Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we should keep the lines. Living in Las Vegas, the thin imaginary state line that seperates us from California is probably the only thing keeping Nevada from becoming East California.
Somebody needs to go back and take a refresher course in American history if they think the states should be abolished ... we are 50 independent states first, federal government second. Sheesh.
This thread is a perfect example of the blatant ignorance of basic U.S. history and government exhibited by many of the posters on this site ... eliminate the states and you ELIMINATE THE COUNTRY people. God god almighty open a book!
Why can't the federal government or a system of metropolitan ran city-state like areas do it?
The Federal government cannot even run what it has now without tremendously expanding it! Not to mention it is not a good idea to put so much power in their hands.
Some states are already too large to be viable as units. You can't say that a state like California, which has many different areas with completely different needs. Why not break it up or let the feds run it?
If you think some states are "already too large to be viable as units", how does it make sense to have just ONE UNIT across the entire continent?
Or an area like the Northeast, where everything is relatively small and needs multiple states to get along to coordinate policy. Why not consolidate the region so that working together will be easier?
If it was up to me, for the sake of government efficency I would combine Delaware and Maryland, Rhode Island and Massachusetts (or Connecticut), and divide New Jersey between New York and Pennsylvania. I would also combine the Dakotas and would be welcome to other changes. But I believe that most of the other states are fine the way they are now.
My answers in bold.
I voted NO, we should not abolish state lines. I would sooner abolish the Federal Government, the morons who have so damaged this country, than abolish my state.
Somebody needs to go back and take a refresher course in American history if they think the states should be abolished ... we are 50 independent states first, federal government second. Sheesh.
Because originally it was hoped and for a while largely true that the feds would let the states run their affairs as they saw fit. In general for quite a while aside from some arguing over taxes the feds and states did not try to legislate the same things.
One can look at slavery, THE major issue in the early part of US history, to see how this worked. The feds basically passed laws regarding the importation of slaves into the US, the legal requirements of individuals and governments in regards to escaped slaves who had left slave states for free states, and how the slave/free status of new territories and states would be decided. In other words the feds passed laws concerning slavery that dealt with issues arising when more than one state or international boundaries were involved, and they left the states to govern slavery within their state lines as they saw fit.
No, I would not abolish states. I would make the process from redrawings state lines, merging states, and splitting states easier though so that the state exist so that you don't have a 55-45 or 60-40 split politically in state so a huge chunk of some state's population doesn't find itself perpetually governed in ways contrary to their will.
County and city lines are really more irrelevant than state lines. It would make more sense if we kept state lines, but divided states based on rural and metro areas. That would prevent the needless movement of businesses and people from one city/county in a metro to another just to get tax incentives. Besides, if we abolished state lines what would happen to the university systems of each state?
County and city lines are really more irrelevant than state lines. It would make more sense if we kept state lines, but divided states based on rural and metro areas. That would prevent the needless movement of businesses and people from one city/county in a metro to another just to get tax incentives. Besides, if we abolished state lines what would happen to the university systems of each state?
Good point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
