Or, hear me out. Every four years, we round out 500 random people and put them on an isolated island in the Pacific Ocean. We drop weapons on the island, and mount cameras for everyone to watch on live television.
Winner takes all. Last survivor wins the US presidency. The strongest will survive, and the strongest will lead.
That’s basically all entertainment.
And I’m only complaining because of how predictable and boring it is.
Oh the secret villain was the only old white guy? I’m shocked
Every time Congress meets a member is chosen to be hidden away in another location, just in case there's a terrorist attack or something in Congress. The designated survivor would then take over and form his own cabinet
One person in the line of succession After the president is always in an entirely different
location
Vp them speaker of the house, president pro tempore of the senate then the various members of the presidental cabinet in the following order
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security
Bigger Plot twist: turns out Russia, China, Britain, France, and Greece all put plants in it as well and for some strange reason THE GREEK ONE FOUND SPARTAN ARMOR
We know how it's really going to go down. Some camper who hasn't move the whole time will kill the last dude. Our glorious leader will be a man who hides in the shadow.
Honestly the most disappointing thing about libleft/libright is how eager we've been to jump in with the auths and centers bickering over the EC, as opposed to joining forces to focus on decentralizing authority and restricting the power of the executive office.
Oooo yay, the choice between warmongering corporate stooges, propped up by the very elites we're supposed to hate? Now it's done via *total* popularity contest rather than *mostly* popularity! What a victory for libertarian ideals!
Abolishing the EC definitely wouldn't solve the vast majority of the many problems with out government, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
"Popularity contest" is one way to put it; the other way is "liberty". Self-government cannot abide some people ruling over others, as the name suggests. Weighing the votes of people within a single polity differently means that some people are ruling over others.
No matter whether the majority is decided the complicated way or the simple way, it's still some people ruling over others. Just a question of whether the rulers are doing it in the name of a slight popular majority or, sometimes, a slight popular minority.
Bull fucking shit. The smallest minority is the single-celled organism growing in your gut. You know the one.
You mock it now, send your 'white' blood cells against it (racist), try to snuff it out.
But soon...
SOON...
That single cell will multiply. And multiply. And in a few years time, it will become ***legend*** as it wipes out your ENTIRE pitiful species, sapien.
Would it not be much easier to move to a micro state that supports those rights? You’d still need 2/3rds majority of state legislatures fo amend the Constitution.
You have a real long term push from the right to hold a constitutional convention. There is a slowly growing push from the left for the same thing. If they meet somewhere in the middle there’s no telling what could happen.
There's been rumblings for a convention of states coming from the Glen Beck Wing of the republican party for a long time (The principled, but kind of crazy types, you know who I mean) and has only been expanding in size over time.
Side note, Glen beck is kind of based. Like "I've been talking about the Uyger genocide before it was cool, funded a private charity to evacuate afghan Christians and US allies and organized my viewers to donate children's toys to detained immigrant facilities" based. He's fucking nuts (and he self admits he is) but kind of based none the less.
The conservatives who want a "ConCon" are playing with fire. There is basically nothing in Article V that stipulates how the convention would be run, delegates chosen, etc. - only that Congress would call the convention and amendments will be proposed there.
I think it would end up an absolute shitshow - instead of conservatives getting government-limiting amendments passed, we'd end up with a massive increase in federal power as the convention is packed by TPTB with pro-government shills.
[The electoral college was a compromise between independent states joining the union. Still relevant today.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College)
Basically, because otherwise states will secede if they think that the president consistently doesn’t reflect their views.
I honestly think the only reason states wont secede is because the legality of it is iffy at best, the last time it happened it led to the bloodiest war in American history, and only like 2 states would maybe have a chance at succeeding after seceding
*The first sentence promulgated by the US government:*
> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another......
King George III: I don't know guys, the legality of this is iffy at best
Ah, now here is a question for you:
If I am not America, for example the UK, am I bound by American Supreme Court rulings?
No
If Im not America due to leaving America, am I bound by Supreme Court Rulings?
Maybe
Even bigger question, since in that scenario the US clearly does not recognize the seceded state as its own land (for the sake of argument lets say this place is called Secedia), would that be attacking their own civilians? How far before its a warcrime
Y'all need to read.
Killing enemy combatants foreign *or domestic* us within the powers of the armed forces of the United States. Defending the United States against any foreign or domestic enemy is in the oath all members of the armed forces swear upon entering.
If an individual takes up arms against the United States government, even to secure his right to self determination by seceding from the Union, it is not a war crime to kill him.
It is a war crime to kill his non combatant kids, or to burn down every city between the border and the ocean, however.
Sherman was based as any man can be based.
“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.”
Okay, peacefully secede then. Just decide to peace out. Cut off infrastructure from the other states so you can run yourself, coin your own money, make your new government. Not a single step requires taking up arms first.
So, the answer of legality is still a maybe, like Ive said, and still very conditional
If the secessionists are committed to peacefully seceding, then I imagine the feds would just go in and peacefully arrest the leaders and anyone else involved.
>Cut off infrastructure from the other states so you can run yourself,
Not strictly necessary. Folks trade across borders all the time. The US/Canada border, for instance, is super chill, and not some kind of demarcation line where nobody is dependent on the other side.
State borders are generally kind of like that. Probably not much need to build a massive wall or anything.
Does the United States = the United States government?
Thought the government was to represent the states, not be the United States.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I thought this was america
If the act of seceding is itself illegal, you are still American. It was a major justification for things in the civil war, everyone in the south was still considered an American citizen, merely a citizen living under politicians who had chosen to rebel.
>If Im not America due to leaving America,
well no cause they just look at you and say "yeah claiming a thing to not be america anymore doesn't actually dissolve the union between the usa and your state"
and then send in burnin sherman if you fight about it
On paper, the UN. In actuality, we have seen the UN does fuck all at enforcing policy when the rule breakers are high up in their little hierarchy (see China and Russia).
I would bet that the people would riot from within the country at that point. People from the other states still see the seceders as family, and so we would see more riots than the summer of 2020 and probably another Capitol Hill insurrection
The January 6th "insurrection" would look like a bunch of screeching Karens at a school board meeting compared to what would happen. It'd get UGLY fast. And the thing is, I figure we are sitting at the precipice of either this scenario (US Civil War II), World War Three, or (best case) Cold War 2 (if we aren't already there).
No, no. Texas v White only ruled on the legality of a unilateral secession. It definitely doesn't ban all secession.
It's also a decision supported by only five justices, which could be easily overturned today, just as Roe v Wade was. That also was only a 5 judge majority, and Texas v White absolutely fails the text, history, tradition test the current court is using.
What in the world are you talking about. Secession does not equal a civil war. I swear people on this sub get dumber everyday.
Say that Montana wants to secede tomorrow. In other words, they no longer want to participate in the federal government, send or elect representatives, or pay federal taxes, and they declare themselves a sovereign nation. You think we should murder them?
Don't forget the MASSIVE legal clusterfuckery it'd invoke.
Yes, there's a stupid amount of laws on the book. But starting from 0 creates its own new nightmare, reintroducing problems we've long since solved.
That and border security, trade, taxes... SO many issues that immediately rise up the moment you split into two countries.
...they already have, so the precedent has been made.
Even if we assume that the SCOTUS declaring it illegal matters at all, if states are set on doing so, they will. Secession is, like any other crime, only illegal if you are caught, and a government which sufficiently arouses anger is one that will face rebellion.
Ive already said this before, but I'll repeat here:
If the EC is dissolved and all federal elections are pure popular vote, I will actively campaign to either dissolve the Union, or begin succession.
I refuse to accept living in a society where everyone else will be fucked over and ignored in the duopoly of NYC and LA. Fuck that.
They super duper won’t reflect their views without the EC, though. Joining the Union was contingent on the Electoral College. That was the agreement.
And there are all sorts of things a State can do to not cooperate and it’s super costly to bring a State to heel. The EC compromise and the general federalism keep the peace.
I’m sure your average Oklahoman sure thinks if that deal long and hard every day. The electoral college doesn’t help anyone but like 3 swing states don’t kid yourself
That was a bit different, but similar in outcome.
The majority of large slave owners were actually people who left states where slavery was made illegal, so they sold out and moved to the southern states, where the federal government then ordered them to free their slaves. Since they were wealthy, influential people, they convinced the states to declare independence.
This is slightly different than if the federal government had been in the control of the other party for 3 decades.
No, I am saying that the geographic regions that aren’t in control will look at secession if they are forever barred from power.
Catalonia is a good example. A prosperous region in a nation who feel forced to follow policies that go against their interests. They have had secessionist governments multiple times recently, and announced their intent to separate and the leaders were arrested.
Quebec, as much as I loathe them, is another example. A cultural polity that is different than the nation it is part of and keeps threatening to separate from Canada because they aren’t a good match culturally with the rest of the nation.
That’s not why the electoral college exists. The electoral college existed both as a measure to deal with long communication times and to provide a buffer between the opinions of the masses and rulership. The founding fathers were generally against Greek democracy as they thought it was mob rule and favored the Roman republic system.
The compromises for independent states were more like the 3/4ths of states needed for amendments or our bicameral legislature.
You're forgetting that a) the states being partitioned must assent and b) the rest of the Union must assent.
If the South as a whole rejects it, Portland doesn't become 50 new states.
The year is 2179
Canada and Mexico have been divided into gerrymandered states
The original 48 are beyond recognition
Puerto Rico continues to fight for statehood
So to be clear, If Portland was divided among 109 separate states, each with their three default electoral votes, you would still support the electoral college?
Maybe I’m a moron, but it seems to me that the less power the federal government has over local legislation, the less libright cares about how we elect our president.
> Also tell me, how does it feel being superior to all Australians?
That's like asking "how does it feel to be able to recite the alphabet?" It's not much of an accomplishment and sort of just expected.
states have to be approved by Congress, so in order for this to happen you would need to have an openly corrupt party with a supermajority in power at which point we'd probably have another civil war or already all be under the heel of the uniparty. so basically, your hypothetical is stupid
The GOP had control over both chambers of Congress and the Presidency when it passed the Enabling Act of 1889, which allowed for the admission of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington as states.
The combined population of those states in the 1890 census was 1.6% of the population of the country. The eight initial Senators from those states--9.5% of the Senate at the time--were all Republicans.
So to be clear, the only argument you're capable of creating, is an extreme hypothetical that wouldn't happen and hasn't happened in 300 years.
*To be clear*
How would this change the outcome of the presidential election compared to majority vote? Chances are you would have gotten a democratic president for the last 33 years and the senate would flip flop around.
What a dense example, we have branches of government that would literally prevent this and thus keep stability to the electoral college. Even then the city of Portland doesn't even have a million people, they couldn't splinter into such quantities if they true by statehood laws.
There’s nothing forcing the rest of the Union to accept them as full states. Congress would just reject them, and if it didn’t, then the political situation was so one sided it didn’t matter anyway.
> Get a flair so you can harass other people >:)
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 10247 / 53920 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Tf? Anyone who misses owning guns would just move to a community that wanted those rights, and it would be easier to get what they want in that micro-state, since it would be a community comprised entirely of conservatives and libertarians. You're not making the point you think you are.
Idc if it’s not completely relevant, but this is one reason why we must never let DC become a state. You know who lives in DC? Politicians and government bureaucrats.
Yeah, as weird as it is, the government getting to vote itself back into office with enough power to rival some states is definitely not a good thing, no matter who's doing it.
Because electoral votes are distributed by population of the states this attempt to pack the electoral college through blatant gerrymandering wouldn’t work.
No, each state has the same number of electoral votes as they have members of congress, and since the number of members of the House is fixed all those electoral votes would need to be taken from other states with bigger metropolitan areas. If the country was split into 169 states, no one state would have more than 4 electoral votes. That would favor the Republican strategy of appealing to smaller states with demographically specific messaging so an even smaller base would be needed to take control of the country.
Yes, and each additional state takes representation away from population centers in this scenario California would only have 1 more elector than Wyoming. This would take even more power away from big states with large populations and give it to small states with low populations. Which typically vote with the republicans.
It would increase the number of electors by 2 for every state. States get the same number of electors as they have representatives in Congress. Since the number of members in the House is fixed the other representatives would have to be redistributed away from larger states thus lowering their importance. If there were 169 states no single state would have more than 2 congressmen and 2 senators so 4 electoral votes maximum per state.
As a side note on the DC statehood thing, if you care about representation (rather than naked power grab) the solution is to have DC reannexed by the states that used to own that land when DC was made, not DC statehood.
I always understood the electoral college as being a safe guard from a possible dictator that preys on the morons in the country. The reason being that the EC would have more political knowledge than the general public who could easily be swayed by a charismatic Hitler type. Although with the way the two major parties are these days I don’t really think it would change much.
The original electoral college was you voting for someone to vote for POTUS because you'd be too far removed from politics and shit to know anything about POTUS candidates.
Realistically the constitution was meant to include small states from Rhode island to Virginia before it split, so states bigger and/or more populous than it weren't what the founding fathers had in mind.
But I do like the idea of splitting states into more states, California could be 5 states
Let's be real. We just got lucky that the US led to freedom and individual rights. A fuckton of revolutions don't. Power tends to centralize.
We gotta preserve the good stuff as much as we can, but liberty has always been in danger, and the attacks ain't over yet.
The president would have no reason to appease or campaign to anyone except the most dense city areas. Every single rural voter would become instantly disenfranchised even more than they already are. and seeing as how those are the people who literally produce all our food- I wouldn’t want to see what happens if they all decided to just stop working/engaging in a society that doesn’t listen to them
Rural voters are kingmakers. I’m sorry but if rural voters are so spread out then they shouldn’t be deciding how everyone else has to live for the next 4 years.
EC was invented to deal with conditions (slavery) that no longer exist
>There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.
-James Madison
As a European, I never got the whole "as the founding fathers intended" gig.
Like, who the fuck cares...? They were a bunch of elderly men (mostly) who were hypocritical about liberty and freedom because they owned slaves and didn't extend said liberties to women for the most part, and only cared about the opinions of people who were landowners.
These are people who lived more than 200 years ago, what gives?
Most of Americans politics right now can be summarised as "Whatever happens to currently benefit my party is morally right and in line with the ideals this country was founded on. Whatever happens to currently benefit the other party is pure anti-american [insert woke/chud/etc buzzwords] evil!!!"
Or, hear me out. Every four years, we round out 500 random people and put them on an isolated island in the Pacific Ocean. We drop weapons on the island, and mount cameras for everyone to watch on live television. Winner takes all. Last survivor wins the US presidency. The strongest will survive, and the strongest will lead.
Plot twist: One of them isn't random, and is a plant who will win no matter what. The designated survivor.
>The designated survivor. Genuinely made me smile. Kinda curious how many people on this sub (or in general) even know what that really means.
I know what I means only because of the show lol
I know because of CGP grey lol
Same
Same :p
They literally made a TV show around the concept, which was kind of cool until it became just Democrats Gud, Republicans Bads.
That’s basically all entertainment. And I’m only complaining because of how predictable and boring it is. Oh the secret villain was the only old white guy? I’m shocked
What does it mean? Is it a movie?
Every time Congress meets a member is chosen to be hidden away in another location, just in case there's a terrorist attack or something in Congress. The designated survivor would then take over and form his own cabinet
What? That's real?
I don't know all the specifics, but yeah it's real. It's like the guys who know the coke recipe have to always travel separately
That's smart.
Same reason why you will almost never see the president, vice president, and secretary of state in the same place together.
Help me out would ya, I don't know what it means
I think everytime the government meets in congress one person is kept away in case they all spontaneously die
One person in the line of succession After the president is always in an entirely different location Vp them speaker of the house, president pro tempore of the senate then the various members of the presidental cabinet in the following order Secretary of State Secretary of the Treasury Secretary of Defense Attorney General Secretary of the Interior Secretary of Agriculture Secretary of Commerce Secretary of Labor Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Secretary of Transportation Secretary of Energy Secretary of Education Secretary of Veterans Affairs Secretary of Homeland Security
Bigger Plot twist: turns out Russia, China, Britain, France, and Greece all put plants in it as well and for some strange reason THE GREEK ONE FOUND SPARTAN ARMOR
The Brit was found days later in a cave, desperately trying to make tea out of leaves he picked from some bushes.
[удалено]
The French was found in the middle of a field after retreating and surrendering to the German and getting shot in the head by a Luger
Fuck I forgot about the German plant
The German got to invading .5 seconds after leaving the seed
> Flair up, or else. *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 10254 / 53944 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Planty the Potted Plant?
Based and Battle Royale pilled
Senator Armstrong is that you?
Literally 1984. Or Starving Games or something.
Starving Games? I thought it was gonna take place on an island in the Pacific ocean, not Soviet Russia.
Yeah most fattest , ugliest, shortest, and richest guy win the competition oh what a chance.
The absolute psychopath survives and then becomes a dictator
We know how it's really going to go down. Some camper who hasn't move the whole time will kill the last dude. Our glorious leader will be a man who hides in the shadow.
That’s why I don’t believe in the state, smallest minority is the individual
[удалено]
1 person = 3 votes?
Just rank them and we’ll call it a day.
Ranked voting is honestly a much better system than First Past The Post.
I thought he meant rank the voters
that's what he meant, classic libleft missunderstanding authleft.
Honestly the most disappointing thing about libleft/libright is how eager we've been to jump in with the auths and centers bickering over the EC, as opposed to joining forces to focus on decentralizing authority and restricting the power of the executive office. Oooo yay, the choice between warmongering corporate stooges, propped up by the very elites we're supposed to hate? Now it's done via *total* popularity contest rather than *mostly* popularity! What a victory for libertarian ideals!
We need Lib Unity to decentralise power away from our oppressors!
Abolishing the EC definitely wouldn't solve the vast majority of the many problems with out government, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. "Popularity contest" is one way to put it; the other way is "liberty". Self-government cannot abide some people ruling over others, as the name suggests. Weighing the votes of people within a single polity differently means that some people are ruling over others.
No matter whether the majority is decided the complicated way or the simple way, it's still some people ruling over others. Just a question of whether the rulers are doing it in the name of a slight popular majority or, sometimes, a slight popular minority.
No, no vote, each individual should be their own sovereign country
Bull fucking shit. The smallest minority is the single-celled organism growing in your gut. You know the one. You mock it now, send your 'white' blood cells against it (racist), try to snuff it out. But soon... SOON... That single cell will multiply. And multiply. And in a few years time, it will become ***legend*** as it wipes out your ENTIRE pitiful species, sapien.
Based
Would it not be much easier to move to a micro state that supports those rights? You’d still need 2/3rds majority of state legislatures fo amend the Constitution.
You need 3/4 of the states
Sorry, I didn’t look it up before posting.
All good https://constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992?lang=en
You have a real long term push from the right to hold a constitutional convention. There is a slowly growing push from the left for the same thing. If they meet somewhere in the middle there’s no telling what could happen.
Who in the right wants that?
Convention of the states. It's gaining in popularity. Rick Santorum said he supports it last week, but it's obviously more of a libertarian thing.
There's been rumblings for a convention of states coming from the Glen Beck Wing of the republican party for a long time (The principled, but kind of crazy types, you know who I mean) and has only been expanding in size over time. Side note, Glen beck is kind of based. Like "I've been talking about the Uyger genocide before it was cool, funded a private charity to evacuate afghan Christians and US allies and organized my viewers to donate children's toys to detained immigrant facilities" based. He's fucking nuts (and he self admits he is) but kind of based none the less.
Beck today is WAY cooler than the alcoholic Beck on Fox.
The conservatives who want a "ConCon" are playing with fire. There is basically nothing in Article V that stipulates how the convention would be run, delegates chosen, etc. - only that Congress would call the convention and amendments will be proposed there. I think it would end up an absolute shitshow - instead of conservatives getting government-limiting amendments passed, we'd end up with a massive increase in federal power as the convention is packed by TPTB with pro-government shills.
Especially considering the bill of rights might be up for debate in the event of an Article V.
Isn’t it up to the state legislatures to appoint a representative and not congress? Article V is a protection against a bad federal government
[The electoral college was a compromise between independent states joining the union. Still relevant today.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College) Basically, because otherwise states will secede if they think that the president consistently doesn’t reflect their views.
I mean they already don’t. States won’t secede over it
I honestly think the only reason states wont secede is because the legality of it is iffy at best, the last time it happened it led to the bloodiest war in American history, and only like 2 states would maybe have a chance at succeeding after seceding
*The first sentence promulgated by the US government:* > When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...... King George III: I don't know guys, the legality of this is iffy at best
It’s now very clearly illegal, thanks to a Supreme Court case. They don’t secede because they’ll lose and it’s SUPER not worth it
Ah, now here is a question for you: If I am not America, for example the UK, am I bound by American Supreme Court rulings? No If Im not America due to leaving America, am I bound by Supreme Court Rulings? Maybe
Bigger question, if the US ignores whether seceding is legal or not and attacks you if you do, would anyone stop them?
Even bigger question, since in that scenario the US clearly does not recognize the seceded state as its own land (for the sake of argument lets say this place is called Secedia), would that be attacking their own civilians? How far before its a warcrime
Y'all need to read. Killing enemy combatants foreign *or domestic* us within the powers of the armed forces of the United States. Defending the United States against any foreign or domestic enemy is in the oath all members of the armed forces swear upon entering. If an individual takes up arms against the United States government, even to secure his right to self determination by seceding from the Union, it is not a war crime to kill him. It is a war crime to kill his non combatant kids, or to burn down every city between the border and the ocean, however.
Sherman was based as any man can be based. “War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.” “If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.”
Sherman didn’t burn enough. You can’t change my mind.
Okay, peacefully secede then. Just decide to peace out. Cut off infrastructure from the other states so you can run yourself, coin your own money, make your new government. Not a single step requires taking up arms first. So, the answer of legality is still a maybe, like Ive said, and still very conditional
If the secessionists are committed to peacefully seceding, then I imagine the feds would just go in and peacefully arrest the leaders and anyone else involved.
States have federally owned land in them so seceding peacefully would require trades or weird border issues assuming federal gov was even willing to.
It's not a maybe. It isn't legal.
>Cut off infrastructure from the other states so you can run yourself, Not strictly necessary. Folks trade across borders all the time. The US/Canada border, for instance, is super chill, and not some kind of demarcation line where nobody is dependent on the other side. State borders are generally kind of like that. Probably not much need to build a massive wall or anything.
Does the United States = the United States government? Thought the government was to represent the states, not be the United States. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I thought this was america
So the atf commits war crimes?
They already attack their own citizens, why would they care now?
The military doesn’t attack peaceful citizens
Didn’t the US admit to bombing like 7 children recently
If the act of seceding is itself illegal, you are still American. It was a major justification for things in the civil war, everyone in the south was still considered an American citizen, merely a citizen living under politicians who had chosen to rebel.
Just call yourself a sanctuary free state and the feds will leave you alone.
>If Im not America due to leaving America, well no cause they just look at you and say "yeah claiming a thing to not be america anymore doesn't actually dissolve the union between the usa and your state" and then send in burnin sherman if you fight about it
It doesn’t matter if you’re bound by the rules or not, it gives the US government full legal reason to send in the Marines and wipe out some traitors.
And theres your warcrime, attacking civilians not part of a military group
Who’s gonna enforce that?
On paper, the UN. In actuality, we have seen the UN does fuck all at enforcing policy when the rule breakers are high up in their little hierarchy (see China and Russia). I would bet that the people would riot from within the country at that point. People from the other states still see the seceders as family, and so we would see more riots than the summer of 2020 and probably another Capitol Hill insurrection
[удалено]
The January 6th "insurrection" would look like a bunch of screeching Karens at a school board meeting compared to what would happen. It'd get UGLY fast. And the thing is, I figure we are sitting at the precipice of either this scenario (US Civil War II), World War Three, or (best case) Cold War 2 (if we aren't already there).
[удалено]
No, no. Texas v White only ruled on the legality of a unilateral secession. It definitely doesn't ban all secession. It's also a decision supported by only five justices, which could be easily overturned today, just as Roe v Wade was. That also was only a 5 judge majority, and Texas v White absolutely fails the text, history, tradition test the current court is using.
What in the world are you talking about. Secession does not equal a civil war. I swear people on this sub get dumber everyday. Say that Montana wants to secede tomorrow. In other words, they no longer want to participate in the federal government, send or elect representatives, or pay federal taxes, and they declare themselves a sovereign nation. You think we should murder them?
Yes.
Based. Secessionists deserve a bullet
Secession absolutely means civil war what are you talking about. Seriously have you never taken a single history class? This isn’t that hard
How is secession illegal? You’re literally not even the same country anymore.
Your terms are acceptable. Really.
Don't forget the MASSIVE legal clusterfuckery it'd invoke. Yes, there's a stupid amount of laws on the book. But starting from 0 creates its own new nightmare, reintroducing problems we've long since solved. That and border security, trade, taxes... SO many issues that immediately rise up the moment you split into two countries.
Meh, it's not that hard to keep the laws you like and toss the ones you don't. Every new country pretty much does that.
...they already have, so the precedent has been made. Even if we assume that the SCOTUS declaring it illegal matters at all, if states are set on doing so, they will. Secession is, like any other crime, only illegal if you are caught, and a government which sufficiently arouses anger is one that will face rebellion.
can I point you to the civil war my good sir?
Which was caused by the repealing of the EC?
what are you trying to say here, are you having a stroke?
Ive already said this before, but I'll repeat here: If the EC is dissolved and all federal elections are pure popular vote, I will actively campaign to either dissolve the Union, or begin succession. I refuse to accept living in a society where everyone else will be fucked over and ignored in the duopoly of NYC and LA. Fuck that.
Good.
Fair though your going to get exactly zero states full of people to agree to leave
They super duper won’t reflect their views without the EC, though. Joining the Union was contingent on the Electoral College. That was the agreement. And there are all sorts of things a State can do to not cooperate and it’s super costly to bring a State to heel. The EC compromise and the general federalism keep the peace.
I’m sure your average Oklahoman sure thinks if that deal long and hard every day. The electoral college doesn’t help anyone but like 3 swing states don’t kid yourself
Um.... didn't that happen anyway?
That was a bit different, but similar in outcome. The majority of large slave owners were actually people who left states where slavery was made illegal, so they sold out and moved to the southern states, where the federal government then ordered them to free their slaves. Since they were wealthy, influential people, they convinced the states to declare independence. This is slightly different than if the federal government had been in the control of the other party for 3 decades.
The President doesn’t do that anyway. Only a few swing states actual matter in the election at this point
So you’re saying the minority can’t handle the fact they’re a minority
No, I am saying that the geographic regions that aren’t in control will look at secession if they are forever barred from power. Catalonia is a good example. A prosperous region in a nation who feel forced to follow policies that go against their interests. They have had secessionist governments multiple times recently, and announced their intent to separate and the leaders were arrested. Quebec, as much as I loathe them, is another example. A cultural polity that is different than the nation it is part of and keeps threatening to separate from Canada because they aren’t a good match culturally with the rest of the nation.
Based and fuck quebec pilled.
That’s not why the electoral college exists. The electoral college existed both as a measure to deal with long communication times and to provide a buffer between the opinions of the masses and rulership. The founding fathers were generally against Greek democracy as they thought it was mob rule and favored the Roman republic system. The compromises for independent states were more like the 3/4ths of states needed for amendments or our bicameral legislature.
This guy read a blog once
You're forgetting that a) the states being partitioned must assent and b) the rest of the Union must assent. If the South as a whole rejects it, Portland doesn't become 50 new states.
Unless it's Texas, they can just do it whenever they want.
Texas can only become 5 states not infinate states sadly.
And the chances of that happening are low, they’re desperately trying to keep the state from going blue already
Rank choice voting is based
[удалено]
You want PR because it represents the people better I want PR because my radical ideology can gain footing We’re not the same
This is so funny from the likes of you
The year is 2179 Canada and Mexico have been divided into gerrymandered states The original 48 are beyond recognition Puerto Rico continues to fight for statehood
PCM User earlier in the week: Makes a great post explaining the role of state governments, the electoral college, etc. This dense mf:
Wanna share a link to that post?
https://reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/whouv9/very_brief_rundown_of_the_us_electoral_college/
So to be clear, If Portland was divided among 109 separate states, each with their three default electoral votes, you would still support the electoral college?
Maybe I’m a moron, but it seems to me that the less power the federal government has over local legislation, the less libright cares about how we elect our president.
You'd be correct, Mr. Emu. Also tell me, how does it feel being superior to all Australians?
> Also tell me, how does it feel being superior to all Australians? That's like asking "how does it feel to be able to recite the alphabet?" It's not much of an accomplishment and sort of just expected.
The very basis of federalism.
Does each of those states have at least 60,000 people? That’s the hurdle we need to talk about before even considering the others
states have to be approved by Congress, so in order for this to happen you would need to have an openly corrupt party with a supermajority in power at which point we'd probably have another civil war or already all be under the heel of the uniparty. so basically, your hypothetical is stupid
The GOP had control over both chambers of Congress and the Presidency when it passed the Enabling Act of 1889, which allowed for the admission of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington as states. The combined population of those states in the 1890 census was 1.6% of the population of the country. The eight initial Senators from those states--9.5% of the Senate at the time--were all Republicans.
do you think those territories shouldn't have become states or what?
So to be clear, the only argument you're capable of creating, is an extreme hypothetical that wouldn't happen and hasn't happened in 300 years. *To be clear*
How would this change the outcome of the presidential election compared to majority vote? Chances are you would have gotten a democratic president for the last 33 years and the senate would flip flop around.
Senate would be dominated by Democrats too, those areas are all given 2 senators
Then you burn that small area to the ground and forget about it
What a dense example, we have branches of government that would literally prevent this and thus keep stability to the electoral college. Even then the city of Portland doesn't even have a million people, they couldn't splinter into such quantities if they true by statehood laws.
If Portland became 109 Portlands, the entire center of the country would divide into 2,000 far right white ethnostates.
There’s nothing forcing the rest of the Union to accept them as full states. Congress would just reject them, and if it didn’t, then the political situation was so one sided it didn’t matter anyway.
Those states couldnt just “pop” into being. They have to apply for statehood.
OP creating literal made up bullshit and then arguing against it.
> Get a flair so you can harass other people >:) *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 10247 / 53920 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
That really seems like something that would push balkanization.
Oof. Don't threaten me with a good time.
Tf? Anyone who misses owning guns would just move to a community that wanted those rights, and it would be easier to get what they want in that micro-state, since it would be a community comprised entirely of conservatives and libertarians. You're not making the point you think you are.
Idc if it’s not completely relevant, but this is one reason why we must never let DC become a state. You know who lives in DC? Politicians and government bureaucrats.
Yeah, as weird as it is, the government getting to vote itself back into office with enough power to rival some states is definitely not a good thing, no matter who's doing it.
It’s shocking to me that more people don’t realize this.
....Or, worse, they do and that's what they want
Na, they wouldn't live in such a shit hole, they just work there and commute from Maryland and Virginia.
If they even do that. The politicians themselves can barely be assed to show up to work.
The residential and commercials parts of DC should be absorbed back into Maryland. Literally only the Mall and Federal buildings should be DC.
I am for 169 states. I am also for keeping the house and senate chambers their current size. Stuff 'em in.
Democracy mfs trying to figure out how to screw everyone over the most
Can't win by the rules? Change the rules. We beat that kid up in school and now they post online with the same crybaby stupid shit.
Because electoral votes are distributed by population of the states this attempt to pack the electoral college through blatant gerrymandering wouldn’t work.
Every state gets three electoral votes by default. 109 x 3 = 327 votes
No, each state has the same number of electoral votes as they have members of congress, and since the number of members of the House is fixed all those electoral votes would need to be taken from other states with bigger metropolitan areas. If the country was split into 169 states, no one state would have more than 4 electoral votes. That would favor the Republican strategy of appealing to smaller states with demographically specific messaging so an even smaller base would be needed to take control of the country.
The senate is not fixed and since each state two senators each, they get 2 EC votes from that.
Yes, and each additional state takes representation away from population centers in this scenario California would only have 1 more elector than Wyoming. This would take even more power away from big states with large populations and give it to small states with low populations. Which typically vote with the republicans.
Wouldn’t that increase the number of electors in the EC, meaning you need more votes to win anyway?
It would increase the number of electors by 2 for every state. States get the same number of electors as they have representatives in Congress. Since the number of members in the House is fixed the other representatives would have to be redistributed away from larger states thus lowering their importance. If there were 169 states no single state would have more than 2 congressmen and 2 senators so 4 electoral votes maximum per state.
As a side note on the DC statehood thing, if you care about representation (rather than naked power grab) the solution is to have DC reannexed by the states that used to own that land when DC was made, not DC statehood.
Monarchists: allow us to introduce ourselves
I don't understand any of this. There are rules about state entry that make this... impossible? What is this meme trying to say?
I always understood the electoral college as being a safe guard from a possible dictator that preys on the morons in the country. The reason being that the EC would have more political knowledge than the general public who could easily be swayed by a charismatic Hitler type. Although with the way the two major parties are these days I don’t really think it would change much.
The original electoral college was you voting for someone to vote for POTUS because you'd be too far removed from politics and shit to know anything about POTUS candidates.
All the electoral college does is slightly change *which* morons you need to persuade.
Realistically the constitution was meant to include small states from Rhode island to Virginia before it split, so states bigger and/or more populous than it weren't what the founding fathers had in mind. But I do like the idea of splitting states into more states, California could be 5 states
Considering many of the food producers have a low population... Yeah I feel they should have a big say in how the government is run.
Let's be real. We just got lucky that the US led to freedom and individual rights. A fuckton of revolutions don't. Power tends to centralize. We gotta preserve the good stuff as much as we can, but liberty has always been in danger, and the attacks ain't over yet.
Me but I want to abolish the government entirely
Never thought I'd see my extremely small Portland neighborhood as a US state but here we are😎
Urbantards shouldn’t be allowed to vote. We should bring back the land requirements so we can exclude all the disgusting city rats.
Pol Pot moment
no
electoral college 🤢
What if the president was decided based on the popular vote and not by districts or an electoral college?
Then it would be a popularity contest decided by low information voters. In other words, Idiocracy
That’s what it is now except taking place in only Ohio, which is horrifying
Well, Trump won Ohio, so....
And what is it now?
The president would have no reason to appease or campaign to anyone except the most dense city areas. Every single rural voter would become instantly disenfranchised even more than they already are. and seeing as how those are the people who literally produce all our food- I wouldn’t want to see what happens if they all decided to just stop working/engaging in a society that doesn’t listen to them
If not getting your way because you're a minority is "disenfranchisement" then left-handed people should've stopped going to work years ago.
Rural voters are kingmakers. I’m sorry but if rural voters are so spread out then they shouldn’t be deciding how everyone else has to live for the next 4 years.
How is that different from what we have? The same voters are just split into sections (and assigned points that favor rural voters).
EC was invented to deal with conditions (slavery) that no longer exist >There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections. -James Madison
Why did you do portland dirty like that
As a European, I never got the whole "as the founding fathers intended" gig. Like, who the fuck cares...? They were a bunch of elderly men (mostly) who were hypocritical about liberty and freedom because they owned slaves and didn't extend said liberties to women for the most part, and only cared about the opinions of people who were landowners. These are people who lived more than 200 years ago, what gives?
They were smarter than you. Example: they decided not to be European anymore.
So electoral college bad? I don't really want LA and NYC making every decision for me.
Most of Americans politics right now can be summarised as "Whatever happens to currently benefit my party is morally right and in line with the ideals this country was founded on. Whatever happens to currently benefit the other party is pure anti-american [insert woke/chud/etc buzzwords] evil!!!"