pros and cons of splitting the US into 2 countries?

[Starbuck1975]

You made no point. You merely claimed that you have one.

California seceding from the Union is a tongue in cheek response to the usual idiocy of states that just might do it if they could. It's not a serious proposition in the slightest. Whatever investment the federal govt made in CA has paid off, anyway, given that they regularly put more into the federal kitty than they get back. Their economy is sufficiently robust that they help support people who don't even live there.

Strike 2

 

[bshole]

Screw that nonsense. Just fix your damn electoral system. Make the president directly elected by popular vote (throw the electoral college in the bin), and either allocate senators according to population or split up all states into roughly equal population counts.

I believe that would require a constitutional amendment which would require the approval of the 3/4 of the states. I highly doubt that rural states would ever vote to emasculate themselves in that way. In other words, the electoral college is here to stay.

 

[fskimospy]

I believe that would require a constitutional amendment which would require the approval of the 3/4 of the states. I highly doubt that rural states would ever vote to emasculate themselves in that way. In other words, the electoral college is here to stay.

Not necessarily!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

If all the states that had it pending in the current session passed it that would be enough to effectively eliminate the electoral college. That won’t happen of course, but hopefully we can keep adding more states.

 

[glenn1]

Not necessarily!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

If all the states that had it pending in the current session passed it that would be enough to effectively eliminate the electoral college. That won’t happen of course, but hopefully we can keep adding more states.

Not legally binding and you know damn well it would be abandoned the instant that a Dem candidate won the EC and lost the popular vote.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not legally binding and you know damn well it would be abandoned the instant that a Dem candidate won the EC and lost the popular vote.

It would be as binding as any other contract. Beyond that, the likelihood of a Dem winning the electoral college w/o winning the popular vote is nil given that the structure favors less populous & more conservative states. Like this-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

 

[pmv]

China is matching America's manufacturing and will likely double it in 20 years. If you think America had too much power, you haven't seen nothing yet. China will OWN the world by 2100.

What should make you very nervous is that China actively loathes Japan. This is the one of reasons that I have a problem about obsessing over sins of the past. This constant picking at things someone's ancestors did FOSTERS and ENCOURAGES hatred and could lead to mass death, war and chaos in the present.

When China dwarfs America in both economic and military might, what do you think is going to happen to Japan? Could there a bit of a conflict there? Could China attempt to get a little payback for the butchery of WWII?

In the meantime I suspect China and India could come into conflict. That would end very poorly for India. I don't think China will go into colonization mode but I definitely believe it is going to go ahead and take bits and pieces that are in its strategic best interest to have.





https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0fa8d7a0db6_story.html?utm_term=.1660562104c9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_China

In the very long run, China bears watching, sure. And besides, I did say 'spasm' - I'm not proud of those moments!

But it would be better if, in an ideal world, nobody had that degree of power. It's as unfair on the powerful as it is on everyone else. Who needs that level of responsibility?

And yeah, I've had Chinese workmates, who had very strong opinions about Japan. Partly I think it's justified (Japan never really acknowledged its abominable behaviour in China or the rest of the countries it conquered - but then, the UK hasn't done brilliantly on that score either). But mostly those attitudes in the population are turned on and off like a tap by the Chinese government according to its needs of the moment.

 

[fskimospy]

Not legally binding and you know damn well it would be abandoned the instant that a Dem candidate won the EC and lost the popular vote.

Of course it's legally binding, don't be silly. It's a law, after all.

As for the rest there's two points to consider if you're saying a state would repeal the law after an adverse election result.

1) It's unlikely a state would do that as it would destroy the legitimacy of the election and throw the country into chaos.
2) Regardless, if that's something conservatives fear then the answer is incredibly simple: join with liberals now to eliminate the electoral college through a constitutional amendment. After all, you wouldn't want the Democrats hijacking the presidency!

Seems the way forward is clear for everyone now, right? If conservatives want to continue collecting the electoral welfare of the electoral college it comes with the risk of them being shut out of the presidency. If they want to make that gamble it's up to them but clearly they can't expect liberals to continue coddling them. It's time for some personal responsibility on the part of conservatives.

 

[pmv]

China is matching America's manufacturing and will likely double it in 20 years. If you think America had too much power, you haven't seen nothing yet. China will OWN the world by 2100.

What should make you very nervous is that China actively loathes Japan. This is the one of reasons that I have a problem about obsessing over sins of the past. This constant picking at things someone's ancestors did FOSTERS and ENCOURAGES hatred and could lead to mass death, war and chaos in the present.

When China dwarfs America in both economic and military might, what do you think is going to happen to Japan? Could there a bit of a conflict there? Could China attempt to get a little payback for the butchery of WWII?

In the meantime I suspect China and India could come into conflict. That would end very poorly for India. I don't think China will go into colonization mode but I definitely believe it is going to go ahead and take bits and pieces that are in its strategic best interest to have.





https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0fa8d7a0db6_story.html?utm_term=.1660562104c9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_China

I mean, what is there to do regarding China but just cross your fingers and hope? Hope that it doesn't collapse into chaos (taking the global economy with it) on the one hand, but that on the other, its increasing power will be accompanied by a change in attitudes, perhaps as education and wealth increases in its population?
Just as with the very high population growth across Africa, it's not really under anyone's control, so one can only hang on to one's hat and hope to survive the ride.

 

[glenn1]

Of course it's legally binding, don't be silly. It's a law, after all.

As for the rest there's two points to consider if you're saying a state would repeal the law after an adverse election result.

1) It's unlikely a state would do that as it would destroy the legitimacy of the election and throw the country into chaos.
2) Regardless, if that's something conservatives fear then the answer is incredibly simple: join with liberals now to eliminate the electoral college through a constitutional amendment. After all, you wouldn't want the Democrats hijacking the presidency!

Seems the way forward is clear for everyone now, right? If conservatives want to continue collecting the electoral welfare of the electoral college it comes with the risk of them being shut out of the presidency. If they want to make that gamble it's up to them but clearly they can't expect liberals to continue coddling them. It's time for some personal responsibility on the part of conservatives.

Please show where in the Constitution, case law, SCOTUS opinion, or anywhere else that EC electors can be bound to this or any other agreement the state can make or even any law a state can make. It's not within the state's power to make anything "legally binding" WRT the EC except for perhaps the procedures by which it selects the Electors. This is exactly the type of feel-good/do nothing law that appeals to uniformed partisans like you that don't really understand the EC besides thinking it shafted you.

 

[mect]

I mean, what is there to do regarding China but just cross your fingers and hope? Hope that it doesn't collapse into chaos (taking the global economy with it) on the one hand, but that on the other, its increasing power will be accompanied by a change in attitudes, perhaps as education and wealth increases in its population?
Just as with the very high population growth across Africa, it's not really under anyone's control, so one can only hang on to one's hat and hope to survive the ride.

I don't understand some of the concerns with China becoming a superpower like the world has never known. China still ranks below Mexico in terms of GDP per capita. Their manufacturing is so high because their labor is still relatively cheap. If they continue to improve their economy, labor will become more expensive and manufacturing will shift elsewhere.

 

[fskimospy]

Please show where in the Constitution, case law, SCOTUS opinion, or anywhere else that EC electors can be bound to this or any other agreement the state can make or even any law a state can make. It's not within the state's power to make anything "legally binding" WRT the EC except for perhaps the procedures by which it selects the Electors. This is exactly the type of feel-good/do nothing law that appeals to uniformed partisans like you that don't really understand the EC besides thinking it shafted you.

Speaking of uninformed partisans, electors can't be bound for any reason, including in the current electoral college system. That's what 'faithless electors' are. lol. States get around this by selecting electors out of a slate of basically party hacks who are nearly guaranteed to vote the 'right' way, so this 'problem' is literally no problem at all. The result under the national popular vote system would be identical to the current system insofar as how the results are translated into EC votes. You did not think this through, haha.

Also, if it's a feel good/do nothing law then there's no reason to oppose it. Since I know you want liberals to feel good I can assume your support for this from now on?

By the way it's really funny when you try and accuse other people of not understanding something and then make it obvious you don't understand it yourself.

 

[glenn1]

Speaking of uninformed partisans, electors can't be bound for any reason, including in the current electoral college system. That's what 'faithless electors' are. lol. States get around this by selecting electors out of a slate of basically party hacks who are nearly guaranteed to vote the 'right' way, so this 'problem' is literally no problem at all. The result under the national popular vote system would be identical to the current system insofar as how the results are translated into EC votes. You did not think this through, haha.

Also, if it's a feel good/do nothing law then there's no reason to oppose it. Since I know you want liberals to feel good I can assume your support for this from now on?

By the way it's really funny when you try and accuse other people of not understanding something and then make it obvious you don't understand it yourself.

So a slate of "basically party hacks who are nearly guaranteed to vote the 'right' way" are going to vote for a candidate of the opposite party who won the national popular vote despite their own state voting the other way, perhaps by extraordinarily large margins? Sorry but someone who was being honest with themselves would admit this would never happen and that this is simply those states trying to get their vote to count for the "correct" candidate either way and correct is going to be defined as "whomever my state voted for".

 

[fskimospy]

So a slate of "basically party hacks who are nearly guaranteed to vote the 'right' way" are going to vote for a candidate of the opposite party who won the national popular vote despite their own state voting the other way, perhaps by extraordinarily large margins? Sorry but someone who was being honest with themselves would admit this would never happen and that this is simply those states trying to get their vote to count for the "correct" candidate either way and correct is going to be defined as "whomever my state voted for".

You really don't understand how the electoral college works, haha.

State laws governing the seating of electors generally work in this way: before the election each political party nominates a bunch of candidates to be electors. Whichever candidate wins the most votes then has their slate of electors chosen as the ones to represent the state in the electoral college. In the case of the national popular vote that would mean that instead of the slate of electors being determined by who got the most votes in the state, the slate of electors chosen would be determined by who got the most votes nationally. So no, there's no situation where one party's electors would have to vote for the other party's nominee.

So again, it's EXACTLY the same in that respect as the system we have now. You think other people aren't being honest with themselves because you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

 

[pmv]

I don't understand some of the concerns with China becoming a superpower like the world has never known. China still ranks below Mexico in terms of GDP per capita. Their manufacturing is so high because their labor is still relatively cheap. If they continue to improve their economy, labor will become more expensive and manufacturing will shift elsewhere.

You make a legitimate point. But China, by virtue of sheer size (and perhaps some hard-to-define cultural factors), will likely become a superpower (if not 'like the world has never known'), assuming it doesn't suffer a massive internal crisis. And that's going to bring up new issues. China is clearly trying to gain influence via economic power. I merely think it bears watching. Personally I'm just constantly struck by the way we, in the UK or in Europe at least, don't seem to notice that we aren't determining the fate of the world any more. If nothing else just raw population figures mean something. The US may-or-may-not being losing influence as well, albeit more slowly.

 

[bshole]

I mean, what is there to do regarding China but just cross your fingers and hope? Hope that it doesn't collapse into chaos (taking the global economy with it) on the one hand, but that on the other, its increasing power will be accompanied by a change in attitudes, perhaps as education and wealth increases in its population?
Just as with the very high population growth across Africa, it's not really under anyone's control, so one can only hang on to one's hat and hope to survive the ride.

I had to chuckle over that. I wish I could adopt your attitude. I worry about EVERYTHING. From month to month I find a new thing to worry and fret about. Obsessive behavior has helped me tremendously in my profession as a software engineer but has really damaged my ability to live a happy life.

 

[bshole]

You make a legitimate point. But China, by virtue of sheer size (and perhaps some hard-to-define cultural factors), will likely become a superpower (if not 'like the world has never known'), assuming it doesn't suffer a massive internal crisis. And that's going to bring up new issues. China is clearly trying to gain influence via economic power. I merely think it bears watching. Personally I'm just constantly struck by the way we, in the UK or in Europe at least, don't seem to notice that we aren't determining the fate of the world any more. If nothing else just raw population figures mean something. The US may-or-may-not being losing influence as well, albeit more slowly.

Evolution doesn't care how much money you have in the bank, it cares how many offspring you have.

 

[Jhhnn]

Evolution doesn't care how much money you have in the bank, it cares how many offspring you have.

Have you seen the article below? They say worldwide IQ fell .86 between 1950-200 and that it will fall another 1.3 by 2050. Is this legit?




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

Well, America wasn't dumb enough to elect Strom Thurmond in 1948 but we elected Trump in 2016. Go figure.

 

[mect]

Evolution doesn't care how much money you have in the bank, it cares how many offspring you have.

China isn't having many offspring. Their growth rate is lower than the US.

 

[glenn1]

You really don't understand how the electoral college works, haha.

State laws governing the seating of electors generally work in this way: before the election each political party nominates a bunch of candidates to be electors. Whichever candidate wins the most votes then has their slate of electors chosen as the ones to represent the state in the electoral college. In the case of the national popular vote that would mean that instead of the slate of electors being determined by who got the most votes in the state, the slate of electors chosen would be determined by who got the most votes nationally. So no, there's no situation where one party's electors would have to vote for the other party's nominee.

So again, it's EXACTLY the same in that respect as the system we have now. You think other people aren't being honest with themselves because you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Since it’s all moot since you’ll never reach the amount if states needed for it to be effective I don’t really care. It would be rather ironic if in a future election the GOP candidate wins the popular view and enough red states sign on for it to become effective. You and I both know damn well the blue states would never honor it nor would SCOTUS force them to. People like you who have been spending the last couple years comparing Trump to Hitler would never allow themselves to be bound to it should he win the popular but lose the EC, their base would literally revolt and start burning cities.

 

[ch33zw1z]

China isn't having many offspring. Their growth rate is lower than the US.

Links?

So, half a day, I'm not waiting anymore, call me impatient if you like. I looked around the web and found a couple links from one website which appears to consolidate data from a few sources:

U.S. numbers

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

China numbers

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/

Based on this, you assertion is inaccurate. Not only does China has 5x our population, but they're growing twice as fast as the U.S.

 

[fskimospy]

Since it’s all moot since you’ll never reach the amount if states needed for it to be effective I don’t really care. It would be rather ironic if in a future election the GOP candidate wins the popular view and enough red states sign on for it to become effective. You and I both know damn well the blue states would never honor it nor would SCOTUS force them to. People like you who have been spending the last couple years comparing Trump to Hitler would never allow themselves to be bound to it should he win the popular but lose the EC, their base would literally revolt and start burning cities.

You’re clearly a pretty smart guy. I always find it weird how many of your opinions are based in rage. Why engage in lurid fantasies about how mad liberals would be if a conservative won the popular vote?

 

[Jhhnn]

Imagine how nuts the ammosexuals would be had Clinton won the same way as Trump.

Lordy.

 

[pmv]

China isn't having many offspring. Their growth rate is lower than the US.

Their birth rate dropped of course because of the one-child policy. That was a deliberate action, and arguably the rest of the world should be thankful for it. Nevertheless the country is huge, and of course they have now relaxed that policy in order to encourage population growth again because they are worried about an aging population (they probably should have relaxed it earlier). With such a large population they are inevitably going to become more globally significant as they close the gap with the West in wealth and technology. I agree that the 'threat' is often hugely over-stated, as a country it still faces huge challenges, but it's probably going to gain global influence and that's going to lead to changes. And Lord knows what environmental strains will result if all those people adopt Western living standards.

The birth rates of most countries have hit a plateau at or around replacement-rate (well below it in the case of Eastern europe), but the big exception are the African countries, and that's another thing that's going to cause hard-to-predict changes in the future. Either Africa is going to become hugely more significant economically, or if it fails to develop sufficiently, there's going to be a huge outflow of migrants from the continent. Either way there will be changes Europe in particular is going to have to adapt to and find a way to manage. I kind of think Europe is in denial somewhat about the situation. The response seems alarmingly inward looking and irrational at the moment (seal the borders and elect quasi-fascists, seems to be the favoured strategy)

 

[mect]

Links?

So, half a day, I'm not waiting anymore, call me impatient if you like. I looked around the web and found a couple links from one website which appears to consolidate data from a few sources:

U.S. numbers

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

China numbers

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/

Based on this, you assertion is inaccurate. Not only does China has 5x our population, but they're growing twice as fast as the U.S.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW

For 2016, China is 0.5%, US is 0.7%.

 

[ch33zw1z]

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW

For 2016, China is 0.5%, US is 0.7%.

The links posted say that as well.

So what's .5% of 1.4 billion?

And what's .7% of 333 million?

I didn't base my reply to you on mere percentages.

China is still adding roughly double the numbers as us.

And China is looking to up it too.