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.
The idea is terrible because the burbs of most cities often hold a grudge against the central city and more often than not vote to separate
And I agree with you.
For me, the suburbs seem to be a, "S-------, or get off the pot" type of proposition.
If you really want to tell people you live in "The City", then live there. If someone wants to distance themselves from all the problems cities face, and just choose to deal with problems in the State, then make it official.
My proposal for a vote on who becomes part of the "States" forces people to decide on what they value most; Being a part of the City of being part of the State.
Annie is right. Oftentimes the surrounding state picks up much of the tax burden for the core cities.
Is this not Capitalism at work? You either sink or swim. No longer would people of Albany being paying for NYC's expenditures. Tallahassee is no longer subject to what the people of Miami need. Atlanta could function on it's own, not relying on Hogansville or Lagrange to decide what is best for a city/metro of 1,000,000+ people.
And to think that the states continue to exist solely because of the "State" and not the "City" is farfetched, at least in my opinion.
More business is done in the "Cities" than there is in the rest of the state.
(1)No way, and the country is not fractured in that way.
(2)The states have a certain amount of sovereignty, and changing the number of them won't change that. (3)The Senate as a body has empowerment, and changing the number of members won't give it more or less power.
(4)What could possibly be different if the states were smaller and more numerous?
(5)An argument could be made that certain large cities secede into separate statehoods, but that would have absolutely no effect on the nation as a whole, and certainly no effect on anything the US Senate is concerned with.
1. Politics? It certainly seems to me that more "Liberal" people live in cities and more "Conservative" people live in places that are not 'The City'.
2. It wouldn't give "Liberal" leaning and "Conservative" leaning areas more space in what they can and cannot do with money?
3. It won't? More options mean more possibilities.
In my experience, giving people more options leads to...more options for people to choose from. Would Los Angeles legalizing Gay Marriage give it a different power (i.e. edge) over California? The people of California have turned down gay marriage, but I would not doubt for a second that the people of LA would legalize it.
Giving 50 extra senators gives a voice to the people living in the 50 states most populous places.
4. More options. Plain and simple. Capitalism is based on options. More options means more Capitalism.
5. Until the Senate is adjusted for the 50 extra States in play.
The good states that support the country should withdraw and form their own union. They can then give, if they wish, money to crap states like we do to foreign countries like Israel.
Mississippi? Alabama? Birmingham and Jackson would boom if they weren't tied to the States they are affiliated with. If cities offered a reprieve from what is normally found in the area, I would bet my life savings that the South (cities) would gain a ton in their population bases.
"Live in Atlanta, but not deal with the voters of Macon? I'll do it!"
"Live in New Orleans but not deal with voters from Alexandria? I'll do it!"
My idea tries to address the differences between the city and the rest of the state. And from what I can tell, this divide is very political and very clear. "Republicans" in the city are more likely "liberal" than in other places that the "City" doesn't influence. "Democrats" in the places that aren't "Cities" are more likely to identify with "Conservatives" than they are with traditional "city Democrat" strongholds.
Those aren't popular states with Northerners. We don't want to move there and get shot by a negro. If we became a North American Union, Canadians don't want the southern states and have a better sense of what is lacking here than we who live here do. Mostly they don't want our perimeter states. We have too much that is a burden.
No, what needs to happen is that the Senate be more functional.
Yes it was designed to be slow. However, it's not acting "slow" it's merely being an obstruction device and worse yet voters of states with few people in effect have huge influence on large states.
That's not right. The Senate was designed to protect small states, but now it's a tool to let small states have their way with big states.
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.
