|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:43 am Post subject: A more rational organization |
 |
|
Once upon a time, a long time ago, a proposal for a more rational organization of the states was proposed. I finally came across a reference to it.
(Map)
http://www.tjc.com/38states/38states.jpg
(Another look)
http://persquaremile.com/2011/11/17/redrawing-the-united-states-of-america/
To be a little serious, at some point we have to address the issue of the over-representation of the small states and the distortion of power that creates.
Maybe it shouldn't be congressional districts alone that are re-drawn every 10 years.
One good thing: at the fringes of states, it would weaken this nonsense about states rights that conservatives natter on about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So ya-ta, what were the reasons our Founders came up with such a system and worried about this nonsense about States rights. What were the motivations behind it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eat_yeot
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| So ya-ta, what were the reasons our Founders came up with such a system and worried about this nonsense about States rights. What were the motivations behind it? |
The proportions were slightly different then. In 1780, Virgina had about 12 times the population of Delaware. Now, California has 66 times the population of Wyoming.
Of course, the smaller states today are just as unlikely to give up the over-representation that was required to get them to join the union in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh yeah, that's a lot easier than having the House of Representatives unfrozen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| So ya-ta, what were the reasons our Founders came up with such a system and worried about this nonsense about States rights. What were the motivations behind it? |
Are you sure they 'came up with such a system' or just submitted to the stuck-in-the-mud conservatives of their day? And certainly, the South should have been re-designed in the years after the Civil War, erasing the old state names and borders.
Anyway, if you have read about how state boundaries were arrived at, you will know that in those days, Congress used rivers, etc. as boundaries, when in fact, rivers unite communities rather than divide them. Why should the Mississippi divide government units? Shouldn't goverment units be more closely related to economic units--for example, don't Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas have more in common than other parts of their respective states as now drawn?
It is politically distorting in a serious way for the 500,000 people of Wyoming to have 3 electoral votes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Are you sure they 'came up with such a system' or just submitted to the stuck-in-the-mud conservatives of their day? And certainly, the South should have been re-designed in the years after the Civil War, erasing the old state names and borders. |
You do realize that their first attempt was an even more decentralized system, right?
These were people who just fought a war against a central government, who had a deep suspicion of central government and wanted a system of checks and balances.
The reason such a system was enacted was to prevent nationwide demagoguery.
| Quote: |
| And certainly, the South should have been re-designed in the years after the Civil War, erasing the old state names and borders. |
The reason that that didn't happen is that people wanted the nation to heal, not start a radical reconstruction campaign that might have sparked a guerrilla campaign. Doing things like redrawing borders tends to spark those sorts of things.
| Quote: |
| It is politically distorting in a serious way for the 500,000 people of Wyoming to have 3 electoral votes. |
It prevents the geographic tyranny of certain regions running amok with power.
| Quote: |
| hy should the Mississippi divide government units? Shouldn't goverment units be more closely related to economic units--for example, don't Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas have more in common than other parts of their respective states as now drawn? |
Certainly not an unreasonable proposal. Well, try and get candidates elected that would be in favor of redrawing state lines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
States don't have rights. People do. But federalism helps to preserve peoples' rights.
Ya-Ta, I looked at some of those 38 States, and actually they make more sense than many of the current divisions. I also loved the names. Seriously, the names themselves are half of the charm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
States don't have rights. People do. But federalism helps to preserve peoples' rights.
Ya-Ta, I looked at some of those 38 States, and actually they make more sense than many of the current divisions. I also loved the names. Seriously, the names themselves are half of the charm. |
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Sounds to me like States have rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That map seems even more irrational than the current system. Seward is completely lacking in population, while Biscayne is Florida on steroids. Mohawk takes all the money out of New York, while lumping the city in with a whole bunch of affluence (Connecticut and the Berkshires). It actually strikes me as going even further to separate the haves and the have nots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
States don't have rights. People do. But federalism helps to preserve peoples' rights.
Ya-Ta, I looked at some of those 38 States, and actually they make more sense than many of the current divisions. I also loved the names. Seriously, the names themselves are half of the charm. |
I agree with your second paragraph. Governmental units ought to have something to do with actual reality, not some historical accident.
Your first sentence is just splitting hairs and you know it.
Your second sentence is partially right. Federalism does help protect and preserve peoples' rights when it isn't even busier taking those same rights away. It is an empty concept that is used just as often for evil as it is for good: Why can't Adam and Steve get married in Kentucky and live the life they wish? The country [people] will be better off when we give up our romantic attachments to the past and organize ourselves on more rational, flexible terms for efficient government. [Yes, I know 'rational, flexible' are not terms conservatives are interested in. It's only SIZE that matters. I do dearly wish Freud were not dead.]
On top of that, why do states get rights but counties do not? And if counties should get equal rights someday, why shouldn't precincts? It's a slippery slippery slope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
On top of that, why do states get rights but counties do not? And if counties should get equal rights someday, why shouldn't precincts? It's a slippery slippery slope. |
That's only if you ignore the Constitution, which it seems you have no difficulty doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"How the States Got Their Shapes Too: The People Behind the Border-Lines"
Mark Stein examines the many people who shaped state boundaries. The author's profiles range from Brigham Young's influence in Utah, Nevada and Arizona to Jeremiah Dixon and Charles Mason, the British surveyors noted for their lines that separated Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Mark Stein speaks at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.
http://www.booktv.org/Program/12658/How+the+States+Got+Their+Shapes+Too+The+People+Behind+the+BorderLines.aspx
This is a revealing talk that shows just how absurd the state boundaries are and how they came about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
States don't have rights. People do. But federalism helps to preserve peoples' rights.
Ya-Ta, I looked at some of those 38 States, and actually they make more sense than many of the current divisions. I also loved the names. Seriously, the names themselves are half of the charm. |
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Sounds to me like States have rights. |
Read it again. Powers are reserved to the States. That means that the States have the police power, but the Federal government does not. The States do not have rights, they have full police power, and the Federal government is limited by its enumerated powers.
| Ya-Ta Boy wrote: |
| Your second sentence is partially right. Federalism does help protect and preserve peoples' rights when it isn't even busier taking those same rights away. It is an empty concept that is used just as often for evil as it is for good: Why can't Adam and Steve get married in Kentucky and live the life they wish? The country [people] will be better off when we give up our romantic attachments to the past and organize ourselves on more rational, flexible terms for efficient government. [Yes, I know 'rational, flexible' are not terms conservatives are interested in. It's only SIZE that matters. I do dearly wish Freud were not dead.] |
Just like a right-winger, you ignore the 14th Amendment. I'm not going to bother with you any longer. I've explained this to you again and again and you still don't understand it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
