Would you vote to have Chicago secede? (Springfield, Champaign: bankrupt, universities)

[frimpter928]

Originally Posted by Chicago_Person

So it's not arrogant when some downstate republican talks smack about Chicago, but once a Chicagoan says the opposite it's arrogance. Gotcha

Look at any facebook news post that involves a shooting.

Bunch of non Chicagoan Illinois/Indiana people talking about gun bans not working, Chicago sucks, Chicago this Chicago that.

Yup. There was reporter in Rockford who wrote about if Chicago left the state, and kept referring to Chicago as a cesspool, and Illinois would be better off without a cesspool like Chicago.

That's right, because Rockford is just a glorious, dynamic, and bustling city that contributes so much to the Illinois economy.

[Chicagoland60426]

Chicagoland would just become another compacted state like New Jersey, except geographically smaller and even more compacted. That may serve as problematic because there isn't a whole lot of farmland within the borders of the 6 or 7-county Chicago region. Without cornfields and the like, then Chicago would have to rely on Illinois anyway for natural resources.

If secession ever occurs, then the rest of Illinois will become envious of the next best thing or liberal enclave- Champaign-Urbana maybe. Probably even Des Moine gets some hate from the rest of Iowa. It's like the law of being the biggest fish in the pond.

[DavePa]

I as a outsider yet still feel like a Chicagoan. But never even went south of Chicagoland when I lived there 6-years. As it was always north to Wisconsin.

Given some in Southern Illinois. Want to vote on a kick-out Chicagoland, from the true state which is south of it to them.

Just as the whole Northern portion was original Wisconsin territory anyway. Before either became states. It's the whole Northern section that they can vote to break away from again. Originally, the northern portion was much less populated also. That was to change greatly as the decades went by and a GREAT city rose in this Northern extension taken from Wisconsin.

Of course it would have no power to be real. Just as when Northern Illinois DID VOTE TO SUCEED in the 1840's and to Succeed won..... it just had no real power or authority to occur then ..... or probably now.

I do think those of the rest of Illinois who actually visit Chicago? Do gain a new appreciation that their state HAS A US MAJOR CITY that contributes to the Nation and Globally too. But to many ..... it's purely political with a bit of the racial card always between the lines.

This division is nothing new. It was a unfavorable union of adding Northern Illinois taken from Wisconsin territory ...... from the start and again, the 1840s to succeed vote of this Northern portion proves it.

[Sunbiz1]

Please do, as any scenario leaves Madigan; and his 12,500 voters ruining the entire state...
out in the cold.

[frimpter928]

Originally Posted by DavePa

I as a outsider yet still feel like a Chicagoan. But never even went south of Chicagoland when I lived there 6-years. As it was always north to Wisconsin.

Given some in Southern Illinois. Want to vote on a kick-out Chicagoland, from the true state which is south of it to them.

Just as the whole Northern portion was original Wisconsin territory anyway. Before either became states. It's the whole Northern section that they can vote to break away from again.

Of course it would have no power to be real. Just as when Northern Illinois DID VOTE TO SUCEED in the 1840's and to Succeed won..... it just had no real power or authority to occur then ..... or probably now.

I do think those of the rest of Illinois who actually visit Chicago? Do gain a new appreciation that their state HAS A US MAJOR CITY that contributes to the Nation and Globally too. But to many ..... it's purely political with a bit of the racial card always between the lines.

This division is nothing new. It was a unfavorable union of adding Northern Illinois taken from Wisconsin territory ...... from the start and again, the 1840s to succeed vote of this Northern portion proves it.

Culturally Chicago really does belong to Wisconsin and Michigan. After UIUC I feel like the next big state school that Chicagoans go to is UW-Madison.

[MSchemist80]

Illinois would be a much better run state without the corrupt trash put out by the Chicago Democratic Party.

[frimpter928]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

Illinois would be a much better run state without the corrupt trash put out by the Chicago Democratic Party.

Biased much?

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by frimpter928

Culturally Chicago really does belong to Wisconsin and Michigan. After UIUC I feel like the next big state school that Chicagoans go to is UW-Madison.

I don’t really agree: culturally there are similarities between denizens of Chicago, Mike, Detroit, and even STL, but there’s nothing dramatically dissimilar from a middle class family living in suburban anywhere Midwest for the most part, which is a big part of Chicagoland. Then when it comes to rural citizens, there’s nothing similar to someone living in urban Chicagoland and rural Michigan or Wisconsin. My relatives in rural Illinois have greater commonality with my in-laws in rural Wisconsin than either have with Chicago.

[ChicagoMeO]

Suburbs and rural areas (downstate IL) would love for Chicago to secede because Chicago screws up the rest of the state with the intense demoncratic votes prevailing. If Chicago were to secede, Illinois might not be a blue state for long.

[jfre81]

The people who talk about this conveniently forget that this theoretical State of Cook(?) would still send two senators and have more seats in the House than the resulting downstate Illinois state, and for what? So downstate can have five Republican electoral votes like Kansas would?

It's almost as silly as Texans talking about secession when there's a Democrat president and then talking about "patriotism" and "making America great again" when the next crook takes his place. Except that happened and will happen, unlike this "Chixit" or whatever goofy name it would get if it ever actually gained traction.

States can't just break themselves up willy-nilly, not even with popular votes in that state. California actually passed a vote along these lines, but it was pretty much just for show because California can't actually vote to break itself into multiple states, nor can any other (including Texas, in spite of a common misconception).