North Colorado, the 51st State

Is this some kind of joke? Puerto Rico has a far better chance of becoming the 51st state than this collection of counties in northern Colorado.

 

Those are called counties.

 

The proposal is obviously unrealistic but it does speak to a problem of local representation at the federal and state level. District sizes are way too big today.

Also smaller districts have the benefit of blunting the impact of money on elections.

 

That could make a deal, I suppose. Republicans will let Puerto Rico in if Democrats let North Colorado in. (Except that Puerto Rico is actually pretty conservative and could well help the Republicans more than Democrats in the long run.)

In seriousness, level-headed conservatives who are feeling repressed by their state governments can advocate (and do, I know) for shifting more power to the county and municipal level. That's a much more responsible approach to empowerment of the individual than taking your ball and making a new state.

 

Wow could you imagine if major urban areas all separated from their rural surroundings???

You'd literally put the rural areas into poverty and the urban areas would experience a massive windfall of cash. I think it is good for anyone living in or near a city.

 

Which is why the two party system sucks
IT isn't about what is right for the country
IT isn't about what is right for the people
*IT* is about keeping power . . . . so basically we will let states in 2 at a time
and only if one is red and the other is blue


This is why I refer to our society as Dictatorship by Committee

Rocket River

 

Amen. It sucks.

 

That makes a lot more sense. I'd still oppose it, but at least it isn't laughable.

 

I'm surprised that no one in this thread has mentioned that Texas is the only state that can split into as many as five states. A clause in the Congressional document annexing Texas gives us that sole distinction. I don't think it's a good idea, but we could do it.

 

That's because it's not really true - at least not in the way you're thinking. The division provision was about how slavery would be handled if there was a division of the state. But any split still has to be approved by the federal government, meaning it is no different than Alaska or California or any other state splitting into multiple states.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp

 

They aren't even neighboring counties, not to mention no one even lives there. Some of those places are just miserable. They make you feel like you Arebin a horror movie. As someone said, people out there definitely live on the fri he of society

 

Snopes doesn't really answer the question. They highlight the reason why the clause was in the joint resolution to begin with but doesn't answer the question of whether splitting Texas under the rules of the joint resolution is any different from the process outlined in the Constitution.

One would think that if the framers specifically added that clause they might have intended that the process of splitting Texas would be different. But seeing as how they didn't really elaborate on that, we have no idea. Either way, today no court were interpret that clause to mean the process of splitting Texas would be any different than the process outlined in the Constitution.

Nonetheless, a weird quirk in our history.

 

I think they did, but it was just indirect. This is the text from within the clause:


New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution;

Then later, they mention the provisions of the Federal Constitution:


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 basically, Texas can split, but it would still be subject to the federal requirements, as is the case for any other state.

I think the purpose of it was simply to deal with slavery and what portions would have slavery banned and which ones would allow it. Keep in mind that this provision wasn't added as an enticement to get Texas to join the states - it was a compromise between the free states and slave states who wanted to split up Texas to add more slave states. It was a provision designed to be limiting rather than as an incentive.

 

If that happened could you imagine the fight over which of the five would get to keep Texas as their state's name?

 

This.

 

I have given this much thought, and it wouldn't be so bad. Divide, for instance, into east, west, south, north, and central. So respectively:
Teexas
Texwas
Texsas
Tenxas (or Texnas)
Tecxas

Much better than Colonorado and Colslawrado.

 

I've been saying for years that we could kill two birds with one stone by giving Israel Texas. They would be out of the middle east and Texas would be it's own country.


No one ever listens to me

 

Actually, most democracies on the planet follow the cube root rule, representative numbers are about the cube root of the population, which would make the appropriate number of legislators about 680. Personally, I would keep the existing Senate and House single member districts, then add a proportional representation system like in Germany, where in addition to voting for your candidate, you vote for a party. Members of the parties which receive a minimum vote percentage receive representatives such that the percentage of total representatives in the House are roughly equal to the voting percentages.

In this way, smaller parties (Libertarian, Tea Party, Greens, etc.) would actually have representation, helping to break the grip of the two party system on our democracy. Two options don't represent the views of a great many Americans, citizens who are effectively disenfranchised because their views are not represented in Congress.

 

West Texas
East Texas
South Texas
Central Texas
South Oklahoma

Done.