[Winstonm]

An article describes the mature, reasoned response to being the minority party...

Quote

Several of the rural, predominantly Republican counties of North and and Northeastern Colorado are fed up with the left-leaning laws that Democrats passed this year in the state and want to split from Colorado and form the 51st state: North Colorado.

"Our very way of life is under attack," Weld County Commissioner Sean Conway said on Thursday, 9News reported

.

And what "way of life" would that be, the one where democratically elected representatives pass laws with which one may not agree?

[sharon j]

LOL Amazing that such simpletons are elected into office. Although, it might be kind of entertaining to see such an attempt.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-08, 07:23, said:

And what "way of life" would that be, the one where democratically elected representatives pass laws with which one may not agree?

Isn't that a reasonable reason? If they're passing lots of laws that you don't agree with, should you really be in the same state?

I was surprised that the laws listed as the reasons for this action don't include the legalization of recreational marijuana use.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2013-June-09, 11:37, said:

Isn't that a reasonable reason? If they're passing lots of laws that you don't agree with, should you really be in the same state?

I was surprised that the laws listed as the reasons for this action don't include the legalization of recreational marijuana use.

As an adult, when one agrees to a specific type of government that may elect people with whom you disagree, you shrug your shoulders and accept the loss and work harder to elect next time people with whom you agree.

You don't threaten to take your toys and go home.

[ggwhiz]

At least they only want their own state. Up here Quebec (often) wants its own country. Worse, our federales keep rolling over to shut them up.

[mike777]

ggwhiz, on 2013-June-09, 15:46, said:

At least they only want their own state. Up here Quebec (often) wants its own country. Worse, our federales keep rolling over to shut them up.

as do the basques in spain or the kurds in turkey, Iraq, Syria...

As in fact did the Czechs and Slovaks....balkins


etc...etc.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-09, 15:22, said:

As an adult, when one agrees to a specific type of government that may elect people with whom you disagree, you shrug your shoulders and accept the loss and work harder to elect next time people with whom you agree.

You don't threaten to take your toys and go home.

That's an appropriate attitude if it's just one or two issues. But if there's a string of decisions that offend your basic principles, at some point you come to the conclusion that you're not really a united community.

It's like a marriage. Of course you're going to have occasional disagreements and fights, you don't get a divorce the first time something goes wrong. But if you determine that the two of you want different things out of the rest of your lives, it may be best to call it quits. And in the case of a state, it's not like the people currently in the state ever chose to get together -- most of them are together as an accident of birth and geography. If a state has rural and urban communities, it's very likely that they'll have different needs and philosophies -- the urban communities didn't even exist when Colorado was formed, so why should they share a government?

Have any of you seen the series "How the States Got Their Shapes" that was running on the History Channel last year? The way the states were formed was often due to financial issues -- trading off rights to various waterways (since they were critical to commerce in the 19th century). Political unity was not much of a concern, although it tended to occur if there was a major industry in the state (e.g. everyone was a farmer, so they shared many concerns). As the country and technology have evolved, many of the issues that the states were created for have decreased in importance, and communities have changed.

The issues mentioned in the article don't seem like they're worth splitting a state over to me, but maybe they're just the tip of the iceberg or the straws that broke the camel's back.

[kenberg]

At one time Iived in Bowie, Maryland. There was a movement to secede from the state and attach ourselves, I believe, to Pennsylvania. Of course it was crazy. I advocated applying to Toronto to see if we could become a suburb, since I have always liked Toronto.

West Virgina came into being via secession from Virgina, but that was in part due to Virginia seceding from the U.S. A big event that was, but the rest of this has no more chance than Bowie's plan to secede from Maryland. I suppose there are some arguments for Alaska or Texas seceding, or for one state or another to split in two, but it won't happen.

Some years back Garrison Keeler had a song about Minnesota's plan to pick up and move south. It was a fantasy.

I accept barmar's point that if one part of a state finds themselves seriously and repeatedly add odds with another they could consider splitting the state into two. I suggest that they consider it over a beer, and then go on to other fantasies.

[mike777]

I live in a city where there is a movement to make a very rich southern edge part of the city a separate town. It is a new part of our town built by a bunch of rich developers for rich people. The president stays there when he visits and there is a PGA Golf tournament in that part of town.


It is basically a joke lead by an extreme right wing councilman.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-09, 15:22, said:

As an adult, when one agrees to a specific type of government that may elect people with whom you disagree, you shrug your shoulders and accept the loss and work harder to elect next time people with whom you agree.

You don't threaten to take your toys and go home.

This is a rather complicated subject...

Personally, I don't see anything wrong if the residents of a state mutually agree to go their separate ways.
However, things get very complicated if the two sides can't come to an agreement.

Personally, I don't see this happening. (I don't think that members of the tea party are rational enough to deal with issues like dividing up state debts and liabilities.)

[barmar]

Secession talks happen all the time. There's a movement on Long Island trying to secede from New York. Although I suspect they have plenty in common with upstate New York -- the odd man out is New York City (wouldn't it be funny if the part of the state that shares its name were to split off?).

There are enough hurdles to get past that I don't think any group can achieve this on a whim. While many (maybe even most) of the people pushing for secession may be kooks, I don't think it's fair to brush all secession calls aside.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-June-10, 08:56, said:

Secession talks happen all the time. There's a movement on Long Island trying to secede from New York. Although I suspect they have plenty in common with upstate New York -- the odd man out is New York City (wouldn't it be funny if the part of the state that shares its name were to split off?).

What does the movement plan to do with the NYC boroughs that are on Long Island?

[blackshoe]

As one who lives in upstate NY, I sympathize strongly with any desire of New York City types to split off and form their own state. As for Long Island, not sure I care one way or 'tother.

There is some "tipping point" or "boiling point" or whatever you want to call it beyond which advocates of secession can no longer be called "kooks". We aren't there yet, even in Texas.

[Winstonm]

If the original configuration was poor or if demographics within a single state had changed drastically there could be valid reason to consider a separate state, but to do so based on a differemce of opinion about political ideologies has more in keeping with the idea of getting mad because one is not getting his way than on genuine differences. One would think that this latter issue was resolved fairly handily in 1865.

[Zelandakh]

1865 - creation of the Salvation Army or publication of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland? As for electing who you do agree with when you want to form your own State, well the Scots did that already, albeit not yet with the desired outcome.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-10, 09:02, said:

As one who lives in upstate NY, I sympathize strongly with any desire of New York City types to split off and form their own state.

I hope you understand the tax implications...

New York City and the surrounding area generates much more in tax revenues than it consumes.
In contrast, the Albany region is a tax sink, consuming much more than it generates.

You'll be cutting off the lion's share of your revenues while capturing an enormous number of costs.

Quote

New York City and the Downstate Suburbs “give” far more to Albany in taxes and other revenues than they “get” in
state-funded expenditures. The Capital Region and the Rest of State, by contrast, get significantly more than they give. These
conclusions hold under any of several alternative methodologies this study employs for regional allocation of the personal income
tax and selected expenditures.

http://www.rockinst....and_Getting.pdf

This is why I'm so very skeptical about the ability of regions to disassociate from one another.
The anti-tax zealots normally have no idea regarding the distribution of revenues and spending.

Just as the Democratic blue states continually need to subsidize the free loading red states, the urban areas of individual states are typically subsiding the rural portions.

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2013-June-11, 06:24, said:

I hope you understand the tax implications...

New York City and the surrounding area generates much more in tax revenues than it consumes.
In contrast, the Albany region is a tax sink, consuming much more than it generates.

You'll be cutting off the lion's share of your revenues while capturing an enormous number of costs.



http://www.rockinst....and_Getting.pdf

This is why I'm so very skeptical about the ability of regions to disassociate from one another.
The anti-tax zealots normally have no idea regarding the distribution of revenues and spending.

Just as the Democratic blue states continually need to subsidize the free loading red states, the urban areas of individual states are typically subsiding the rural portions.

Quite true, the net flow of public monies is a huge consideration. As I understand, Texas sends more dollars to Washington than it gets back, which might make their idea slightly less wacky. Although they still must consider hidden expenses of nation-statehood such as defense, international relations, etc.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2013-June-11, 06:36, said:

As I understand, Texas sends more dollars to Washington than it gets back, which might make their idea slightly less wacky.

Texas is one of the few "Red" states which does so...

(The "rust belt" blue states are also outliers)

[dwar0123]

Another issue with a state trying to split into two is that the area would double it's representation in the Senate. This would have pretty substantial benefit for one party over the other and the party on the losing side of that equation will never allow it.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-10, 09:00, said:

What does the movement plan to do with the NYC boroughs that are on Long Island?

They may be geographically on Long Island, but they're not politically/culturally part of Long Island. I believe the secession talks are just referring to Nassau and Suffolk Counties (and it's probably mostly coming from Suffolk, although it's probably not populous enough to go off on its own).