But of course they can't do it without the permission of the legislature. And how likely are they to get that?
Perhaps the left-winging supercities would be as glad to get rid of those pesky liberty-lovers in the rural environs as those wishing to leave would be to go.But of course they can't do it without the permission of the legislature. And how likely are they to get that?
That rural imbalance of which you speak is the reason for the existence of the House of Representatives.I don't know what processes are in place either under state constitutions or Congressional authority, but I do know
that allowing the creation of several new rural only states would severely unbalance an already unbalanced situation in The Senate where rural states are more heavily represented than heavily populated states.
Maybe if the "Splitters" were to get their way each of NYC's 5 boroughs could become a new state too--- and add 10
liberal senators to The Senate? The Bronx with a population of 1.3 million deserves equal representation to S. Dakota.
Each of the other boroughs would balance against places such as Montana and Idaho.
Sometimes things shouldn't be messed with. This breakaway business is one of them.
Huh? The House has proportional representation with each seat representing equal numbers of constituents. The rural-urbanThat rural imbalance of which you speak is the reason for the existence of the House of Representatives.
The House exists specifically to represent population. The Senate was designed to prevent population centers from completely controlling legislation. We are not a democracy and we were never intended to be one. Majority rule has no place in a free society. That's why we are a Constitutional Republic.Huh? The House has proportional representation with each seat representing equal numbers of constituents. The rural-urban
imbalance with the rural holding the upper hand occurs in The Senate. A handful of states with a combined population smaller than NYC controls 10% of the Senate. Another handful of states with a combined population less than California's also
controls many senate seats.
I remember several similar proposals when I was stationed in California in 1975-1984. Still sounds like a good idea to me since there is so much difference between north and south.This map would also be nice. Although a new idea for Colorado, this has been around for a while for pretty much the same reasons in the north part of CA and southern OR. Jefferson - The 51st State - Northern California / Southern Oregon - A State of Mind
To me, it would be just fine.
My point exactly.Huh? The House has proportional representation with each seat representing equal numbers of constituents. The rural-urban
imbalance with the rural holding the upper hand occurs in The Senate. A handful of states with a combined population smaller than NYC controls 10% of the Senate. Another handful of states with a combined population less than California's also
controls many senate seats.
And that's exactly how it should be. The majority says "we want to do this" via the House, and the minority says "no, that's going to hurt us" via the Senate. The alternative to this "imbalance" is to have New York and California running the entire country, and personally, one of the reasons I own firearms is fear of that scenario.Huh? The House has proportional representation with each seat representing equal numbers of constituents. The rural-urban
imbalance with the rural holding the upper hand occurs in The Senate. A handful of states with a combined population smaller than NYC controls 10% of the Senate. Another handful of states with a combined population less than California's also
controls many senate seats.
Well then, IMO you have picked the wrong reason to own guns. There are many good reasons for doing so, but not the oneAnd that's exactly how it should be. The majority says "we want to do this" via the House, and the minority says "no, that's going to hurt us" via the Senate. The alternative to this "imbalance" is to have New York and California running the entire country, and personally, one of the reasons I own firearms is fear of that scenario.