As you know, the US is more politically polarized than ever both as shown by the US map image below. The red/blue shows the net change in voters by county... basically suggesting that states are becoming physically polarized. As such, counties often have more in common with neighboring state's policies than their own. This has lead to a renewed interest in changing state borders to allow counties that feel disenfranchised to join adjacent states. One example are counties in Eastern Oregon and Northern California who are more aligned with the politics of Idaho. A group called Greater Idaho is trying move Idaho's border and has succeeded to get on some local ballots.
Independent of the federal and policy implications, is it better for states to keep polarization local (as is) or to have consolidated counties that create neighboring states with vastly different political views? What could go wrong?
Note: I am considering to help fund the Greater Idaho project and posting this in part to get your advice. Thanks.
The civil war is rural vs. urban.
In Civil War I, the North was economically stronger than the South.
In Civil War II, Republican cities and states are economically stronger than
Democrat cities and states. Republican territory tends to have less debt/capita
than Democrat territory, less taxes, less crime, and a larger value for exports minus
imports. Moving vans are flowing from blue to red states. The plot quantifies
this, with more plots in [jaymaron.com]
A "blue hole" is a leftist city. The law of blue holes is that blue holes get bluer, until
they end in a blue hole singularity. There are few large red cities, the largest being
The vote shift plot is fascinating. Not only is rural red and cities blue, it's becoming
even more so.
In the age of sail, prosperity required being on a sailing route. Same for the age of rail
and the age of interstate freeways. The modern age is aircraft, which are different from the above
in that they can't make stops along the way. It's all about airports and hubs.
You need an airport but they tend to be in blue holes.
This page [jaymaron.com] shows the largest airports in red territory, such as Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Omaha,
Oklahoma City, Boise, Des Moines, Anchorage, and Tulsa. Montana, N & S Dakota, and Wyoming don't
have a large airport.
The only way to fight blue invasion is to be mobile. We will see an age of land
yachts and temporary cities where freedom of association can be exercised, plus
freedom of disassociation from leftists. We need competition between cities,
and this is a mechanism. In the Stephenson novel Snowcrash, America fractures
into independent burbclaves.
Cities rely on economic focusing of the rural economy, and this can be used to siege them.
The boycott strategy is to favor rural over city. Boycott strategy: [jaymaron.com]
In Game of Thrones there was no need to attack King's Landing. Instead control the farmland.
This is the Fabian Strategy.
The Ayn Rand novel Atlas Shrugged features an "atlas war", a war between the productive
and the parasites.
The Right plays the game according to the rules. The Left prefers to change the rules, always in a way
that favors them, and never consulting the opposition. The Right has to identify possible rightward rule changes as a deterrent to leftward rules changes. Want statehood for DC and PR? Let's also have statehood for East California, East Oregon, and East Washington. I like the name "Jefferson" that North California proposed. Let's have Trump State. Pack the Senate!
The flagship university of a state is often in a blue hole. We need new universities in rural territory, and they should be Institutes of Technology.
I'm not a fan of people moving goalposts to guarantee the results they want. Natives of states like Tennessee and Texas and Idaho and many others have a general distaste for transplants from California that ruined their own state and attempt to spread their disease to another. I can't say I blame them.
For reasons i hope to explain elsewhere I believe that a state should ideally have a surface equal to countries like Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland or the Netherlands. This is between forty- and seventy-thousand square kilometers of fertile and inhabitable ground. This would mean that the USA should redivide the country into between 140 and 240 states. It is obvious that the current borders are artificial. E.G. If we look at the time zone in Indiana we see that near Chicago it does not match the border of the state. I can imagine that people living in north west Indiana are quite happy to not be under Illinois/Chicago rule, yet have the same timezone. I suggest to create around 150 states.
I don't think that a civil war can be avoided by changing administrative borders. The argument for starting the civil war of 1861 was that the newly elected president didn't accept the secession of the southern states. So he sent the federal army which happened to win. There was no legal reason for Lincoln to not accept it, it was just a matter of power. The forces that keep any federation or any oversized country together, stem basically from inertia due the habit of federal / central government institutions to keep clinging to power.
Changing the state configurations requires and act of their legislatures and no politician wants to relinquish control and lose tax money. For instance Parts of Eastern and Southern Oregon would like to succeed from Oregon and form their own states. Oregon is controlled by the big cities in the Willamette Valley and they will never give up control without a physical fight. So, in the end, splitting states without violence is next to impossible.
Northern California has always resented the dominance of the urban areas. They tried to secede from California and form the State of Jefferson. They blockaded roads with bonfires and armed men to jumpstart the movement. Unfortunately, they chose the wrong date to do so. It was December 6th, 1941.
we just had “greater Idaho” initiatives fail at the ballot here in southern Oregon. Im all for it. Southern Oregon consistently gets the shaft in state spending on education, safety, and roads. ever since measure 5 passed in the 90’s Oregon does not spend its money where it is generated leaving our rural schools to rot while Portland and Salem spend at alarming rates. Our Governor does zero for us. shevwont’t even drive south of Eugene and constantly derides us as hicks and rubes. our lockdown policies reflect this too where isolated rural counties with 1 or 2 cases where people live very distanced lives anyway being forced to shut down with the rest of the state because our metrics have to be multiplied to x per 100k. 2 people infected people in 1 household can shut a school system down in a county of 20k because thats now 10 cases per 100k (multiply by 5).
many of us would love to be Idaho without moving. our people and our culture here is far more consistent and congruous with Idaho politics. No one here wants to be associated with Portland, when we travel people look at us like a bunch of violent socialist activists when we say we are from oregon before explaining... Not Portland.
I don't know much about your politics, but as I see with the extremist pronouncements of the Left against conservatives, I don't think a civil war can be avoided anymore. Or (at least) a countrywide imposition of martial law. The biggest concern is, which side the US military will take. It might be that even they are also poralized.
I am curious how you plan to help fund the Greater Idaho Project. In what way or for what purpose?
IMO - I like the idea generally, but like with - 'gun sanctuaries' that popped up in southern Illinois and some other places, all that does is show the group's willingness to 'retreat' in my opinion. Gerrymandering is already a huge problem in some places.
I wish we could just divide the country in half EAST/WEST but wherever you go, they will invade. As soon as you identify yourself as a target, they will attack you.
I read an article a few years ago about New Hampshire being the least diverse area in the country and in response to this article, a lot of people commenting on the topic mentioned something along the lines of, 'we need to do something about that.' There are no safe spaces FROM the Left.
WHAT THE HELL, IS AMERICA NOW FOLLOWING EUROPE, BORDERS, IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY, ARE YOU FOR REAL?! JUST AS BAD AS AUSTRALIA NOW, CLOSING BLOODY BORDERS WHEN WE'RE IN THE SAME DAMN COUNTRY!!!
This is what happens when stupid countries take in foreign outsiders who fully refuse to be a patriot to said country that took them in, they still hold their ancestor's country beliefs.
As for America, a once proud strong nation until the UN's interference into the Democrat Party, have made you all weak kneed.
Trump was and is the only one standing against them, and trying to bring back the jobs, the independance, the strength, the Liberty, the power America ONCE HAD, and many across the world like here in Australia were also proud of America for how they conducted themselves!!!
Australia always followed America, and still would have if President Trump got his well deserved future four years, and well deserved after all the hard work he put in, for you the people!!
Are the people in every country all over the world the only ones seeing the great good President Trump has done, if so, then I'd advise people to read all about the great advantages he's put in place, instead of listening to fake hoax media that have invested interests to make President Trump look bad!!!
Civil war, just great, so you all fall into the trap orchestrated by the United Nations by pitting one against the other, people made to be angry and like rabid dogs turn on each other!!
Between the LBGQT lot, the men who want to be women and women who want to be men, and men can have babies, and teenagers screaming eat your babies, and the BLM movement, etc, no one has caught on yet who put that into their heads, the UN, with a little help from way back in the sixties when they invented, "THE PILL" the hormone that changes humanity, so whatever is born after that falls into what they had in mind all along, WELCOME TO YOUR NEW WORLD ORDER, THE GREAT RESET!!!
Instead of fighting in the Streets, and amongst one another, sit down and really think about what is coming, that you Will Not be able to change, as it will be way too late then!!! Trump forever or we're all done for!!!
I wish everyone well.
How about the simple answer!!!!
Let us get back to a Constitutional Government, stop the "give-aways" (welfare) and get back to the idea that if you want to eat, WORK!!!!!
That idea worked for about 150 years, until the "Socialist" (AKA, FDR) got into power!!!!
I think it is time to consider dividing an already completely divided country up into two new countries: one that supports socialism or democratic socialism that support things like the Green New Deal and mandatory mask and vaccine compliance and a country that still values the rights of the individual above all else.
That is a bad, bad, bad, BAD, BAD idea. Like, REALLY bad. Putting aside that it would foment attitudes towards getting away from learning how to be empathetic and to resolve your issues by engaging one another in a good faith effort; showing the people that such extreme changes can be so easily done will only change their perception of what a country is, and what laws are as things that can be changed according to their whims. I personally, think that they should be--ironically enough; but it won't work for a population as immature as America's. Your problems can be solved. You are just all being childish and pedantic about it, and everybody refuses to make an effort to learn how to deal with one another by rejecting the mere idea that you may be wrong and/or just need to mature a little. Because you are all such civilized, and successful big boys and girls in your mind even though you are about to utterly destroy all of your ancestor's legacy forever.
I'm sorry if it sounds tough, but nobody else will say it. It needs to be said. Even being said clearly and in your face, still won't be taken into consideration. Let alone all dressed up in strawberries, rainbows, unicorns and my cute face. The US is a country of big old children. It's time to mature, and that means to learn what virtue is actually about: sacrificing your personal gain for others when the situation will result in a bigger net advantage for both. It's just like with Capitalism against Communism. but you people are blind to anything that's not all bling-bling shiny. I better stop my rant here, I got emotional fuel to go on forever about this...
Actually no. What I believe needs to happen is the Congress to stop limiting the number of representatives to 423 and reducing the amount of people per representative to something a bit more sane like oh 500K per representative. Instead of the current number that has it at over 750k. That would allow better spread of the voters voice and while it could increase the current division in the US it might not as people will be able to have more ownership of their seat in the house.
That and folks need to hold government accountable. Redoing borders is not going to stop those who have an agenda from finding a way of pushing it forward. Only holding them to the account of law and making the issue not an option will aid in a return to a more sane society.
Let's go full on retard but keep the conceptual ideas like the founders envisioned.
Using identity principles to take us to the maximum divisibility . Every individual is their own country.
Sovereign countries free to consensually establish "treaties" with other countries (individuals) and contractually establish "trade agreements" with each other for goods and services.
You could even rename the land mass / collective as the United Individuals of America.
Civil war would be eliminated. Real war would be everywhere instead.
Would cobbling those Counties and States who more closely align Politically and Socially work for good or ill?
While I think that maybe in the short term it would be good, in the long term it would inevitably be bad.
Most “Blue” areas are Population Dense and creating such an overwhelming polarity would cause a conflict.
The first problem would be one of Representation... its lopsided now due to Blue areas having greater population densities.
Truthfully, the more Dense the Population is, the more Socialistic the Area becomes ... simply because Denser Populations are forced to rely more and more on Government Assistance ... on “Social” Programs. Most of those Dense Populations are due to the existence of Economic Hubs.
It would cause essentially the same reason for the first War Between the States with likely a similar outcome. The South lost due to a lack of manpower (population) and technology.
Blue Areas rely on Red Areas for sustenance and would soon find itself “required” to Force the Red to provide for them.
Red Areas would once again find that while they had the Will and Drive to support themselves, they would be without major Economic Hubs (trade and technology) or an endless stream of immigrants to bolster their numbers.
If we simply make lines between the Blue and the Red it would simply be a matter of time before the Blue gained an overwhelming amount of power.
Well I would suggest splitting up Red states to keep the morons from controlling the Senate
Whatever the idiots suggest should be countered with the same, it's called mutually assured destruction.
Rearranging borders only addresses local issues and will do more harm than good as cities will never be compatible with less populated areas politically.
That borders should be redrawn is absolutely sound but not now.
Honestly, Eastern Washington would like to jump ship and join that project as well. The light blue tint is from a couple of college towns in each of those counties that could use some greater influence. A good chunk of each of those light blue would be red otherwise.