Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I dislike this map, it puts Cleveland and Detroit in the same State...

 Alfndrate wrote:
I dislike this map, it puts Cleveland and Detroit in the same State...

As if Detroit didn't have enough bad press already. Now they want to lump Cleveland in with them?

 Alfndrate wrote:
I dislike this map, it puts Cleveland and Detroit in the same State...

That's like Yin & Yang man.

I'd be for dropping the EC if the 17th amendment is repealed. That way, each state legislatures essentially get two votes via the Senate and the American voters get the House and President with popular votes.

Then, we can split off states (CO, IL, CA, etc...) and add Puerto Rico, Virgin Island, etc...

 djones520 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I dislike this map, it puts Cleveland and Detroit in the same State...

As if Detroit didn't have enough bad press already. Now they want to lump Cleveland in with them?

You take that back mister!
We're already lumped in with the Tigers in the AL Central

 Alfndrate wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I dislike this map, it puts Cleveland and Detroit in the same State...

As if Detroit didn't have enough bad press already. Now they want to lump Cleveland in with them?

You take that back mister!
We're already lumped in with the Tigers in the AL Central

You mean lumped on by the Tigers?

 djones520 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I dislike this map, it puts Cleveland and Detroit in the same State...

As if Detroit didn't have enough bad press already. Now they want to lump Cleveland in with them?

You take that back mister!
We're already lumped in with the Tigers in the AL Central

You mean lumped on by the Tigers?

BTW... I think the Tigers are the favorite to win the WS. They're about "due" dontcha think?

 Alfndrate wrote:
I dislike this map, it puts Cleveland and Detroit in the same State...

Look again. Detroit is in "Detroit" and the Cleve is in "Firelands."

Did some quick math. If the listed counties seceded and formed their own state, Colorado would see a 6.5% drop in population, keeping it firmly in 22nd place for most populous state. The new state, on the other hand, would be firmly lodged in 51st place for population, at a whopping 340,000 people. I'm not even sure Colorado would lose one of its representatives to the House (too lazy to do math on who would get how many seats with 51 states).

 Ahtman wrote:
Someone worked up a map of the US wherein there are still 50 states, but with population distributed equally:

http://fakeisthenewreal.org/img/reform/electoral10-1100.jpg

Yeah.... I could do without being part of Gary, the one time murder capital of the US

 Polonius wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I dislike this map, it puts Cleveland and Detroit in the same State...

Look again. Detroit is in "Detroit" and the Cleve is in "Firelands."

I was looking at it on a tiny screen, so sue me

Also the Cleve? You are an out of towner It's that 2-1-6 baby! Or "Ugh we live in a gak hole" which is followed quickly by, "At least we're not Detroit!" which is also then followed with, "At least they have a few winning sports teams". And then the drinking begins and it never ends.

 Laughing Man wrote:
Did some quick math. If the listed counties seceded and formed their own state, Colorado would see a 6.5% drop in population, keeping it firmly in 22nd place for most populous state. The new state, on the other hand, would be firmly lodged in 51st place for population, at a whopping 340,000 people. I'm not even sure Colorado would lose one of its representatives to the House (too lazy to do math on who would get how many seats with 51 states).

Holy gak, seriously? The counties complaining are just 6.5% of the state's population? There's 6.5% of the population complaining they don't get properly heard?

I mean, I live in a place where the rural population is full of precious little martyrs, but I've never heard of anything like that.

I believe those counties though are like the bread basket in both agriculture and petroleum production for the state of Colorado.

 Jihadin wrote:
I believe those counties though are like the bread basket in both agriculture and petroleum production for the state of Colorado.

Yep... correctamundo on that one.

 Jihadin wrote:
I believe those counties though are like the bread basket in both agriculture and petroleum production for the state of Colorado.

Are they considerably richer than the rest of the state? If so, then odds are they're influence on politics is probably pretty strong already. If not, then they're probably not as essential to the state as they assume - primary production is often mistaken for value because it has an easy to understand end product.

The combined income of the counties in question (taken from per capita numbers and population from the 2010 census) comes out to a hair under $8 billion. This sounds like a lot, until you realize that the total income of Colorado (same sources) is about $155 billion. So, that 6.5% of the population controls about 5% of the wealth of the state, or from another perspective, makes about 75% as much as the average Coloradan.

 Laughing Man wrote:
The combined income of the counties in question (taken from per capita numbers and population from the 2010 census) comes out to a hair under $8 billion. This sounds like a lot, until you realize that the total income of Colorado (same sources) is about $155 billion. So, that 6.5% of the population controls about 5% of the wealth of the state, or from another perspective, makes about 75% as much as the average Coloradan.

Ah, cheers. So they're a minute portion of the state's population, and an even smaller portion of the economy. And they're angry that their political power reflects no more than that.

And you know what the dumbest part is - to get support for your own start you need political influence... and they're complaining they've got no political influence. So basically, if they could achieve their aim, then they wouldn't need to do it.

Forget that!

Canada - ten states
Mexico - ten states
Cuba - three states

Make it happen.

We might consider letting them rejoin the British Empire if they ask nicely.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If any state splits it should be California. North and South.

LA's stealing all the water we need for agriculture, they should have to pay for it through the nose. Although I'd personally rather they get cut off. Just enough to drink, let the lawns die.

LA has something like 150,000 gang members, They could just ride up and kill you all Mongol style.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
We might consider letting them rejoin the British Empire if they ask nicely.

Obviously the best course of action would for the UK as a whole to enter the US as the 51st state. The voting power you all would have form 62 million new "US Citizens" without any issue you could easily change us to be like you and we'd never know!

UK Empire has to stick with the original thirteen colonies

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If any state splits it should be California. North and South.

LA's stealing all the water we need for agriculture, they should have to pay for it through the nose. Although I'd personally rather they get cut off. Just enough to drink, let the lawns die.

LA has something like 150,000 gang members, They could just ride up and kill you all Mongol style.

150,000 gang bangers doing drive by's should kill 3 people. I'm sure the armed redneck population of Northern California would pick them off before they got within the 5' range they needed to be accurate.

One thing I always wonder about every time there's talk about a 51st state, is how much will it cost to make all of the new flags we'll need? And not just the flags themselves, but also replacing all the representations of those flags (posters, signs, etc.). And then all the maps in the schools will need to be updated, too. I remember back in high school my history teacher had a wall sized map of the world that he had worked very hard to convince the school to buy a couple years before, only for it to be invalidated a few months after buying it by the German reunification.

whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I dislike this map, it puts Cleveland and Detroit in the same State...

That's like Yin & Yang man.

I'd be for dropping the EC if the 17th amendment is repealed. That way, each state legislatures essentially get two votes via the Senate and the American voters get the House and President with popular votes.

I never thought you'd be in favour of a system wherein the GOP never ever gets to be president or control the house ever again. Weird.

EDIT: double post goodness

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I dislike this map, it puts Cleveland and Detroit in the same State...

That's like Yin & Yang man.

I'd be for dropping the EC if the 17th amendment is repealed. That way, each state legislatures essentially get two votes via the Senate and the American voters get the House and President with popular votes.

I never thought you'd be in favour of a system wherein the GOP never ever gets to be president or control the house ever again. Weird.

EDIT: double post goodness

Eh? How do you figure never?

In any case, I think that even if the D's dominate the Presidency, the fact that the Senate would answer to the state's legislature would "dampen" any aggressive partisan politics.

However, let me add... I think getting a 51st (or more states) is much more likely than repealing the 17th/EC system.

whembly wrote:
Eh? How do you figure never?

Because the GOP has not won the popular vote since 1988 and their voting base is rapidly dying of old age.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
Eh? How do you figure never?

Because the GOP has not won the popular vote since 1988 and their voting base is rapidly dying of old age.

Right... so? It's conceivable that the pendulum could swing back towards a Republican President via popular vote.

*shrug*

I'd be really happy with the repeal of the 17th... but, that ain't going to happen.

Az...your going to die of old age to.

I think a Republican president would be more likely if the candidates stopped pandering to the militant right wing and openly embraced a middle of the road position. However, the structure of the party seems to give a lot of power to the militant members when it comes to selecting the candidate. Romney was the most left wing of the Republican candidates in the last election and he still managed to be presented as a hyper-wealthy, upper class person who represented the interests of a detached elite.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
Eh? How do you figure never?

Because the GOP has not won the popular vote since 1988 and their voting base is rapidly dying of old age.

Did 2004 not exist in Canada or something?