Progressives: Should we let some states secede?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 09, 2021, 04:44:01 PM

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: TexasGurl, Anyone But Yang!)
  Progressives: Should we let some states secede?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Progressives: Should we let some states secede?  (Read 864 times)
Charcolt
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 360


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 04, 2021, 07:16:47 AM »

No.

As a Progressive, I believe America has the potential to be an immensely powerful force for good. It already is, in most ways. There are certain state governments which have malicious policies and I'd like to see them replaced, but I wouldn't give up on my countrymen - both those states' innocent targets and their neighbors, whose frustrations I think have been deliberately misdirected by bad actors (and in some respects are entirely legitimate).

If the rot caused by Murdoch and his ilk is too deep to excise currently, we should whip up the public in support of a war of conquest and annex some progressive territories worthy of admission into the empire of liberty Tongue
Logged
Tsaiite
Blairite
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,413
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 04, 2021, 09:00:48 AM »

Suppose a constitutional amendment were proposed that would allow a state state to secede from the union if it was supported in a referendum by 60% of the stateís population.

Should progressives support this? 
Well, yes.

Splitting up the US is a BAD idea, but I don't see how you should go against the wishes of 60%+ of the population of a state.

However, there should be a transitional phase where people could move in and out of the US and that state before it took effect. We wouldn't want US citizens suddenly trapped in some hellhole Qanon regressive state with no way out.
That's an incredibly low vote share and I have absolutely no problem overriding it.
Logged
JamsaranDunk
SlamDunk
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,118


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 04, 2021, 09:18:46 AM »

Suppose a constitutional amendment were proposed that would allow a state state to secede from the union if it was supported in a referendum by 60% of the stateís population.

Should progressives support this? 
Well, yes.

Splitting up the US is a BAD idea, but I don't see how you should go against the wishes of 60%+ of the population of a state.

However, there should be a transitional phase where people could move in and out of the US and that state before it took effect. We wouldn't want US citizens suddenly trapped in some hellhole Qanon regressive state with no way out.
That's an incredibly low vote share and I have absolutely no problem overriding it.
Seems a bit arbitrary, what would your preferred threshold be then and why?
Logged
Tsaiite
Blairite
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,413
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 04, 2021, 09:21:44 AM »
« Edited: May 04, 2021, 11:10:16 AM by Tsaiite »

Suppose a constitutional amendment were proposed that would allow a state state to secede from the union if it was supported in a referendum by 60% of the stateís population.

Should progressives support this?  
Well, yes.

Splitting up the US is a BAD idea, but I don't see how you should go against the wishes of 60%+ of the population of a state.

However, there should be a transitional phase where people could move in and out of the US and that state before it took effect. We wouldn't want US citizens suddenly trapped in some hellhole Qanon regressive state with no way out.
That's an incredibly low vote share and I have absolutely no problem overriding it.
Seems a bit arbitrary, what would your preferred threshold be then and why?
Considering referendums have no democratic legitimacy in the United States, I really don't care what their outcome is at all. That said, if a *monolithic* group of people did want to leave the United States (say, 85%+), I might consider it but still probably not. Resist the mob and all that.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,545
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 04, 2021, 09:23:39 AM »

No. We should be adding to our territory, not subtracting from it.
Whatís this supposed to mean?
Presumably expanding the borders of the US. Not sure what direction Dule is suggesting, if any.

North.

We will fight in the fields and we will fight in the glaciers. We will not surrender one inch of Canadian soil.

(I am a Canadian citizen for those who don't know)
Logged
Ferguson97
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,200
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: -6.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 04, 2021, 09:33:43 AM »

No, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Logged
JamsaranDunk
SlamDunk
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,118


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 04, 2021, 09:36:22 AM »

Suppose a constitutional amendment were proposed that would allow a state state to secede from the union if it was supported in a referendum by 60% of the stateís population.

Should progressives support this? 
Well, yes.

Splitting up the US is a BAD idea, but I don't see how you should go against the wishes of 60%+ of the population of a state.

However, there should be a transitional phase where people could move in and out of the US and that state before it took effect. We wouldn't want US citizens suddenly trapped in some hellhole Qanon regressive state with no way out.
That's an incredibly low vote share and I have absolutely no problem overriding it.
Seems a bit arbitrary, what would your preferred threshold be then and why?
Considering referendums have no democratic legitimacy in the United States, I really don't care what their outcome is at all. That said, if a *monolithic* group of people did want to leave the United States (say, 85%+), I might consider it.
I haven't heard this claim before, do you mind elaborating?
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,545
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 04, 2021, 09:36:53 AM »

No of course not
Logged
Tsaiite
Blairite
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,413
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 04, 2021, 10:29:00 AM »

Suppose a constitutional amendment were proposed that would allow a state state to secede from the union if it was supported in a referendum by 60% of the stateís population.

Should progressives support this? 
Well, yes.

Splitting up the US is a BAD idea, but I don't see how you should go against the wishes of 60%+ of the population of a state.

However, there should be a transitional phase where people could move in and out of the US and that state before it took effect. We wouldn't want US citizens suddenly trapped in some hellhole Qanon regressive state with no way out.
That's an incredibly low vote share and I have absolutely no problem overriding it.
Seems a bit arbitrary, what would your preferred threshold be then and why?
Considering referendums have no democratic legitimacy in the United States, I really don't care what their outcome is at all. That said, if a *monolithic* group of people did want to leave the United States (say, 85%+), I might consider it.
I haven't heard this claim before, do you mind elaborating?
We don't have a legal procedure by which states can unilaterally secede, which means any ballot measure or whatever by which 50% of a state's voters might vote to leave the United States isn't legitimate and can rightfully be ignored.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,389


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 04, 2021, 10:32:17 AM »
« Edited: May 04, 2021, 10:35:31 AM by Fmr. Gov. NickG »

Suppose a constitutional amendment were proposed that would allow a state state to secede from the union if it was supported in a referendum by 60% of the stateís population.

Should progressives support this?  
Well, yes.

Splitting up the US is a BAD idea, but I don't see how you should go against the wishes of 60%+ of the population of a state.

However, there should be a transitional phase where people could move in and out of the US and that state before it took effect. We wouldn't want US citizens suddenly trapped in some hellhole Qanon regressive state with no way out.
That's an incredibly low vote share and I have absolutely no problem overriding it.
Seems a bit arbitrary, what would your preferred threshold be then and why?
Considering referendums have no democratic legitimacy in the United States, I really don't care what their outcome is at all. That said, if a *monolithic* group of people did want to leave the United States (say, 85%+), I might consider it.
I haven't heard this claim before, do you mind elaborating?
We don't have a legal procedure by which states can unilaterally secede, which means any ballot measure or whatever by which 50% of a state's voters might vote to leave the United States isn't legitimate and can rightfully be ignored.

Certainly this is true under the constitution as currently written.  But I'm proposing the constitution be amended to give such referenda binding legal effect.  I definitely think the threshold under such an amendment should be greater than 50%, and probably involve a multi-step process over a period of years.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,389


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 04, 2021, 10:34:46 AM »

Do progressive really believe there is no situation in which secession is morally supportable?  If not, how do you square this with support for separatist movements or self-determination claims in other nations?
Logged
Oregon Eagle Politics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,918
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 04, 2021, 10:41:47 AM »

No. Remember that a majority of the humans living in Wyoming did not vote for Donald Trump. Trump got 190K votes in a state of 580K people.
Logged
JamsaranDunk
SlamDunk
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,118


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 04, 2021, 10:43:33 AM »

Suppose a constitutional amendment were proposed that would allow a state state to secede from the union if it was supported in a referendum by 60% of the stateís population.

Should progressives support this? 
Well, yes.

Splitting up the US is a BAD idea, but I don't see how you should go against the wishes of 60%+ of the population of a state.

However, there should be a transitional phase where people could move in and out of the US and that state before it took effect. We wouldn't want US citizens suddenly trapped in some hellhole Qanon regressive state with no way out.
That's an incredibly low vote share and I have absolutely no problem overriding it.
Seems a bit arbitrary, what would your preferred threshold be then and why?
Considering referendums have no democratic legitimacy in the United States, I really don't care what their outcome is at all. That said, if a *monolithic* group of people did want to leave the United States (say, 85%+), I might consider it.
I haven't heard this claim before, do you mind elaborating?
We don't have a legal procedure by which states can unilaterally secede, which means any ballot measure or whatever by which 50% of a state's voters might vote to leave the United States isn't legitimate and can rightfully be ignored.
Ah gotcha you're speaking in regards to secession referendums specifically. I mistakenly assumed you were talking about all referendums regardless of the content, my bad.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,389


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 04, 2021, 10:45:58 AM »

No. Remember that a majority of the humans living in Wyoming did not vote for Donald Trump. Trump got 190K votes in a state of 580K people.

If a majority of the population in Wyoming did not support Trump, presumably a supermajority of the population would not support secession.
Logged
Tsaiite
Blairite
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,413
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 04, 2021, 10:53:45 AM »

Suppose a constitutional amendment were proposed that would allow a state state to secede from the union if it was supported in a referendum by 60% of the stateís population.

Should progressives support this?  
Well, yes.

Splitting up the US is a BAD idea, but I don't see how you should go against the wishes of 60%+ of the population of a state.

However, there should be a transitional phase where people could move in and out of the US and that state before it took effect. We wouldn't want US citizens suddenly trapped in some hellhole Qanon regressive state with no way out.
That's an incredibly low vote share and I have absolutely no problem overriding it.
Seems a bit arbitrary, what would your preferred threshold be then and why?
Considering referendums have no democratic legitimacy in the United States, I really don't care what their outcome is at all. That said, if a *monolithic* group of people did want to leave the United States (say, 85%+), I might consider it.
I haven't heard this claim before, do you mind elaborating?
We don't have a legal procedure by which states can unilaterally secede, which means any ballot measure or whatever by which 50% of a state's voters might vote to leave the United States isn't legitimate and can rightfully be ignored.

Certainly this is true under the constitution as currently written.  But I'm proposing the constitution be amended to give such referenda binding legal effect.  I definitely think the threshold under such an amendment should be greater than 50%, and probably involve a multi-step process over a period of years.

Well, I certainly think that's a bad idea.
Logged
Alcibiades
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,527
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -6.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 04, 2021, 10:55:05 AM »

There should be some mechanism for states to leave, as it is rather undemocratic to tell citizens that in no way can their democratic will ever be exercised over this issue, but the threshold should certainly be far higher than 50%+1 in a referendum.
Logged
Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Short
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,817
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 04, 2021, 01:52:42 PM »

No. We should be adding to our territory, not subtracting from it.
Whatís this supposed to mean?
Presumably expanding the borders of the US. Not sure what direction Dule is suggesting, if any.

North.

We will fight in the fields and we will fight in the glaciers. We will not surrender one inch of Canadian soil.

(I am a Canadian citizen for those who don't know)

We should've dealt with you in 1812 when we had the justification for it.
Logged
West_Midlander
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,878
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.77, S: 2.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 04, 2021, 02:02:19 PM »

Granted i'm not a progressive (anymore), but i would be completely opposed to to any form of succession.

The US should be as big as possible. Let's get to 60 states (or more) if we can!
Logged
Yoda
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 729
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 04, 2021, 03:55:26 PM »

Throwaway thought but man can you imagine not having to subsidize Kentucky and the other deadbeat states any more?
Logged
Speak No Evil for one month
Scott
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,031
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 04, 2021, 04:20:44 PM »

Honestly I’m trying to think of what the downside to this could be.  Perhaps it should require affirmative votes in two consecutive referenda spaced a couple years apart.

The inevitable denial of basic rights to marginalized groups in those states by bigoted governments that would no longer face any federal oversight?

The states that might secede all have tiny populations compared to the tens of millions of people whose rights would be enhanced in a slightly smaller and reformed union.

And all those states would be forfeiting the benefits that come with being members of the Union. Wyoming and the Dakotas couldn't survive as independent countries. Most states except the four or five largest ones wouldn't go anywhere without the Union, and even the ones that could survive independently on paper (California, Texas) would find themselves missing their federal benefits and military protection pretty quickly.

it's not like Texas and California or any state have any serious military threats.

As border states where drug and human trafficking are real problems, they sort of do.

As far as military threats are concerned, the US really doesn't have any from foreign governments or heavy duty terrorist groups/militias, composed of citizens or otherwise. All things considered, the US is very fortunate for its geographical location. Even most of our immigration problems stemming from Latin America were directly or indirectly caused by us.

Hell, even Cuba came to be where it is under the Castro regime because the US colonized and exploited the country and supported its far-right military dictator.
Logged
Speak No Evil for one month
Scott
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,031
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 04, 2021, 04:28:49 PM »

Throwaway thought but man can you imagine not having to subsidize Kentucky and the other deadbeat states any more?

Letting parts of the country that already resemble third-world countries fall even further into squalor would be pretty detestable on our part, yes.
Logged
omar04
Rookie
**
Posts: 136
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 04, 2021, 04:48:52 PM »

Honestly Iím trying to think of what the downside to this could be.  Perhaps it should require affirmative votes in two consecutive referenda spaced a couple years apart.

The inevitable denial of basic rights to marginalized groups in those states by bigoted governments that would no longer face any federal oversight?

The states that might secede all have tiny populations compared to the tens of millions of people whose rights would be enhanced in a slightly smaller and reformed union.

And all those states would be forfeiting the benefits that come with being members of the Union. Wyoming and the Dakotas couldn't survive as independent countries. Most states except the four or five largest ones wouldn't go anywhere without the Union, and even the ones that could survive independently on paper (California, Texas) would find themselves missing their federal benefits and military protection pretty quickly.

it's not like Texas and California or any state have any serious military threats.

As border states where drug and human trafficking are real problems, they sort of do.

As far as military threats are concerned, the US really doesn't have any from foreign governments or heavy duty terrorist groups/militias, composed of citizens or otherwise. All things considered, the US is very fortunate for its geographical location. Even most of our immigration problems stemming from Latin America were directly or indirectly caused by us.

Hell, even Cuba came to be where it is under the Castro regime because the US colonized and exploited the country and supported its far-right military dictator.

human and drug trafficking while requiring large scale cooperation aren't really military matters. it's mainly the DOJ who deals with that and on a state level, most of the facilities for immigrant detainees are instate. i assume that the newly independent states would join the various UNODC treaties: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/index.html and continue cooperation with the US in those areas.
Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,478
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.16, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 04, 2021, 06:39:48 PM »

I support a Premier Leage-style promotion-relegation system. Lame states can secede into the lower-tier Little Caesers American States Confederation until they earn their way back into the United States.
Logged
HisGrace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,387
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 04, 2021, 07:36:09 PM »

This is a terrible idea and one that used to be confined exclusively to right wingnut circles. The left is catching up, I see.

Honestly Iím trying to think of what the downside to this could be.  Perhaps it should require affirmative votes in two consecutive referenda spaced a couple years apart.

The inevitable denial of basic rights to marginalized groups in those states by bigoted governments that would no longer face any federal oversight?

Some states in the deep south would probably straight up bring back Jim Crow if they could get away with it. Guess the blacks down there aren't the black lives that matter.
Logged
Tsaiite
Blairite
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,413
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 04, 2021, 08:47:06 PM »

Do progressive really believe there is no situation in which secession is morally supportable?  If not, how do you square this with support for separatist movements or self-determination claims in other nations?

Well, I'd argue that supporting those is deeply overrated most of the time and that self-determination is not inherently progressive.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 12 queries.