A new bid to place a measure on the ballot that would ask California voters to approve the state's secession from the U.S. has been cleared for signature gathering.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
If a state agrees, a new state can be formed in its territory, effectively splitting it.
And there is the rub. Conservative legislators won’t allow it in most states, because it would mean more Dems in congress.
Same in California for much the same reason. There has long been a Republican proposal to split it into 5 states so there are more Republican senators.
We could follow an approach like in the slavery days. Balance each new slave state with a free state.
NY is a very blue state on the strength of NYC. But I grew up upstate, and there were just so many differences. ITs not just that it was a conservative rural area, but it was hard to find anything in common with the city and it always felt like the city dominated and we were afterthoughts. There was definite resentment and I’m sure it hasn’t helped as upstate economies and population dwindle while NYC strengthens. At the time you could split the population pretty evenly between conservative upstate and liberal city: there’d be a new red state to balance the new blue state of Los Angeles, and everyone could more closely elect their preferences
For the record, we in NYC have unique needs that are sometimes time sensitive, see funding for tunnel doors after Sandy as an example. There was no intention to override or co-opt funds meant for people outside the metro area, we all live the beauty of the Hudson valley and so forth.
That need for expedience generates ill will nonetheless, I forgot how many politicos from the state area would purposely slow down city requests or legislation unless a deal was attached.
I’m a huge fan of high speed rail and always hoped that could bring us together.
Currently, spending on rail is a divider since nyc has a huge rail system and rail effectively doesn’t exist in the rest of the state. Why should we spend money on a project that only benefits the city (forgetting which direction the money actually flows)?
if we all came together to build high speed rail to Albany, then up to Montreal and across the Mohawk valley to Buffalo (perhaps to be extended to Toronto), then the entire state benefits from rail. Upstate gets a much needed infusion to resurrect dying cities, we build a greater economy together, and NYC is the hub of a greater network. We can also all benefit by closer ties to our brothers up north and be part of a greater high speed rail network if their HSR gets off the ground
The “forgetting the money” is one of the parts we city people grumble quite a bit about amongst ourselves whenever the upstate politicos play games with our funding needs.
Look, the goal of govt is supposed to be benefit as many as possible, though for some that seems to also mean ignore the few, which I strongly disagree with.
If we build an HSR system within the city e.g. by replacing metro-north tracks, city people immediately benefit… but then the system can expand from there out to Schenectady, Albany buffalo etc. There’s no reason we can’t build your idea in a sensible, phased manner. We could go backwards too, start in buffalo and build south since the metro-north system is already fully functional.
I no longer live in NYC, but the years working for the MTA showed me a lot of the difficult, non-engineering problems to balance. Maybe there are ways to avoid the human problems associated with any large engineering project, but I don’t yet know if any such shortcuts exist or ever existed.
The tracks are already there: like one slow Amtrak per day. It may be constrained by mountains going up the Hudson, and continuing past Albany, but I would think the Mohawk valley is wide open. If you need to straighten the rails , land is cheap and there aren’t many hills.
I think it’s probably neither allowed nor disallowed in state constitutions, but I’m just a dilettante constitutional scholar. Whether it’s allowed or not under the current system, that system is broken and can’t be fixed within the limitations of the system, and it needs a disruption. Disruptions tend to be unpleasant, so this is the least-disruptive disruption that I’ve come up with. There’s even historical precedent for it, in the form of the free imperial cities of the Holy Roman Empire.
That’s an approach I’d never considered - is there wiggle-room in the state constitutions to split into smaller states?
Article IV Section 3 of the US constitution
If a state agrees, a new state can be formed in its territory, effectively splitting it.
And there is the rub. Conservative legislators won’t allow it in most states, because it would mean more Dems in congress.
Same in California for much the same reason. There has long been a Republican proposal to split it into 5 states so there are more Republican senators.
We could follow an approach like in the slavery days. Balance each new slave state with a free state.
NY is a very blue state on the strength of NYC. But I grew up upstate, and there were just so many differences. ITs not just that it was a conservative rural area, but it was hard to find anything in common with the city and it always felt like the city dominated and we were afterthoughts. There was definite resentment and I’m sure it hasn’t helped as upstate economies and population dwindle while NYC strengthens. At the time you could split the population pretty evenly between conservative upstate and liberal city: there’d be a new red state to balance the new blue state of Los Angeles, and everyone could more closely elect their preferences
For the record, we in NYC have unique needs that are sometimes time sensitive, see funding for tunnel doors after Sandy as an example. There was no intention to override or co-opt funds meant for people outside the metro area, we all live the beauty of the Hudson valley and so forth.
That need for expedience generates ill will nonetheless, I forgot how many politicos from the state area would purposely slow down city requests or legislation unless a deal was attached.
I’m a huge fan of high speed rail and always hoped that could bring us together.
The “forgetting the money” is one of the parts we city people grumble quite a bit about amongst ourselves whenever the upstate politicos play games with our funding needs.
Look, the goal of govt is supposed to be benefit as many as possible, though for some that seems to also mean ignore the few, which I strongly disagree with.
If we build an HSR system within the city e.g. by replacing metro-north tracks, city people immediately benefit… but then the system can expand from there out to Schenectady, Albany buffalo etc. There’s no reason we can’t build your idea in a sensible, phased manner. We could go backwards too, start in buffalo and build south since the metro-north system is already fully functional.
I no longer live in NYC, but the years working for the MTA showed me a lot of the difficult, non-engineering problems to balance. Maybe there are ways to avoid the human problems associated with any large engineering project, but I don’t yet know if any such shortcuts exist or ever existed.
The tracks are already there: like one slow Amtrak per day. It may be constrained by mountains going up the Hudson, and continuing past Albany, but I would think the Mohawk valley is wide open. If you need to straighten the rails , land is cheap and there aren’t many hills.
I think it’s probably neither allowed nor disallowed in state constitutions, but I’m just a dilettante constitutional scholar. Whether it’s allowed or not under the current system, that system is broken and can’t be fixed within the limitations of the system, and it needs a disruption. Disruptions tend to be unpleasant, so this is the least-disruptive disruption that I’ve come up with. There’s even historical precedent for it, in the form of the free imperial cities of the Holy Roman Empire.
Texas could split in five smaller states iirc.