Constitutional Amendment to allow contiguous counties to join an adjacent state?
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.
I would be OK with that but I think that States should have their own version of an electoral voting system for each of their counties. This way, a single or maybe two counties/cities do not control everything and gives the rural counties no input within State policies and laws.
This, IMHO, would be the simplest way to solve most of the issues within the states that have areas looking to succeed, due on the grounds that they are not heard or even considered within the creation of policies and laws.
I do not know of any state that is willing to give up any of their counties since that is tax revenue, so correcting the current imbalance within states with an electoral system would solve the issue within the rural areas having zero voice AND retaining their original borders.
This is badly needed within Washington State since ONE county (King) controls the whole State and outside of King County… And two other counties, Washington would be a RED State, if an electoral system was in place, Washington would be a Purple Swing State.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 27 days ago)
35,764 posts, read 18,107,840 times
Reputation: 50825
Quote:
Originally Posted by bergun
I would be OK with that but I think that States should have their own version of an electoral voting system for each of their counties. This way, a single or maybe two counties/cities do not control everything and gives the rural counties no input within State policies and laws.
This, IMHO, would be the simplest way to solve most of the issues within the states that have areas looking to succeed, due on the grounds that they are not heard or even considered within the creation of policies and laws.
I do not know of any state that is willing to give up any of their counties since that is tax revenue, so correcting the current imbalance within states with an electoral system would solve the issue within the rural areas having zero voice AND retaining their original borders.
This is badly needed within Washington State since ONE county (King) controls the whole State and outside of King County… And two other counties, Washington would be a RED State, if an electoral system was in place, Washington would be a Purple Swing State.
If you give rural Americans an even bigger voice than they have right now - and they do have a bigger voice than urban people, well, yes, they would rule us all even more than they already do. That's just math. That's not fair, though, and the majority will not vote to have their voice diluted even more.
In the US, there has been a growing divide between rural and urban regions, and the political ideology and power that each wields.
For the most part, there are HUNDREDS of red counties in blue states, which are essentially held captive politically and economically, by the will of a remote electorate which dominates the laws and agendas of a state. In the past, we have never had such a marked disparity in political views within states, which has essentially disenfranchised the will of those living in rural areas.
As our nation becomes more and more divided, we must seek peaceful remedies which can solve the problems we face. Allowing counties, with borders shared with a different state, to be "admitted" to that state would allow citizens which are currently NOT represented by their state due to perpetual control by another political party. As this has perpetuated, we have policies, laws, and taxes passed in state governments which are diametrically opposed to the values and ideologies of many who live in more rural areas. It is, in effect, tyranny of urban environments over rural, and results in government policies which are alien to the beliefs and values of those in rural areas.
Of course, the "state boundries", as they accumulate (or lose) counties which are opposed to the predominant political views of that state, would allow counties adjacent to the newly departed counties to do the same. As a result, we could have a marked "equilibration" of sentiments within the nation with state laws and policies more accurately representing the needs and beliefs of the citizens of the US. Likewise, we would see urban areas in counties bordering blue states, choose to leave the red state for the blue. An example would be Gary/Hammond, Michigan City, and South Bend leaving Indiana to join MI or IL. Likewise, rural counties in Illinois would choose to join red states, such as Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, or Kentucky.
There has been movements of whole regions in the west (northern CA, eastern CA, eastern OR, eastern WA) to leave their respective states, as they are agricultural areas, but the entire state is ruled by a few (yet populous) urban areas in which they share no common goals or values.
In order to avoid a "rush to the exits", there would need to be votes allowed only every four years (between presidential cycles, that would permit a sufficient period of time to consider such measures, recalibrate state budgets, and move any existing "old" state offices.
IF we are to survive as a single nation going forward, we must try to find solutions in which citizens feel adequately represented by government officials and not held captive by virtue of a remote, yet more populous, componant of the state in which one lives.
A better solution would be to create an electoral college system at the state level. The winner of the most counties wins the state. That way Chicago would not dominate Illinois and NYC would not dominiate New York.
A better solution would be to create an electoral college system at the state level. The winner of the most counties wins the state. That way Chicago would not dominate Illinois and NYC would not dominiate New York.
Feds don't need to be involved in that. States have full say over how their Electoral votes are allocated. 2 of 50 use congressional districts and award 2 to the at-large winner. Of course both of those states only have 4 votes. But any state is free to make that change right now. They could also award Electoral votes based on the outcome of a boxing match or sack race involving local party leaders, if they so chose.
For that reason, EC shouldn't be a factor in state boundaries, since the system is more fluid than those boundaries themselves.
I'm in Tennessee about a mile from the Virginia line.
Some of these southwest VA counties are closer to Frankfort, KY, Nashville, TN, or even Columbus, OH than Richmond, VA. Anything south and west of at least Roanoke is basically forgotten by Richmond.
But lumping these counties with any other state other than possibly WV makes no sense at all from a purely administrative standpoint. Frankfort is just as bad with eastern KY. TN north and east of the Pigeon Forge tourist trap is basically forgotten by Nashville.
In the US, there has been a growing divide between rural and urban regions, and the political ideology and power that each wields.
For the most part, there are HUNDREDS of red counties in blue states, which are essentially held captive politically and economically, by the will of a remote electorate which dominates the laws and agendas of a state. In the past, we have never had such a marked disparity in political views within states, which has essentially disenfranchised the will of those living in rural areas.
As our nation becomes more and more divided, we must seek peaceful remedies which can solve the problems we face. Allowing counties, with borders shared with a different state, to be "admitted" to that state would allow citizens which are currently NOT represented by their state due to perpetual control by another political party. As this has perpetuated, we have policies, laws, and taxes passed in state governments which are diametrically opposed to the values and ideologies of many who live in more rural areas. It is, in effect, tyranny of urban environments over rural, and results in government policies which are alien to the beliefs and values of those in rural areas.
Of course, the "state boundries", as they accumulate (or lose) counties which are opposed to the predominant political views of that state, would allow counties adjacent to the newly departed counties to do the same. As a result, we could have a marked "equilibration" of sentiments within the nation with state laws and policies more accurately representing the needs and beliefs of the citizens of the US. Likewise, we would see urban areas in counties bordering blue states, choose to leave the red state for the blue. An example would be Gary/Hammond, Michigan City, and South Bend leaving Indiana to join MI or IL. Likewise, rural counties in Illinois would choose to join red states, such as Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, or Kentucky.
There has been movements of whole regions in the west (northern CA, eastern CA, eastern OR, eastern WA) to leave their respective states, as they are agricultural areas, but the entire state is ruled by a few (yet populous) urban areas in which they share no common goals or values.
In order to avoid a "rush to the exits", there would need to be votes allowed only every four years (between presidential cycles, that would permit a sufficient period of time to consider such measures, recalibrate state budgets, and move any existing "old" state offices.
IF we are to survive as a single nation going forward, we must try to find solutions in which citizens feel adequately represented by government officials and not held captive by virtue of a remote, yet more populous, componant of the state in which one lives.
It's happened once before, when West Virginia separated from Virginia. They didn't even have a Constitutional Amendment. But that was wartime.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution states: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
So if eastern Washington wants to join Idaho, they can do so, but they need the approval of the Washington State Legislature.
Might be nice if southern Virginia joined West Virginia, southwestern Georgia joined Alabama and western Michigan joined Indiana. Then Virginia, Georgia and Michigan would never go red again. If all the rural parts of Texas would go join Oklahoma, then the urban parts would finally get the (blue) representation they have been missing.
I don't know. How many people said that legal marriage between gays would never happen or that Roe vs. Wade would never be repealed?
But, of course, what is being discussed won't happen as long as the Democrats have power. It seems that the only ones who want to separate from the highly populated 'blue' counties are Republicans.
Dumb, impractical, and far-fetched "pie in the sky" idea. Next.
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.
