NationStates Jolt Archive

It's fairly obvious that there is a great antipathy between red and blue staters. Both dislike each others' cultures; both have wildly differing views on social issues such as family and abortion; and both endorse completely different economic philosophies. Either side resents any power that the other has over them in politics.

So, my question is: Why should the two regions remain united? The blue states prevent the red states from running their politics as they want, and vice versa. This only leads to more and more resentment between the two sides. If the two regions were to separate, the two regions would be able to run their governments more in accordance to their wishes, and there would not be as much resentment for forcing certain policies down one another's throats. The benefits would not be limited to this; people could leave one region to enter another with which they are more ideologically in tune. The economies of either region would improve; the regions would be able to pursue their own economic policies, and firms and workers would be able to go to either, thus heightening political competition to attract business.

In the end, separation between the two regions of the United States would be a blessing for everyone, for with such smaller political units would come, in turn, greater self-determination for all.

I oppose. AMERICA WILL STAY UNITED!

I'm all for getting rid of America but I'd rather not have the red states with nukes or any power at all thank you very much

maybe you can try giving them to Mexico? :p

I oppose anything that will result in civil rights being taken away, as will be done if that happens.

Absolutely. Canada needs a couple more provinces. We'll happily take all the blue states. Might as well give us Alaska too, for continuity's sake.

The red/blue divide is still artificial.
When individual votes are counted rather than just declaring one side the winner, we get a map that looks like this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png
More red=more republican votes. Blue=more democrat

When the county sizes are adjusted for population, we get this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinearlarge.png


It is not as simple as "red/blue"

The red/blue divide is still artificial.
"


Absolutely. Disagreements are a sign of a healthy democracy. It may look like the wheels are falling off sometimes but America is strong and will remain that way for a very long time.


As long as we all speak the same language

The red/blue divide is still artificial.
When individual votes are counted rather than just declaring one side the winner, we get a map that looks like this:


It is not as simple as "red/blue"
Pretty though.

The red/blue divide is still artificial.
When individual votes are counted rather than just declaring one side the winner, we get a map that looks like this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png
More red=more republican votes. Blue=more democrat

When the county sizes are adjusted for population, we get this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinearlarge.png


It is not as simple as "red/blue"

Woooo... those are trippy....


Which parts of those maps can Canada bid on?

The red/blue divide is still artificial.
When individual votes are counted rather than just declaring one side the winner, we get a map that looks like this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png
More red=more republican votes. Blue=more democrat

My county is purple. :(

Woooo... those are trippy....


Which parts of those maps can Canada bid on?

best bet would be new england...top right corner

The red/blue divide is still artificial.
When individual votes are counted rather than just declaring one side the winner, we get a map that looks like this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png
More red=more republican votes. Blue=more democrat

When the county sizes are adjusted for population, we get this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinearlarge.png


It is not as simple as "red/blue"

It would be interesting to see the Plains and upper mountain areas try to survive without the rest of the country. I've said for years the biggest export of Nebraska is intelligence.

That second map is really pretty. Wonder what causes circles? Big cities?

It's fairly obvious that there is a great antipathy between red and blue staters.
Disagree. There is a great antipathy between "red" and "blue," sure, but it's not actually divided up by region as much as some make it out to be. And as far as interstate antipathy on the personal level, there isn't that much.

As far as economics, most "red" states would get the shaft; most are both (a) poorer than "blue" states, (b) more heavily subsidized, (c) more likely to get hit hard by natural disasters, and, according to the current policital paradigms, (d) more likely to make disastrous decisions re: immigrant labor, and (e) more likely to gut science education even further. (E.g., Kansas and Tennessee.)

The rural deep south in particular is already much poorer than the urban northeast and the West Coast. Gut national-level welfare programs, as the Republican party is wont to do, and the region lying between Louisiana, Florida, and North Carolina will suffer.

For the most part, splitting the nation in two on the "blue/red" distinction is most likely to just hurt the southeast - more so than fragmenting each state off on its own, even.

best bet would be new england...top right corner

Aw man.... like we need yet another maritime province. We need a big piece, like California. Juicier.

Absolutely. Canada needs a couple more provinces. We'll happily take all the blue states. Might as well give us Alaska too, for continuity's sake.

Naw, we need Alaska's oil and delicious animals, you can have the crappy states that no one wants like Arkansas and Mississippi.

It would be interesting to see the Plains and upper mountain areas try to survive without the rest of the country. I've said for years the biggest export of Nebraska is intelligence.

That second map is really pretty. Wonder what causes circles? Big cities?

I always find it funny that people forget that our major food supplies lay in the so called red states. Most of our oil also is in red states. Wouldn't be much fun living in a city without fuel and food.

My county is purple. :(

which would explain the popularity of Barney...

It's fairly obvious that there is a great antipathy between red and blue staters. Both dislike each others' cultures; both have wildly differing views on social issues such as family and abortion; and both endorse completely different economic philosophies. Either side resents any power that the other has over them in politics.

So, my question is: Why should the two regions remain united? The blue states prevent the red states from running their politics as they want, and vice versa. This only leads to more and more resentment between the two sides. If the two regions were to separate, the two regions would be able to run their governments more in accordance to their wishes, and there would not be as much resentment for forcing certain policies down one another's throats. The benefits would not be limited to this; people could leave one region to enter another with which they are more ideologically in tune. The economies of either region would improve; the regions would be able to pursue their own economic policies, and firms and workers would be able to go to either, thus heightening political competition to attract business.

In the end, separation between the two regions of the United States would be a blessing for everyone, for with such smaller political units would come, in turn, greater self-determination for all.

I support *goes to the conservative side and makes plans to destroy the liberals and the poor*

The red/blue divide is still artificial.
When individual votes are counted rather than just declaring one side the winner, we get a map that looks like this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png
More red=more republican votes. Blue=more democrat

When the county sizes are adjusted for population, we get this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinearlarge.png


It is not as simple as "red/blue"

I am a democrat, and it pleases me to see that my home state is almost all democratic.

Naw, we need Alaska's oil and delicious animals, you can have the crappy states that no one wants like Arkansas and Mississippi.

Arka... Missi...

Bah! I'm going to see what Russia's auctioning off instead...

My county is purple. :(

Hey, mine is too, brutha, mine is too.

I always find it funny that people forget that our major food supplies lay in the so called red states. Most of our oil also is in red states. Wouldn't be much fun living in a city without fuel and food.

Well, the blue states are the ones with the money, so that takes care of that problem.

It's fairly obvious that there is a great antipathy between red and blue staters. Both dislike each others' cultures; both have wildly differing views on social issues such as family and abortion; and both endorse completely different economic philosophies. Either side resents any power that the other has over them in politics.

So, my question is: Why should the two regions remain united? The blue states prevent the red states from running their politics as they want, and vice versa. This only leads to more and more resentment between the two sides. If the two regions were to separate, the two regions would be able to run their governments more in accordance to their wishes, and there would not be as much resentment for forcing certain policies down one another's throats. The benefits would not be limited to this; people could leave one region to enter another with which they are more ideologically in tune. The economies of either region would improve; the regions would be able to pursue their own economic policies, and firms and workers would be able to go to either, thus heightening political competition to attract business.

In the end, separation between the two regions of the United States would be a blessing for everyone, for with such smaller political units would come, in turn, greater self-determination for all.

The only obvious thing about the original post is its complete lack of understanding of basic demographics. So EVERYONE in ALL Red & Blue states believes EXACTLY the same way? Not ONE person in ANY Blue state voted Republican, nor did ANYONE in a Red state vote Democrat? Your ignorance is embarrassing.

King County, WA, USA is a decidedly Blue county, if you go by sheer number of votes. However, just try and hold that gay pride parade or sell socialized medicine in King County cities like Enumclaw, Fall City, Duvall, North Bend or Woodinville. You won't find a lot of people out supporting you. In fact, drive just one hour east of Seattle on I-90, and you'll be swimming in a sea of Red deeper than anything in the Deep South.

There are pockets and individuals of all political sides living in and around any majority. That's the whole nature of a republic/democracy in which the majority is not (in theory) allowed to dominate the minority in tyranny. We live in relative peace. The majority will usually send its chosen candidate to office, but the minority has representation and rights equal to that of the minority. That's why it takes 38 states (3/4 of them) to ratify any change to the Law of the Land (the US Constitution) before it becomes law.

It is far from perfect, but it beats anything else anyone's ever invented so far.

Hey, mine is too, brutha, mine is too.

Mine is on the blue side of purple.

And the right side of the Delaware (Ruffy ;) )

It would be interesting to see the Plains and upper mountain areas try to survive without the rest of the country. I've said for years the biggest export of Nebraska is intelligence.

That second map is really pretty. Wonder what causes circles? Big cities?

Okay. North Dakota's oil, coal, ethanol, and sizeable agricultural and ranching contributions will be kept to itself. We'll trade for stuff like citrus fruit to other states and farm walleye and pike for fish resources.

Next!

I completely disagree. Living in a "blue" state but differing in personal opinion. While it still sucks now, having to listen to people talking politics like there's no one of a differing opinion, if the country were to be partitioned between red and blue I'd be run out of town. Only not literally.

Although it does please me to see that my county is indeed purple. That makes me very happy.

But... living in Canada... that could be nice... so long as the states are given to someone reasonable and not self governing, then I could deal.

Well, the blue states are the ones with the money, so that takes care of that problem.

You just basically made my case here. This is why it is futile to think of splitting the nation. We are All dependent on each other.

You just basically made my case here. This is why it is futile to think of splitting the nation. We are All dependent on each other.

That's what I was going for. Although the blue states could still get food and oil from outside the country, so they appear to have a slight advantage.

...

So what if we have different politics?

Aren't we all Americans FIRST?

I am a hardcore conservative, but I do not think we should split from each other.


We are Americans, we are suppose to argue and disagree, there is suppose to be different parties. Its healthy.

...

So what if we have different politics?

Aren't we all Americans FIRST?

I am a hardcore conservative, but I do not think we should split from each other.


We are Americans, we are suppose to argue and disagree, there is suppose to be different parties. Its healthy.
depends who you ask. I identify as a New Englander first, American second.

Yes, we should destatify--get rid of the states.

maybe you can try giving them to Mexico? :p

"What a nice immigration law you have here, t'would be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."

depends who you ask. I identify as a New Englander first, American second.

Really? Most of the people I know are Americans first.

Really? Most of the people I know are Americans first.

Like I said, depends who you ask. Many people I know identify with the region over state (I think there is a thread about this somewhere in here)

Woooo... those are trippy....


Which parts of those maps can Canada bid on?

ALL OF IT!

Long live the CANADIAN EMPIRE!!!


muahahahahahahaaaa


:p

Since it seems to be based more on county than state, I guess we'll just have to substitute "red state vs. blue state" for "red county vs. blue county."

Aren't we all Americans FIRST?

Nope.

I am NOT an "American" first. Indeed, I do not identify as an "American" at all, nor as any other nationality.

I identify far, far more with my politics than with where the luck of birth happened to deposit me.

Like I said, depends who you ask. Many people I know identify with the region over state (I think there is a thread about this somewhere in here)Definitely. I'm definitely not ashamed to say I'm from the northeast; I'm actually proud, and that is what I identify with first. American is third.

Since it seems to be based more on county than state, I guess we'll just have to substitute "red state vs. blue state" for "red county vs. blue county."

counties make up states. If all of the counties are shades of purple (not a single one of those is pure red or blue), then what color can we guess the states would be?

And the idea still is full of fail.

I wish there were more Green states...

Definitely. I'm definitely not ashamed to say I'm from the northeast; I'm actually proud, and that is what I identify with first. American is third.
I think the Northeast, and New England in particular, are generally more proud of our region than our nation, esp. recently.

When the county sizes are adjusted for population, we get this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinearlarge.png


It is not as simple as "red/blue"

though this map shows something vital. there are essentially no populous red areas.

additionally, if you check things out, there is a nearly uniform trend of more red counties also experiencing catastrophic population collapses. counties losing 10%+ of their population every couple years, towns being abandoned, the social fabric destroyed, etc. and we know what happens to collapsing societies, from centuries of causing these collapses. hardcore republicanism (as opposed to distinctly purple suburban republicanism) is essentially an apocalyptic millenarian cult, just like the christianity they practice.

Okay. North Dakota's oil, coal, ethanol, and sizeable agricultural and ranching contributions will be kept to itself. We'll trade for stuff like citrus fruit to other states and farm walleye and pike for fish resources.

Next!
North Dakota: GDP per capita, PPP: $26,522
United States: GDP per capita, PPP: $43,444
Taxes paid to US by North Dakota: $3.25 billion
Federal spending on North Dakota: $6.04 billion
Population of North Dakota: 640,000
Federal subsidy per Dakotan: $4,360
Rank of North Dakota, GDP per capita (PPP), subtracting Federal subsidy, out of all nations: 34th-35th (at or below Portugal).

I think the Northeast, and New England in particular, are generally more proud of our region than our nation, esp. recently.

I agree. New England has just sort of been doing nothing in particular, but the rest of the country has been doing very silly things. Which would anyone prefer to associate with if given the choice?

It's fairly obvious that there is a great antipathy between red and blue staters. Both dislike each others' cultures; both have wildly differing views on social issues such as family and abortion; and both endorse completely different economic philosophies. Either side resents any power that the other has over them in politics.

So, my question is: Why should the two regions remain united? The blue states prevent the red states from running their politics as they want, and vice versa. This only leads to more and more resentment between the two sides. If the two regions were to separate, the two regions would be able to run their governments more in accordance to their wishes, and there would not be as much resentment for forcing certain policies down one another's throats. The benefits would not be limited to this; people could leave one region to enter another with which they are more ideologically in tune. The economies of either region would improve; the regions would be able to pursue their own economic policies, and firms and workers would be able to go to either, thus heightening political competition to attract business.

In the end, separation between the two regions of the United States would be a blessing for everyone, for with such smaller political units would come, in turn, greater self-determination for all.

IDIOT! This already happened! The Union (Republicans) Versus the Rebels (Democrats). It was started because the Democrats didn't want another Rep Prez (Lincon) so they left. READ YOUR HISTORY!

*snip*

This is the most inane thing I've heard in a long time.

The red/blue divide is still artificial.
When individual votes are counted rather than just declaring one side the winner, we get a map that looks like this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png
More red=more republican votes. Blue=more democrat

When the county sizes are adjusted for population, we get this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinearlarge.png


It is not as simple as "red/blue"

The second one looks kinda like China. Evil Communist plot perhaps?

IDIOT! This already happened! The Union (Republicans) Versus the Rebels (Democrats). It was started because the Democrats didn't want another Rep Prez (Lincon) so they left. READ YOUR HISTORY!

Thank you, kind sir, for beginning your enlightening argument with a personal attack. It truly conveys the depth of thought you put into your response. And if it was tried before is totally irrelevant- what I'm trying to convey is that there would be certain benefits in a partitioning of the country.

If you could respond to that, preferably without any sort of ad hominem, I would be in your debt.

Yeah! Fuck those who dare disagree with our obviously superior political platform! They are enemies of Progress, and deserve to die a terrible death!

IDIOT! This already happened! The Union (Republicans) Versus the Rebels (Democrats). It was started because the Democrats didn't want another Rep Prez (Lincon) so they left. READ YOUR HISTORY!
I believe Lincoln was the first Republican Party member elected to the office of the Presidency.

I believe Lincoln was the first Republican Party member elected to the office of the Presidency.

Also, the South seceded because they were afraid he was going to abolish slavery, not because of his party.

Also, the South seceded because they were afraid he was going to abolish slavery, not because of his party.

Who knows? Maybe they knew how bad the Republican Party would be nowadays, and were just pre-empting them.

It's fairly obvious that there is a great antipathy between red and blue staters. Both dislike each others' cultures; both have wildly differing views on social issues such as family and abortion; and both endorse completely different economic philosophies. Either side resents any power that the other has over them in politics.

So, my question is: Why should the two regions remain united? The blue states prevent the red states from running their politics as they want, and vice versa. This only leads to more and more resentment between the two sides. If the two regions were to separate, the two regions would be able to run their governments more in accordance to their wishes, and there would not be as much resentment for forcing certain policies down one another's throats. The benefits would not be limited to this; people could leave one region to enter another with which they are more ideologically in tune. The economies of either region would improve; the regions would be able to pursue their own economic policies, and firms and workers would be able to go to either, thus heightening political competition to attract business.

In the end, separation between the two regions of the United States would be a blessing for everyone, for with such smaller political units would come, in turn, greater self-determination for all.
We settled this issue in 1865. No state can secede unless all other states agree. The United States is perpetual.

We settled this issue in 1865. No state can secede unless all other states agree. The United States is perpetual.

Might makes Right, eh?

Might makes Right, eh?

Of course it does. People have to be forced to be free. [/sarcasm]

Of course "Might doesn't make right". However perpetuity is implied. In fact, the Articles of Confederation expressly said that Statehood was a permanent decision, and I really can't see the Constitution being softer on States Rights than the Articles of Confederation.

Why do you think that the U.S.A is does not imply perpetual union?

Of course "Might doesn't make right". However perpetuity is implied. In fact, the Articles of Confederation expressly said that Statehood was a permanent decision, and I really can't see the Constitution being softer on States Rights than the Articles of Confederation.

Why do you think that the U.S.A is does not imply perpetual union?
conveniently, the Articles are no longer in effect, and the Constitution doesn't mention secession.

and nothing implies that the union is perpetual aside from that little war.

Who knows? Maybe they knew how bad the Republican Party would be nowadays, and were just pre-empting them.

But then the parties switched ideas... they got confused too I guess.

The United States is perpetual.

logically impossible

But then the parties switched ideas... they got confused too I guess.

Nah. Republicans have always been for pietism and mercantilism.

The United States was formed to prevent British Imperialism. Radically different ideas and cultures were smushed into one country and it shows today (although much less so).

Without any foreign threat, it would make sense to divide up along ideological unions. Less internal conflict, but this raises external conflict. Namely the South and Midwest going on a crusade while the Northeast and the West invade to stop their opression of human rights. In the end there will be another occupation, much like the one after the civil war, and the loser will be forced to absorb the winner's ideology.

With Canada, China, and Britain I think the blue states would take the gold medal so to speak. All the Reds have is farming, and a lot of it.

I believe Lincoln was the first Republican Party member elected to the office of the Presidency.

Yeah, sorry the Dems didn't want any Rep presidents.