Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
Won’t go anywhere but shows how losses people are and how much disruption this can cause.
Yes but the influence would diminish because the population would diminish. Of course the senate is not this way.I am all in favor of this, but the unintended side effects will be to cement VA as a blue state.
It will be effectively gerrymandering ourselves.
You are correct about the influence, but this is precisely how gerrymandering works. The Democrats in VA would love nothing more than to move some solid red counties to WV.Yes but the influence would diminish because the population would diminish. Of course the senate is not this way.
Maybe. Why then will the NYS split and CA split never happen then? I know it’s a bit different because it would form a new state but same principle. Of course NYS and CA are more than solid blue so I guess it doesn’t matter much.You are correct about the influence, but this is precisely how gerrymandering works. The Democrats in VA would love nothing more than to move some solid red counties to WV.
Because of how gerrymandering works. NY is solid blue.Maybe. Why then will the NYS split and CA split never happen then? I know it’s a bit different because it would form a new state but same principle. Of course NYS and CA are more than solid blue so I guess it doesn’t matter much.
Because of how gerrymandering works. NY is solid blue.
The left would want to do the opposite of what you suggest. They would want to take a bunch of red PA counties and move them to NY. Not enough to threaten their overwhelming majority in NY, but enough to push PA over the wall to be reliably blue too.
It's simple. You want all your territories to be reliably yours, but no more. Maybe 60%/40%. And you want your opponents to be squeezed into a small number of districts where they have nearly 100%.
You want to move your opponents out of the battlegrounds and into places that are solid red or blue. You actually want your people to leave the places you have an overwhelming majority and into the places that are up for grabs.
They will lose delegates, but not today. It will take quite a while before that kicks in.Gerrymandering or not, If they lose half the counties , they are going to lose delegates, which would be picked up by W Virginia , They are going to lose a massive amount of tax revenue with it. I dont know if they can leave without a sign off by the Legislature anyways. Not sure how that would work.
They only just took the state. I'm assuming there will be a significant backlash next election to all the crap they are doing.How so?
I dont know if they can leave without a sign off by the Legislature anyways. Not sure how that would work
I'm not sure how that works either, @holdover but for the states it is within law that if 75% of the union wants to succeed from it they legally may.If they let a few counties leave, then they will not have to worry about that
It would have to be renamed to just "Richmond" Then the rest of what used to be Virginia and WV could just become Virginia again.
If *all* the sanctuary counties left you are right, but that seems unlikely.
Correct.They will lose delegates, but not today. It will take quite a while before that kicks in.
They will if they want that tax revenue.This is what I want to know: if these counties jump to WVA, is WVA going to defend these counties? Whether in court, or otherwise? If they're serious about it, this is pretty big. I've never heard of portions of one state joining another, but I'm also not opposed to the idea.
This is how WV was formed in the first place. Do to unfair taxation on the poorer western mountainous region counties.This is what I want to know: if these counties jump to WVA, is WVA going to defend these counties? Whether in court, or otherwise? If they're serious about it, this is pretty big. I've never heard of portions of one state joining another, but I'm also not opposed to the idea.
Great post.The disarmament movement could very be the catalyst for a break up. If it can happen over slavery, it can happen over a core civil right that people feel very very strongly about.
It was over a rights dispute.Great post.
But let it be noted the first time didn't happen over a slavery dispute.
Great post.
But let it be noted the first time didn't happen over a slavery dispute.
Also slave owners had the mind set, and I guess at that time it was also considered law, that slaves were personal property.It was over a rights dispute.
Slavery just happened to be heavily involved in that rights dispute.