Texas can divide into as many as five states. Would you support this ? (Houston: homes, find a job)

[Willsson]

Originally Posted by justme02

I wouldnt care, but I would want the map drawn differently than the one in the article.

And that alone is the reason it will never happen. No need even to discuss. But to answer the OP, NO! Never! Does not compute.

I've lived a good measure in each of four of those states and would draw elements from TexasReb post about 'What image conjurs in your mind when one mentions Texas'. The 'El Norte' designation be the only place I haven't lived in Texas. And as far as historic Texas goes, you cannot separate San Antonio from San Jacinto (Houston). Other wise you've just created five states, each as worthless as some of the other forty-nine... or 56... or whatever.

In other words, I think FAR more of Texas than I do the loosely coined 'America'. I was born, reared, and raised in Texas. I'm a U.S. Citizen by the chance of a U.S. passport. I am thoroughly a Texan, both by birth and the Grace of God.

[Rathagos]

I don't see the benefit of it.

I understand why people would want to after the election, but I think they aren't thinking it through all the way. Something like dividing up a state would work much better for someplace like California, Pennsylvania, or Ohio.

What it comes down to, is wanting your vote to count. Period.

In states like Texas, liberals are making a huge push in population (especially in urban cities like Dallas, Houston and especially Austin). So, dividing the state up would, essentially, divide up the number of electoral college votes. Since Texas is red, it would only serve to give more votes to the liberal candidate.

The same with PA, CA, OH and others that have more red counties than blue, with the exception that with the blue states, it would give their EC votes to conservative candidates.

So, if the question is posed from a conservative standpoint... as a conservative-leaning independent I wouldn't support it (for Texas), but I would for CA, PA, MI, OH, FL, etc.

I'm sure liberals would go the opposite way.

But, the bottom line is "be careful what you ask for". According to the popular vote, Obama won regardless of what EC votes would do if they switched. And, the more people we put on subsidies, the more the liberals will vote for it, and the more those on those assistance programs (regardless of political affiliation) will vote for them too.

The issue is NOT breaking down a state to get the EC votes you want, it's how do we get people to stop voting themselves money by getting them back into the workforce contributing instead of taking. That would sway the vote away from those giving subsidies (and those that no longer need them), and the liberals who support those programs. Then, maybe, we can address issues that impact ALL of us, instead of those with their hand out (and those who have the priority of supporting them).

[Fillmont]

Originally Posted by Rathagos

I don't see the benefit of it.

I understand why people would want to after the election, but I think they aren't thinking it through all the way. Something like dividing up a state would work much better for someplace like California, Pennsylvania, or Ohio.

What it comes down to, is wanting your vote to count. Period.

In states like Texas, liberals are making a huge push in population (especially in urban cities like Dallas, Houston and especially Austin). So, dividing the state up would, essentially, divide up the number of electoral college votes. Since Texas is red, it would only serve to give more votes to the liberal candidate.

The same with PA, CA, OH and others that have more red counties than blue, with the exception that with the blue states, it would give their EC votes to conservative candidates.

So, if the question is posed from a conservative standpoint... as a conservative-leaning independent I wouldn't support it (for Texas), but I would for CA, PA, MI, OH, FL, etc.

I'm sure liberals would go the opposite way.

I don't think you have this quite right. Assuming that each state you've mentioned (TX, CA, PA, MI, OH, FL) are broken up in the same way, with a major population center acting as an anchor and new capital, then really only the liberals would benefit.

You are right that there are more red counties in states like CA, PA, MI, OH, and FL. But that's true of nearly every state, including TX. The problem is that the majority of the red counties are sparsely populated. You're right to suggest that if Texas broke up into 5 states, it would be easier for those states to individually go blue. But the same is true of the traditionally blue states you've mentioned. If California is split into North and South California, both would still go blue. If Ohio is split in half, Cincinnati Ohio and Cleveland Ohio would both go blue as well. The smaller the state's overall population in relation to their big cities, the more blue it would be.

Splitting up CA, PA, MI, OH, FL, would all just lead to more states like Illinois, where the anchor city or capital would carry the state, just by virtue of being the greatest percentage of the population. The less populated red counties would be further disenfranchised, for there would not be enough small counties to counteract the large blue ones.

If the states were split up so that the new states were essentially just a city and the rest is another state, then there would be more red electoral votes/senators. But that isn't how it would be done.

[BobTex]

I oppose ... I'd have to have out-of-state fishing and hunting license for several states.

[Lee W.]

A BAD idea! Anything that would increase the total number of bureaucrats and politicians...horrifying to the nth degree!

[marcopolo2000]

Originally Posted by Philip T

Dunno.

I am seeing notes from around the country to the effect of:

So did "y'all" "succeed," yet?

As usual, the ignut redneck bottholes are the joke of the nation.

Texas. Putting the Redneck in Red State.

Agreed. Texas is a running joke as is to the rest of the country and all of the secession talk doesn't help.

[Willsson]

Originally Posted by marcopolo2000

Agreed. Texas is a running joke as is to the rest of the country and all of the secession talk doesn't help.

So if people are running to get to Texas, how is that a joke? Well, excepting ON the rest of the country.

[Two4damoney]

Originally Posted by marcopolo2000

Agreed. Texas is a running joke as is to the rest of the country and all of the secession talk doesn't help.

Well for being a "running joke" there sure seems to be a big influx of people from other states moving out here.

[TexasReb]

See what happens when I am off-line all week? I miss some interesting threads, and some extremely insightful comments, as well as some sophomoric ones. It takes a while to catch up, but I think I will start with this one, then proceed to others....

Just for the record though (and I have said this in the past), I am not a "secessionist" per se -- not yet anyway -- but I defnititely sympathize with the underlying rationale of many who are. And yes, it is becoming ever stronger....

Originally Posted by loves2read

Texas joined the Union prior to Civil War under an agreement allowing that possibility but when Texas seceeded during the Civil War and joined the Confederacy and then suffered a sound defeat...that voided ALL contracts like the original agreement...

Was that yet one more reason why the states (under Lincoln, and operating under the default name "United States") to invade and "conquer" a people who had done them no wrong?

Yes, you may have a point that the result of the "Civil War" negated all earlier agreements...but that is not the end of the story...

Texas was CONQUERED by the USA and taken into the Union again under the US rules/regs--no future sucession is "allowed"....if it tried then that is act of treason/aggression and would not happen peacefully...

Like I alluded to before, was this too part of a plan of the northern aggressors to eventually form an empire? But I must say you used the term "conqured" accurately, for better or worse, pro or con, intentionally or not, to describe exactly what happened. The Lincoln administration chose war when no war was necessary, and against a people who wanted nothing more than to go their own way, in peace. Yeah, "conquered", is about right...

But a question settled by force, remains forever unsettled...

people who advocate these off-the-wall suppositions are just oblivious to the consequences...
and in all likelihood would run away before suffering any of them...

I am sure that any Tory in the pre-Revolution American Colonies would have said the same thing...

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by marcopolo2000

Agreed. Texas is a running joke as is to the rest of the country and all of the secession talk doesn't help.

Tell us that when you freeze in the dark because you no longer have access to our natural gas and oil!