Progressives: Should we let some states secede?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Under absolutely no circumstances.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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 state’s 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.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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 state’s 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.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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 state’s 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.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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 state’s 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.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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.

Check your sig and username brah

*Inherently.* The issue at hand is human rights, democracy, and good government. If those are satisfied, it is hard to justify secession particularly when it might put those values at risk. The ROC, after all, would prefer to be ruling Mainland China using those values. If you think progressive/liberal values ought to be universalisable, you'll inevitable run into conflicts with self-determinists.