Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-22-2013, 08:22 PM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 10,029,032 times
Reputation: 7693

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4 View Post
Should a city negate a whole state? Absolutely. Using your example of NYC:
While NYC has a population bigger than 10 states combined, it's GDP is bigger than 18 states combined. Why should lazy, underachieving rednecks have a bigger say in who becomes President? The issue is that our original electoral system (and our government's original establishment) was driven by the needs of an agrarian economy. Land equaled wealth. The economy since then has moved on. Finance, information, manufacturing, and services are the new pillars of the economy. I'd gladly trade the bottom 40 states for three NYC's or Chicago's. Then we could convert 10% of the land to agricultural use and turn the rest into a huge National Park. Rewarding states for having lots of empty land isn't the way ahead.
Ummmm, you do realize you live in Virginia right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2013, 08:29 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,143 posts, read 10,704,481 times
Reputation: 9799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4 View Post
Should a city negate a whole state? Absolutely. Using your example of NYC:
While NYC has a population bigger than 10 states combined, it's GDP is bigger than 18 states combined. Why should lazy, underachieving rednecks have a bigger say in who becomes President? The issue is that our original electoral system (and our government's original establishment) was driven by the needs of an agrarian economy. Land equaled wealth. The economy since then has moved on. Finance, information, manufacturing, and services are the new pillars of the economy. I'd gladly trade the bottom 40 states for three NYC's or Chicago's. Then we could convert 10% of the land to agricultural use and turn the rest into a huge National Park. Rewarding states for having lots of empty land isn't the way ahead.
Your new country would have the highest crime rate in the entire world. However, if the rest of the country could get rid of New York, Chicago, and California so that you could have your dream, I'd gladly support your movement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 08:29 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,526 posts, read 3,049,410 times
Reputation: 4343
It's a good idea, but I'm skeptical that it will win support in enough states to be implemented.

It would provide one of the quickest ways to break the duopoly of power held by the Democratic and Republican Parties. That's where the problem comes in. These two political parties don't want to give up their power.

The Electoral College serves the purpose of allowing insiders form the two parties to control the election results. This makes sure that the population doesn't elect the "wrong" president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,143 posts, read 10,704,481 times
Reputation: 9799
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead View Post
It's a good idea, but I'm skeptical that it will win support in enough states to be implemented.

It would provide one of the quickest ways to break the duopoly of power held by the Democratic and Republican Parties. That's where the problem comes in. These two political parties don't want to give up their power.

The Electoral College serves the purpose of allowing insiders form the two parties to control the election results. This makes sure that the population doesn't elect the "wrong" president.
Can you imagine the first time that an Independent candidate won the popular vote? All we'd hear would be the sound of partisan heads exploding across the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2013, 07:51 AM
 
2,635 posts, read 3,510,115 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
Ummmm, you do realize you live in Virginia right?
Like I said, get rid of the bottom 40 states. VA is ranked #9 for both states with the highest total GDP and GDP per capita:
List of U.S. states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
Your new country would have the highest crime rate in the entire world. However, if the rest of the country could get rid of New York, Chicago, and California so that you could have your dream, I'd gladly support your movement.
Urban and suburban crime is at a 20 year low:
Crime Down in Urban Cores and Suburbs | Newgeography.com

If you were to split off NYC, California, and the largest cities, then the remaining states would go bankrupt. Ironically, the most conservatives states are also the ones that consume the most federal spending, compared to what they contribute in taxes.
Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2013, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,161,783 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
typical elitist liberal attitude



the electoral college is there for a reason
..to protect the little guy from the big guys

New York city(the city not the state) has a bigger population than over 10 other states COMBINED

nyc population 8.3 million

wyoming 544k
vermont 621k
n. dakota 640k
alaska 690k
s. dakota 821k
delaware 885k
montana 974k
rhode island 1.01 million
hawaii 1.2 million
maine 1.3 million

total 7.8 million

10 states combined less than the population of NY CITY


say your from chicago...ok the population of chicago (A CITY) is 2.7 million..the entire STATE of nebraska is 1.8 million

should a city negate a whole state???
This is why I support the electoral college, the presidents should be elected by the states and not the popular vote. I am fine with each state awarding their votes for president based on popular vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2013, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,161,783 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4 View Post
Like I said, get rid of the bottom 40 states. VA is ranked #9 for both states with the highest total GDP and GDP per capita:
List of U.S. states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Urban and suburban crime is at a 20 year low:
Crime Down in Urban Cores and Suburbs | Newgeography.com

If you were to split off NYC, California, and the largest cities, then the remaining states would go bankrupt. Ironically, the most conservatives states are also the ones that consume the most federal spending, compared to what they contribute in taxes.
Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is true, cons tend to forget how many moocher red states there are in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2013, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,471,329 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4 View Post
If you were to split off NYC, California, and the largest cities, then the remaining states would go bankrupt. Ironically, the most conservatives states are also the ones that consume the most federal spending, compared to what they contribute in taxes.
Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
hmmm really now

challenge: define 'conservative' or 'red' state


let's see 'red" state..nc...a DEMOCRAT STRONG HOLD ffor the last 100 years

let's see.. 'blue' state NY...the only thing blue in the state is NYC

the top 15 states in the Nation that consume the MOST in welfare. 13-of-15 are DEMOCRAT states; they went Blue in 2008.

The BIGGEST US WELFARE STATES

–Year Researched Data———2009————-2007————2008———-2009

State——-% of Pop on Welfare—–Spending on Welfare—-Total on Welfare—–Unemp

#1. California……………3.30%………………$3 .28 BILLION………..1,212,893…….11.5%

#2. Maine………………..2.37%……………….$ 61.73 MILLION………..31,148……….8.3%

#3. Tennessee………….2.15%……………..$91.28 MILLION……….133,505……….10.7%

#4. Massachusetts…….2.09%…………….$295.29 MILLION………136,033………8.2%

#5. Vermont…………….2.02%……………..$30.9 2 MILLION………..12,543……..7.3%

#6. Wash DC…………..1.99%……………….$18.67 MILLION………..11,806………..10.7%

#7. New York…………..1.92%………………$1.47 BILLION…………..373,305………8.2%

#8. Minnesota…………..1.88%………………$106 .29 MILLION………98,028…….8.2%

#9. Washington…………1.86%………………$265. 88 MILLION……121,864……..9.4%

#10. New Mexico……….1.83%………………$58.87 MILLION…….36,322…………..6.5%

#11. Indiana……………..1.83%………………..$ 102.27 MILLION…..116,430……….10.6%

#12. Rhode Island……..1.79%……………….$57.4 MILLION…………..18,839…………..12.1%

#13. Michigan…………..1.60%………………..$38 0.93 MILLION……….164,589………14.1%

#14.Pennsylvania……….1.60%………………$ 247.29 MILLION………198,666…………8.2%

#15. Oregon…………….1.55%………………….$ 83.85 MILLION……….58,831………….12.4%




No matter what you think, the fact that 13 of the 15 states mentioned above who TAKE the most money for WELFARE are BLUE states!!!!


some of the biggest welfare states....new york and california and mississippi...all very much liberal states....and missi also has the highest black population in the country




new york SPENDS more per capita on WELFARE than almost anyother state, 'blue' states like NY have more wefare reciepiants than 10 of those 'red' states combined..they are number 8

top 7 states per capita of welfare

1. DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA (wash DC)
2. GUAM
3. Rhode Island
4. Tenn
5. california
6. Maine
7. alaska
8. new york




the 'red'("republican") states also have the biggest share of military posts in the county

the 'red' states as you call them are not 'red' at the state and local level

the "red" state also have most of the farming. most of the military posts, and a good portion of the national parks

btw...many of the "red" states (based on POTUS election) are very BLUE in their own states...NC for example has been a democrat controlled state for 100 years..even though it was a 'red' state in 2000/4



highest dropout rates....nevada and illinois...very blue

texas also PRODUCES 40% of the ENERGY that California USES...yet

cali is the second biggest carbon emiter.....behind...texas







btw I am a new yorker (a northerner)


the problem is the democrats and their love for welfare and other social programs...the more they push these programs the more the wealthier states will pay for the poorer states. the more they push the "tax the rich" mantra, the more the rich will be paying for the poor.......NJ has more people that are considered wealthy, than it has people below the poverty line...a state like SC has more workingclass and poor than it has wealthy.....its simple math....and there is a simple solution,,, vote out the tax and spend liberals
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2013, 08:36 AM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,473,557 times
Reputation: 4185
I don't see the point. The number of times when the electoral and popular winners are different is marginal. Before 2000, it hadn't happened since 1888.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2013, 08:41 AM
 
2,635 posts, read 3,510,115 times
Reputation: 1686
There is nothing inherently wrong with welfare spending. Many of the same states on your list also have high GDP per capita. This means that these states are investing some of their gains into an effective safety net.

I would define a "Conservative" state as one that has consistently voted for conservative candidates in the last several elections and has a consistently conservative (usually GOP) representation in Congress and their respective state legislatures. This means the Deep South and the agricultural Mid-Western states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top