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 03-30-2023, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,029 posts, read 14,209,414 times
Reputation: 16747

Advertisements

Under the republican form of government, where all Americans are born equal before the law - none higher - and have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate nor trespass, fracturing into city-states provides no benefit.
BUT
Under the current socialist democracy (Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America), where the policy is "tax and bribe", shattering the unity of the country sounds reasonable. But that only benefits the predators who can hunt with impunity as the culture turns on police, gun ownership, and other means to secure rights from attack.
Everybody wants to be a recipient - no one wants to be the donor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-30-2023, 08:49 AM
 
21,430 posts, read 7,459,324 times
Reputation: 13233
Cities are chartered by states. There is no way to make a state give up it's own sovereign territory and I don't see any reason to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2023, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
9,829 posts, read 7,265,185 times
Reputation: 7790
As someone who lived in Georgia most of my life, GA Republicans would never go for the idea, since the very blue Atlanta metro is their cash cow. It's a significant portion of the state's economic engine, including the world's busiest airport, which they keep trying to take over from city control. They already have political control of the state, so they'd rather keep Atlanta as their convenient slave (and use and abuse it and give it no love), than break off and be another forgettable southern red state like Mississippi, with no major global city with all those Fortune 500 corporations and such.

And now as someone who lives in Washington state, same but in reverse- the Democrats have control of the state, so why would they want to reduce the boundaries of the state to the Seattle metro, and create a brand new red state out of nowhere?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2023, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Central Mass
4,630 posts, read 4,898,966 times
Reputation: 5376
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Outdoorsman View Post
So...basically a balance at the Federal level with a slight lean towards Republicans. However the states can govern themselves however they wish -- the real advantage here. Otherwise 'states rights' mean diddly squat if major metro areas have such an outsized effect on the total vote tally.
No.

38+3 = 41
33+12 = 45

Federal politics would be liberal forever. The rebalanced house would be even more imbalanced. 49% of the house would be from the 36 MSAs (the 3 conservative cities are smallest, 9 reps there). 201 liberal reps from the cities. Of the other 234:
Alaska, one of AZ from Tucson, 13 of CA non-LA/SF/SJ, 2 of CO, CT's 6, Delaware, 1 of GA, Hawaii's 2, 2 of IL non-Chicago, 1 of IN, Louisville's rep, New Orleans', Maine's 2, MA's 3 that aren't in Boston, MI's 4 non-Detroit, 1 MN, 1 MS, NH's 2, NJ's sole rep that's not NYC or Philly, NM's 3, 4 of NY not NYC, NC's 3 non-Charlotte, Toledo, OH's rep, 2 OR non-Portland, Maybe 2 from PA, RI's 2, 1 of SC's, Memphis' 1, 3 of TX's, VT's 1, 2 of VA's, 3 of WA's, and 2 of WI's would all be democrat. 74.

We'd be at a 275-160 lean. Not quite a supermajority

Federally would lean hard D.
States would lean D.

Breaking up city-states would do a whole lot to harm republicans.

But you want states rights to mean that people don't have rights. OF COURSE large metro area have a effect on the total vote tally, THATS WHERE THE VOTES ARE. They do not have an 'outsized effect', they have a perfectly proportional effect on the total vote tally of a state.
Technically RURAL areas have an "outsized effect" on all politics. In 2020 voter turnout in rural areas was greater than 73% while overall turnout was just 62.8%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2023, 12:14 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,716,760 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Outdoorsman View Post
We are increasingly polarized as a society and it isn't good.

Big cities -- and to some extent, their metro areas -- want certain things from the government like woke racial equity policies, to defund the police, vaccine mandates, pronoun badges, drag shows for kids, pride month for gays, violent felons released from prison w/ their voting rights automatically restored, unlimited abortions, support for Ukraine, etc., meanwhile the rest of us in rural, exurban and small town America just want the government out of our lives and to retain the ability to protect ourselves and our children (i.e. maintain their innocence from government school indoctrination).

Shouldn't we allow the big cities to govern themselves and let them form their own governments, independent from the state they are physically located in? Then the rest of us can have our states back.

All of those 'blue islands' in the sea of red that is America can stand alone in their city-state governance but have equal representation in Congress.

To qualify the metro area must be 2-3 million plus -- basically too big for the state they're in.
It's called STATE'S RIGHTS.

If a majority vote in a state makes a choice, that's it.

Here's a great example: King County, Washington has to send $3 Billion a year to 33 other counties in the state because they can't fund themselves. The solution for voters in locations that differ from them politically is to move to a state they are better aligned to. For example, unhappy Eastern Washington voters could move to Idaho. Then Idaho taxpayers could pay their bills because currently they don't have to pay state income taxes yet state taxpayers subsidize them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2023, 01:43 PM
 
23,986 posts, read 15,086,618 times
Reputation: 12955
Denton, Texas voted no fracking within the city limits. The governor declared that void. Cities can't over ride state law he said.

Conservative governors and legislatures are trying to pass laws that they can get rid of any elected DA who goes against what the state wants.

There may be a revolution if the conservatives keep it up.

City States might work. But then, what about the property settlement? Who pays for what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2023, 02:25 PM
 
Location: NY
16,083 posts, read 6,853,083 times
Reputation: 12334
Stop the nonsense.

Lock up bad people. Very bad people.
Problem solved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2023, 04:10 PM
 
9,881 posts, read 4,650,430 times
Reputation: 7512
When there are countries as small as Liechtenstein or Vatican City why not. Many cities are doing their own thing anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2023, 10:16 PM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,758 posts, read 18,818,821 times
Reputation: 22603
You're basically talking about a "balkanization." At this point, I support balkanization--a PEACEFUL balkanization. But the left would never allow that. They would no longer have anyone to stomp their jackboot heel into the throat of and control/fleece. My opinion is that somewhere down the line, anyone desiring liberty over tyranny and subjugation will have to fight and possibly die for it. Hopefully that day will come after my sentence here has been served.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2023, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Metropolis
4,426 posts, read 5,155,830 times
Reputation: 3053
Corporations would rule both anyway. They would take advantage of red state cheap labor and lax regulation. They will also need more labor, as red areas still wouldn’t grow enough population. In comes excess blue city staters and immigrants and red areas turn blue.

No way to win this conservative folks, until you turn on corporate hegemony and the wealthy. I sadly, I don’t see that happening, so enjoy living on your rapidly shrinking real estate.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:22 PM.

© 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