States that could survive as nations if they seceded from the USA

[dvferyance]

(It is possible for a state to be its own dictatorship. Democracy really didn't come to the Deep South until the Voting Rights Act was passed, so I'd say those states were practically dictatorships before then.)

Alabama still pretty much is a "dictatorship", since we haven't had a Democrat governor since the Republicans went conservative...

How is that a dictatorship?

[freebrickproductions]

(It is possible for a state to be its own dictatorship. Democracy really didn't come to the Deep South until the Voting Rights Act was passed, so I'd say those states were practically dictatorships before then.)

Alabama still pretty much is a "dictatorship", since we haven't had a Democrat governor since the Republicans went conservative...

How is that a dictatorship?

At the very least it's a one party system here now for the most part. Dictatorship is probably the wrong word to use, but it was almost midnight when I wrote that and I was rather tired.

[vdeane]

I don't know about NY as an independent country, but NYC as it's own state could work. Maybe if we weren't sending all our $ to Albany, we could finally finish the 2 Av Subway line. 😝

XT1585

Hate to break it to you, but the MTA is a financial black hole fueled by corruption.  If anything, the subway line would take even LONGER if you were an independent state.  Meanwhile, upstate, we can't even keep our roads from deteriorating because the state is spending all its money on things like the LaGuardia rebuild, and things like uber are illegal here because the NYC taxi lobby doesn't want the competition, our exit numbers are still sequential because of you guys, and our speed limit still just 65.  It was even a huge battle just to get electric bikes.

Electric bikes are still illegal here. Not that that stops anyone. And as I recall at least part of IH 95 still has mile based junction numbers


XT1585

But notice how so few other roads in the state have mile-based numbers and how we're not allowed to convert because of NYC/LI interests in remaining sequential.  Heck, there was a half hearted project to replace the mile-based numbers on I-95 with sequential until the 2009 MUTCD came out.

And, of course, stuff like the LaGuardia rebuilt isn't just because of Cuomo; I remember when upstate taxpayers were on the hook for a football stadium in Manhattan.

And the downstate effect on our laws is quite large; it's not just electric bikes (which are only still illegal in NYC as part of a compromise with the technophobic idiots who think they're motorcycles) and Uber (and, while Uber has its issues, the main thing keeping it illegal in NY is the power of the NYC taxi lobby).  They're just what I came up with on the top of my head, being recent.

[Scott5114]

A state could theoretically survive as a nation while still being part of the United States...

[Road Hog]

If Texas did secede, a good chunk of the rest of the US would do cartwheels.

[SP Cook]

The idea that this or that state is a donor or donee in terms of federal taxes is apocryphal.  There are dozen of measures, all inaccurate.   The federal government is not a good buy for any state, of course. 

As to the original question, pretty much any state could survive as a country.  Why not?  Every state produces a product that it can sell at a fair price to those that want or need it.

[Brandon]

(It is possible for a state to be its own dictatorship. Democracy really didn't come to the Deep South until the Voting Rights Act was passed, so I'd say those states were practically dictatorships before then.)

Alabama still pretty much is a "dictatorship", since we haven't had a Democrat governor since the Republicans went conservative...

How is that a dictatorship?

At the very least it's a one party system here now for the most part. Dictatorship is probably the wrong word to use, but it was almost midnight when I wrote that and I was rather tired.

There are plenty of one-party states in the US, Illinois being rather notable.

[bandit957]

There are plenty of one-party states in the US, Illinois being rather notable.

How is Illinois one-party? One party controls the governorship, but another party controls the legislature.

America certainly has counties that are one-party when they don't need to be. Around here, for instance, one party might win with only 55% of the vote in county commissioner elections, but they win all the commissioner seats, because they won't adopt a fair system that allocates seats proportionally.

[freebrickproductions]

America certainly has counties that are one-party when they don't need to be. Around here, for instance, one party might win with only 55% of the vote in county commissioner elections, but they win all the commissioner seats, because they won't adopt a fair system that allocates seats proportionally.

Oh, all of the districts are probably equal. They're just gerrymandered to the point where the opposing party doesn't have a say.

[SP Cook]

Perhaps.  Or perhaps 55% of the people feel one way, evenly distributed.  Not enough information to know. 

Of course, so-called "proportional representation" has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy.

[jeffandnicole]

Then again, as we've seen across the pond, those people that would want to secede from the US would be doing it only to show a point but don't actually want to secede. When they actually do secede, people will be surprised that so many voted to secede and they didn't think it would happen.  Then, they will start wavering on this whole secession idea, and will want to rejoin the union.

[english si]

Then again, as we've seen across the pond

Either the US media is really awful (though ours has been heavily biased to spinning this for Remain with few exceptions) or you haven't actually looked.

those people that would want to secede from the US would be doing it only to show a point but don't actually want to secede.

Only 1-2% of the 52% of Leave voters have voters regret - it's been extensively polled. The regret is coming from the 96% of Remain voters who are actively angry (many demanding a re-run - in which case, can England play Iceland again?) that we have the wrong sort of electorate (as many people did in 2015, and with Corbyn's election as leader of the Labour party).

When they actually do secede, people will be surprised that so many voted to secede and they didn't think it would happen.

Surely, unlike the UK vote, the State seceding wouldn't use their employees and taxpayers money not specifically earmarked for campaigning to produce a leaflet for every household on the stay side? And the Governor wouldn't be the actively-involved figurehead of the stay camp? While it wasn't as bad as in 1975, the establishment were almost all on one side of this, the media spin (save a couple of newspapers and a news magazine) had a pro-EU bias (though, to be fair to the TV channels, their coverage did get more balanced on the news programmes once everyone was in campaign mode, and the BBC even tried a little on the topical comedy TV shows to bring in a sensible Leaver a couple of times for some balance).

Leave were massive underdogs throughout the campaign, because it was all set up against them - the timing chosen to maximise turnout, turning lukewarm Remain support into votes, done with as short notice as possible, and suddenly, so that the Leave camp were on the back foot at the start of the race, etc. Should a secession movement come to a vote in a state, then there would surely have to be an expectation that there was a good chance of secession winning. Case in point - the Scottish referendum had the Scottish government siding for independence, and an expectation that Yes could win it else they wouldn't have called it (just as it is expected by some that they won't call a second one). This referendum was, like the AV one, designed as a way of not changing anything while pretending to have done so to fulfil a promise.

Leave was polling 10 points behind at the start of the week according to one poll that Fleet Street and Salford proclaimed from the rooftops. On the day itself, when I suggested that 8/1 for Leave to win was very good odds as the polls look close on an online forum, I was shouted down and people were saying 60-40 Remain. The private exit polling that bankers did suggested Remain. Even when Newcastle's result came in lower than expected for Remain, the mood was still very much Remain is going to win it, just not by 10+ points. Farage (who was a prominent Leaver not part of the official campaign) conceded defeat (with no right to do so) twice during the first couple of hours of the night. Boris was alleged to have said on the tube that he didn't think Leave had quite won. Then Sunderland happened and the mood slightly shifted that Leave weren't out yet. Swansea at just before 2am meant cautious optimism and it was another hour before it was sensible to suggest that Leave had definitely had it (and another hour after that when it was actually called).

The people whose job it is to know saw it as too close to call/narrow Remain victory. The media was implying, and the man on the street expecting a fairly large Remain win. Almost all Leave voters, myself included (who had read the people saying too-close to call), felt that Remain would probably pip it. Especially when you add in the conspiracy theories that quite a few people believed they were going to rig it for Remain (from more sensible stuff with evidence like people who didn't have the right to vote in this referendum being given voting cards telling them where to go and what their number was, through to the bonkers idea that pencil marks would be rubbed out so use a pen). For 97% of Leave voters it was a pleasant surprise (we'll say a similar amount weren't surprised to those who regretted their vote, making about 3% total) to find out that Leave won. It wasn't expected as we'd been told to expect something different.

It was the same with the 2015 General Election - they did targeted exit polls that could be meaningfully relied on (they couldn't for this, so they didn't bother doing one), and everyone was expecting the announcement at 10.01 of a prediction of a hung parliament. No. Not even too close to call a result - we had voted for a small Conservative majority. As results were starting to trickle in, Conservative pundits were happily surprised, others didn't think it was at all true (one vowing to eat their hat if it was true, because he was adamant that it wasn't). Journalists had promised to streak a couple of days before the vote if the unlikely thing happened found themselves having to do it. Our polling still isn't right, but somehow we trust it too much.

Then, they will start wavering on this whole secession idea, and will want to rejoin the union.

Nonsense - all the seeking to not Leave are ardent Remainers. Even those with regret aren't seeking to not do what was decided.

[jeffandnicole]

If everything you say English Si is accurate, then some of the media in the US is definitely exaggerating some of the complaints and worries people have as a result of the vote.

[mgk920]

Then again, as we've seen across the pond, those people that would want to secede from the US would be doing it only to show a point but don't actually want to secede. When they actually do secede, people will be surprised that so many voted to secede and they didn't think it would happen.  Then, they will start wavering on this whole secession idea, and will want to rejoin the union.

And if the USA's central federal government starts becoming too overbearing, there is a process in the USA's 1787 Constitution that allows the states to fight back - a process in Article V (amending process) that allows the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to call a convention for the purpose of officially proposing amendments that would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (as with any other amendment), completely bypassing Congress.

Does the EU have such a process where the member countries can 'fight back' if the EU's central government gets too overbearing?

Mike

[hbelkins]

America certainly has counties that are one-party when they don't need to be. Around here, for instance, one party might win with only 55% of the vote in county commissioner elections, but they win all the commissioner seats, because they won't adopt a fair system that allocates seats proportionally.

Oh, all of the districts are probably equal. They're just gerrymandered to the point where the opposing party doesn't have a say.

In Kentucky, county commissioners represent districts but are elected countywide, if the county has adopted a commissioner form of government. However, if the county adopts a magistrate form of government, magistrates are elected from individual districts that are made up of voting precincts that are formed by geographic boundaries. While the districts have to be roughly equal in population, the precincts themselves do not have to be roughly equal in population. Which resulted in a situation in a county where I worked years ago with three magistrates where one of them represented about half the county, geographically speaking.

I'm not sure what Tim's advocating here unless it's some sort of parliamentary system.

[vdeane]

The US media is extremely pro-Remain as well.  They've been explaining the decision to leave as a result of "stupid/racist" voters who wouldn't listen to the "experts"; claims that the leave voters are all regretting their vote and that searches for "what is the EU" spiked after the vote results were announced are all over the place, as well as claims that the stock market is in free fall and that the pound is dirt cheap and that Britain's economy is going to implode and that Russia will soon rule over all of Europe.

Unfortunately, my summation of how the media is covering this isn't even the tiniest bit exaggerated.

[kphoger]

The US media is extremely pro-Remain as well.  They've been explaining the decision to leave as a result of "stupid/racist" voters who wouldn't listen to the "experts"; claims that the leave voters are all regretting their vote and that searches for "what is the EU" spiked after the vote results were announced are all over the place, as well as claims that the stock market is in free fall and that the pound is dirt cheap and that Britain's economy is going to implode and that Russia will soon rule over all of Europe.

Unfortunately, my summation of how the media is covering this isn't even the tiniest bit exaggerated.

They also dismiss the results by the Remain voters being elderly and afraid of change.  I don't know if that's true or not but, last time I checked, elderly people matter too, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to disregard their opinions.

[DTComposer]

They also dismiss the results by the Remain voters being elderly and afraid of change.  I don't know if that's true or not but, last time I checked, elderly people matter too, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to disregard their opinions.

We were talking about this today...I think it's because this decision will take several years to implement, several more years for the full effects to be known and will have ramifications for decades down the road (and perhaps permanently so long as there's an E.U.). It's not that the votes of anyone, regardless of age, don't matter - but to put it bluntly, many of the majority who voted Leave will be dead by the time it takes full effect, while the majority who voted Remain will be stuck with a decision they didn't want. I believe the numbers were something like 66% of people under 35 voted Remain, while 59% of people over 55 voted Leave.

That said, voter turnout was much lower among younger people, so it could also be argued that they don't care as much? I know I don't have enough expertise to have an opinion, but it's an interesting topic...

[kphoger]

They also dismiss the results by the Remain voters being elderly and afraid of change.  I don't know if that's true or not but, last time I checked, elderly people matter too, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to disregard their opinions.

We were talking about this today...I think it's because this decision will take several years to implement, several more years for the full effects to be known and will have ramifications for decades down the road (and perhaps permanently so long as there's an E.U.). It's not that the votes of anyone, regardless of age, don't matter - but to put it bluntly, many of the majority who voted Leave will be dead by the time it takes full effect, while the majority who voted Remain will be stuck with a decision they didn't want. I believe the numbers were something like 66% of people under 35 voted Remain, while 59% of people over 55 voted Leave.

That said, voter turnout was much lower among younger people, so it could also be argued that they don't care as much? I know I don't have enough expertise to have an opinion, but it's an interesting topic...

But that's just another way of saying older folks' votes don't matter as much because they won't live as long.  Just different words.

[bandit957]

Perhaps.  Or perhaps 55% of the people feel one way, evenly distributed.  Not enough information to know.

The northern half of the county supports one party, the southern half supports another. But only the southern half is heard, despite having fewer people.

[US 41]

My top 3 candidates:

1) Texas
2) Hawaii
3) Alaska

[DTComposer]

They also dismiss the results by the Remain voters being elderly and afraid of change.  I don't know if that's true or not but, last time I checked, elderly people matter too, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to disregard their opinions.

We were talking about this today...I think it's because this decision will take several years to implement, several more years for the full effects to be known and will have ramifications for decades down the road (and perhaps permanently so long as there's an E.U.). It's not that the votes of anyone, regardless of age, don't matter - but to put it bluntly, many of the majority who voted Leave will be dead by the time it takes full effect, while the majority who voted Remain will be stuck with a decision they didn't want. I believe the numbers were something like 66% of people under 35 voted Remain, while 59% of people over 55 voted Leave.

That said, voter turnout was much lower among younger people, so it could also be argued that they don't care as much? I know I don't have enough expertise to have an opinion, but it's an interesting topic...

But that's just another way of saying older folks' votes don't matter as much because they won't live as long.  Just different words.

You're right, and that was the crux of my other discussion - we were trying to find an analogy - it's like five people are living in a house, and everyone votes on what color to paint the house, and three people vote purple and two vote green, so it gets painted purple, but two of the people voting purple are moving out next month, and the one of the people who will replace them would have picked green. Except that you can't repaint the house.

It's not a great analogy, and I struggle with it (I am not among the younger demographic, FWIW). The best I could think was this: if I was older, and had an adult grandchild, I would hope I had the integrity to sit down with them, have a good conversation about the pros and cons of both sides, and say "well, you're the one who will have to live with it. What do you want?" And if I felt their arguments and rationales were well thought out (and not caught up in the hysteria both sides seem to have displayed), then I would vote to support what they wanted.

I say that, but would I really do that? Does this mean my opinion or vote doesn't matter? Or does it mean I want younger generations to feel they had a voice in shaping the world they (and not me) will live in?

[jeffandnicole]

They also dismiss the results by the Remain voters being elderly and afraid of change.  I don't know if that's true or not but, last time I checked, elderly people matter too, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to disregard their opinions.

We were talking about this today...I think it's because this decision will take several years to implement, several more years for the full effects to be known and will have ramifications for decades down the road (and perhaps permanently so long as there's an E.U.). It's not that the votes of anyone, regardless of age, don't matter - but to put it bluntly, many of the majority who voted Leave will be dead by the time it takes full effect, while the majority who voted Remain will be stuck with a decision they didn't want. I believe the numbers were something like 66% of people under 35 voted Remain, while 59% of people over 55 voted Leave.

That said, voter turnout was much lower among younger people, so it could also be argued that they don't care as much? I know I don't have enough expertise to have an opinion, but it's an interesting topic...

But that's just another way of saying older folks' votes don't matter as much because they won't live as long.  Just different words.

You're right, and that was the crux of my other discussion - we were trying to find an analogy - it's like five people are living in a house, and everyone votes on what color to paint the house, and three people vote purple and two vote green, so it gets painted purple, but two of the people voting purple are moving out next month, and the one of the people who will replace them would have picked green. Except that you can't repaint the house.

It's not a great analogy, and I struggle with it (I am not among the younger demographic, FWIW). The best I could think was this: if I was older, and had an adult grandchild, I would hope I had the integrity to sit down with them, have a good conversation about the pros and cons of both sides, and say "well, you're the one who will have to live with it. What do you want?" And if I felt their arguments and rationales were well thought out (and not caught up in the hysteria both sides seem to have displayed), then I would vote to support what they wanted.

I say that, but would I really do that? Does this mean my opinion or vote doesn't matter? Or does it mean I want younger generations to feel they had a voice in shaping the world they (and not me) will live in?

And then you find out your grandson didn't vote because he had a lunch date. And doesn't explain why he couldn't vote in the other 15 hours available.

[kalvado]

by the way.. There was (and still is, as I just read) a fairly interesting movement - Free State Project. Idea was to bring people supporting certain idea - "liberty-oriented", as they call it - into a single state; and take over control of state government. They believe that if the group of 10-20 thousand people moved into the state gets 100% voter turnout between them, they can just outvote locals. They selected NH, state with 1.3 million population, with direct ocean access and access to Canada border, and "strong liberty spirit".
Big plan is basically to reject "if state does this, federal government funds that" type of deals in favor of local decision making. So far they got 18 out of 400 seats in state legislature during past elections..
Not a true secession, but interesting idea nonetheless.

[froggie]

Surprised they got that many.  What they may not have expected is that in New Hampshire, along with neighboring Vermont, the "locals" still play heavily into local and regional politics because both states still adhere to "Town Meeting".