities don't have a right to force their views on the majority, though they do have a right to basic civil rights. But there's only so much change that's feasible: attitudes take generations to change, since you usually have to wait for the people with the wrong attitudes to literally die out. Also, I'm not saying that eastern Oregonians actually want to join Idaho, I don't know because I don't live in eastern OR. This is just an example. That's why I proposed a referendum with so many different choices: maybe the people there would prefer to join with eastern WA only, and not be part of ID at all. I would, however, support a tax credit (not deduction) for anyone moving because of redrawn state borders.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    Sure just give them a six figure Bay Area tech job so they can afford to move.
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      Portland doesn't cost nearly as much to live in as the Bay Area. And you do realize there's other places in the country to live, right? There's tons of moderately-progressive cities across the nation that don't cost that much. Austin is a pretty good example.
      - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
        The point being that moving is expensive in general. I recently moved back to Portland from the Bay Area for a decent paying tech job, and it still cost me an arm and a leg. A lower cost of living doesn't mean that it's cheap to move. Also people need to learn to live with minorites and give them rights. Applying radical Wilsonian determination to the US sounds very libertarian.
        11y ago
fluxquanta 11y ago
>But a lot of break-ups wouldn't be that hard to do, such as separating NYC from upstate NY. Ideologically NYC should be separate from Upstate New York -- I certainly agree as a liberal minded person living upstate. However, it's not as easy as you claim, mainly because without the millions of taxpayers in New York City upstate would crumble faster than it already is. I can only speak to the northern most counties where I grew up and still live, but most of the manufacturing industry has gone and left ghost towns and social difficulties in its wake (unemployment, crime, drug abuse). The biggest industries are healthcare, tourism, and the prisons (which host inmates almost exclusively from the city). People around here like to cling to their rural red state values and look down upon city liberals, but if all of a sudden that tax support left we would be up shit creek (the Hudson?) without a paddle.
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  Maybe, but shouldn't the people of upstate NY be allowed to make that decision for themselves? By saying "no", that basically sounds like authoritarianism, that 20M people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves what their governance should look like, rightly or wrongly. Finally, I'm not an upstate NYer, but it's not just some rural area; there's multiple good-sized cities there, including Buffalo, Rochester, and Albany. There's also a lot of farming there; where do you think NYC gets its food? I live down in Virginia now but I frequently get milk from NY. Finally, I think more rural areas might be happier joining forces with other such areas. Perhaps upstate NY would like to join with Vermont, or with part of northern Pennsylvania (including Erie). (Actually, I'm thinking VT, NH, and most of Maine except the part near Boston would be better off joining into a single state, and also taking the eastern sliver of NYS that borders VT.) People aren't going to change their values if they have someone else's values forced on them from outside; they have to realize their values aren't working and change them willingly. It's just like how Christianity was suppressed in Russia by the Soviets, and then had a huge resurgence after the USSR fell, and now the Russian Orthodox church is a huge force in Russia today. People in these regions are going to cling to their values even more strongly as long as people in the cities force legislation on them that they don't agree with. The answer is to leave them to their own devices and let them fail by themselves.
seanalltogether 11y ago
I wonder what reason the professor gave for splitting up Alaska into 2 states. The new state Seward would probably have something like 50,000 people or less in it.
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  Yeah, that one doesn't make much sense to me, and seems to go against the goal of equalizing population between states. I guess they thought it had too much land area, but still with so little population, and so little arable land out of that much land, it makes more sense to just leave it a single state. Most of the land in the northern half is just unusable tundra.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

What about a queer person in Eastern Oregon who wants Oregons more progressive laws, rather than living under Idahos?

Grishnakh 11y ago
When in Rome... If you're that out-of-step with the people around you, you'd be better off just moving, instead of trying to force everyone around you to adopt your mindset. Minorities don't have a right to force their views on the majority, though they do have a right to basic civil rights. But there's only so much change that's feasible: attitudes take generations to change, since you usually have to wait for the people with the wrong attitudes to literally die out. Also, I'm not saying that eastern Oregonians actually want to join Idaho, I don't know because I don't live in eastern OR. This is just an example. That's why I proposed a referendum with so many different choices: maybe the people there would prefer to join with eastern WA only, and not be part of ID at all. I would, however, support a tax credit (not deduction) for anyone moving because of redrawn state borders.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  Sure just give them a six figure Bay Area tech job so they can afford to move.
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    Portland doesn't cost nearly as much to live in as the Bay Area. And you do realize there's other places in the country to live, right? There's tons of moderately-progressive cities across the nation that don't cost that much. Austin is a pretty good example.
    - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
      The point being that moving is expensive in general. I recently moved back to Portland from the Bay Area for a decent paying tech job, and it still cost me an arm and a leg. A lower cost of living doesn't mean that it's cheap to move. Also people need to learn to live with minorites and give them rights. Applying radical Wilsonian determination to the US sounds very libertarian.
      - 11y ago

fluxquanta 11y ago

>But a lot of break-ups wouldn't be that hard to do, such as separating NYC from upstate NY. Ideologically NYC should be separate from Upstate New York -- I certainly agree as a liberal minded person living upstate. However, it's not as easy as you claim, mainly because without the millions of taxpayers in New York City upstate would crumble faster than it already is. I can only speak to the northern most counties where I grew up and still live, but most of the manufacturing industry has gone and left ghost towns and social difficulties in its wake (unemployment, crime, drug abuse). The biggest industries are healthcare, tourism, and the prisons (which host inmates almost exclusively from the city). People around here like to cling to their rural red state values and look down upon city liberals, but if all of a sudden that tax support left we would be up shit creek (the Hudson?) without a paddle.

Grishnakh 11y ago
Maybe, but shouldn't the people of upstate NY be allowed to make that decision for themselves? By saying "no", that basically sounds like authoritarianism, that 20M people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves what their governance should look like, rightly or wrongly. Finally, I'm not an upstate NYer, but it's not just some rural area; there's multiple good-sized cities there, including Buffalo, Rochester, and Albany. There's also a lot of farming there; where do you think NYC gets its food? I live down in Virginia now but I frequently get milk from NY. Finally, I think more rural areas might be happier joining forces with other such areas. Perhaps upstate NY would like to join with Vermont, or with part of northern Pennsylvania (including Erie). (Actually, I'm thinking VT, NH, and most of Maine except the part near Boston would be better off joining into a single state, and also taking the eastern sliver of NYS that borders VT.) People aren't going to change their values if they have someone else's values forced on them from outside; they have to realize their values aren't working and change them willingly. It's just like how Christianity was suppressed in Russia by the Soviets, and then had a huge resurgence after the USSR fell, and now the Russian Orthodox church is a huge force in Russia today. People in these regions are going to cling to their values even more strongly as long as people in the cities force legislation on them that they don't agree with. The answer is to leave them to their own devices and let them fail by themselves.

seanalltogether 11y ago

I wonder what reason the professor gave for splitting up Alaska into 2 states. The new state Seward would probably have something like 50,000 people or less in it.

Grishnakh 11y ago
Yeah, that one doesn't make much sense to me, and seems to go against the goal of equalizing population between states. I guess they thought it had too much land area, but still with so little population, and so little arable land out of that much land, it makes more sense to just leave it a single state. Most of the land in the northern half is just unusable tundra.