Election Results are Challenged in Court and the Will of the Voters is Overturned.
The Messiah Farts Out a "Miracle" and Unlimited Federal Money Flows to Sacramento
The Same People Get Re-Elected, Again.
Whatever Happens, The Taxpayer Gets Screwed
Since you found the math presented to you overly complicated, what you clearly failed to learn was the ability to apply your peices of paper to the resolution of real world problems.
The idea is that if it were split up and new constitutions were written for each new state, then each part could pursue the economic policies that it wanted to. And none of them could possibly be considered "too big to fail."
As for "rampant socialism destroying the state," if the new states were allowed to go their own way independent of each other, some of them would choose more business-friendly policies. And the states that would continue borrow-and-spend policies would at least confine their economic problems to a smaller region of the country.
The total number of senators is not really an issue. Going from 100 to, say, 106 senators would not really affect the way that the Senate functions. If you're concerned about the party affiliation of the senators, that would also be a wash. If the state was divided up into four regions, the Senate split would probably be roughly 5-3 in favor of Democrats...so the partisan balance of power would be unchanged.Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
Just an idea though. I don't think it could ever actually happen.
Last edited by Kandahar; 05-24-09 at 11:32 PM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
How would all of you anti-Bailout California people feel about California refusing to continue to help bailout the rest of the country? It would go like this: California passes an (admittedly) illegal law stating that California residents can withhold payment of 20% of their federal taxes due, as long as they donate the money to the California government.
I'm completely uninterested (as is probably everyone else) in the obvious legal difficulties California residents would face in utilizing the option, etc. I am interested in whether it would be fair for California residents to take such a stance.