Split the State?

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
olsonja
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:07 am

Split the State?

Postby olsonja » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:13 am

The recall shows there is a strong geographic divide. The southern fourth progressive and forward-looking. The northern 3/4 looking to the past of one-line jingoisms and tea-party nut jobs.

The population densities of the sourthern fourth demand decent transportation policies(include high-speed) instead of L.A. California highway nightmares.

The southern fourth wants to get rid of big money politics. The northern part of the state just love their company towns, private one room schools, and a preacher on every corner.

Modern communication structures(100% coverage and high-speed internet) are needed for the southern fourth instead we get Walker stopping any effort because of big money from Big Telecomm.

Modern and forward-looking Energy infrastructures(Biomass fuels and windmills) are needed for the southern fourth. Instead what we will get is cheap dirty coal and diminishing oil from the Koche Brothers.

It's time to start thinking about splitting the state
:idea:

Aguynamedsmith
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:53 am
Location: La Crosse, WI
Contact:

Re: Split the State?

Postby Aguynamedsmith » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:03 pm

Well that's good for a laugh. Yeah I'm sure those "progressives" living in Waukesha, Racine, Walworth, Jefferson, Green, LaFayette, Grant and Crawford Counties are on board with this.

What's plan B? Re-education camps for everyone living in the 60 out of 72 counties that didn't vote for Barrett?

Stomach
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1345
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:28 pm

Re: Split the State?

Postby Stomach » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:11 pm

Dumb and Dumber

Shorty
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1940
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:53 pm

Re: Split the State?

Postby Shorty » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:40 pm

Interesting first post, olsonja. Maybe we could split it like you suggest and bypass the Walker counties somehow.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12972
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Split the State?

Postby snoqueen » Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:16 pm

I've got a better idea.

We should have two different state governments and people can belong to whichever one they prefer, like being a Catholic or a Protestant.

Then people get to go to different heavens or hells and will not need to deal with one another in the hereafter, either.

Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places
Contact:

Re: Split the State?

Postby Cornbread » Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:28 pm

I say let's let local communities govern themselves, cutting out the out of touch people and/or weirdos in, say madison.

Local governments can run their own areas w/o sending their monies to moonbat infested places, so the local communities can either flourish, decay, or maintain their present state.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Split the State?

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:22 pm

Okay, there's the "divide," how does the "conquer" part come into play?

green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3023
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Memorial Union
Contact:

Re: Split the State?

Postby green union terrace chair » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:40 pm

A very interesting concept. But upon mulling it over in thoughtful contemplation I must come to the conclusion that you're fucking retarded.

If you look past the color-coding of counties by who the majority voted for, you'll find that every county has at least 40% of their population on either side of the fence. Which means there are no clear separations.

Move to Canada. The rest of us will learn to work with or at least tolerate living side-by-side with those we disagree with.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Split the State?

Postby Bludgeon » Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:57 am

Eh, hm...

Split the state based on party affiliation? No. Split the state on the basis of geography and culture? Maybe. Northern Wisconsin and the UP belong more to each other than they do Madison, Lansing, Milwaukee or Detroit. But it will never, never happen, unless we somehow someday end up with an unprecedentedly creative and whimsical congress, or whoever really decides such a thing. It could be positive were it to be a moderately widespread development - a development not like to ever happen - but positive; positive for the reason that we could use a dozen new "laboratories", and it would be rejuvenating for the localities and citizenry a state like "Ontonagon", which is off topic but on this thread why not be off topic?

All these northern Wisconsin towns - ghost towns - would no longer be hampered by their unwelcome statesmen at the capital. Madison has been a battering ram to a once thriving logging industry, ladeling out so much interference to that industry and all others that nothing thrives or grows; there's nowhere to work but the tourism and service industries. Its getting to be more and more the case that the only thriving ventures in the north are properties of the Native American tribes, who are not coincidentally, much freer from interference from the capital. I have family on both sides up there (Native and Caucasian). The north would be more in harmony, more prosperous, and enjoy a larger economy without a tether to the south.

olsonja
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:07 am

Reply to the dumb and dumber remarks

Postby olsonja » Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:17 am

State splitting has occurred 4 times in the past
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... _proposals
There is an on-going effort right now to split California.

Based on the population numbers there are more people in the urban areas than rural/suburban. I am talking about City of Madison, Milwaukee County, Cities of Racine, Janesville, and Kenosha versus everyone else in a State of South Wisconsin. There would be a shift of who is the majority.

If Wisconsin can be split there could be an opportunity change the laws that give suburbs the "right" to exist. Milwaukee can't grow because it is hemmed by the burbs and instead Milwaukee is dying. Madison is hitting a wall right now because of the same problem.

State of South Wisconsin would add 2 seats to the US Senate.

Splitting the state changes the game
:idea:

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Reply to the dumb and dumber remarks

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:55 am

olsonja wrote:There is an on-going effort right now to split California.


Hopefully from the nation, because that plate tectonics thing is working way too slowly there.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21668
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Split the State?

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:23 am

It's been proposed before:
A culture common to the northern counties of Wisconsin, together with Michigan's Upper Peninsula and northeastern counties of Minnesota that is not shared as strongly with the southern portions of each state has resulted in considerations of forming a state known as Superior. These have not been taken very seriously, as most of the northern counties are dependent on the southern parts of their states for funding.

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Split the State?

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:04 pm

Instead of splitting the state, we should go the other way: reclaim the Upper Peninsula from Michigan and rename the Great Lake to our right "Lake Wisconsin".

bleurose
Forum Addict
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 12:46 pm

Re: Split the State?

Postby bleurose » Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:15 pm

The very end of what Henry quoted.

Bludg's idea that the northern part of the state would somehow prosper in the timber industry if "freed" from the so-called fetters of regulation is a temporary illusion which has almost nothing to do with reality.

Several reality checks:

Most of the loggable acres most likely belong to large timber companies with no vested interest in the state or its citizens. They will clear cut their acres while paying as low a wage as they can manage to local residents and when the trees are gone, so are they. And during the time that they are pillaging the landscape, such companies will not only probably get tax payer-subsidized incentives for "creating jobs", they will also manage to pay little to no taxes to the state via several well-established loop holes and deductions. Because while they are paying minimum wages to the locals, they are paying top dollar to those tax attorneys and accountants who find ways for them to avoid paying any taxes to the state. Then, when the landscape is bare and subject to massive erosion, they will be gone because one of those "onerous" regulations that was eliminated was planting back those acres. Why should a "job-creating" company have to be subject to that expense? It's not "their" problem :roll: . Which is the poster-child reason why eliminating rules/regulations and going to a system of "self-regulation" will never work.

And then once the North woods have run through one main resource, I'm sure they will look around and start the mining. Once the mining companies have left their devastation behind, but not any of their money and none of those low wage no benefit jobs, what is left? Not even tourism because who wants to visit a barren moonscape.

This brings me in a roundabout way to saying that while the idea of dividing geographic areas into ever dwindling political/social boundaries seems attractive, there is a point beyond which the surgically separated areas simply cannot survive due to a lack of natural and other resources which come with ever smaller populations and geography.

I am sympathetic to some of what Bludg says and have come to that view as the country, the state, the county (pick your political unit) have become more and more philosophically divided. No one has a lock on the best ideas or even all of the good ones: there is absolutely a dialog to be had on how to help our fellow citizens attain a decent job with good wages and benefits by using our state's resources (I'm still going with Bludg's example here). In order to do this, we ALL have to look out for each other and not allow our neighbors to be taken advantage of by corporate interests nor by squeezing every last possible resource out of the ground/earth/water/etc no matter what the cost. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that if companies are making the investments, they need to get a decent and reasonable return on that investment. If they don't profit, none of us do. But suitable investment return does not automatically equate with obscene profit. And it shouldn't be obscene profit with no regulations or nothing because that is what the situation is these days.

Citizens and corporations should be able to have some respect for each other. But they don't and I don't know how to start getting that back. Listening would sure help, but if everyone is shouting, how can we hear? Giving a little here & there would be a biggie, but if everyone is completely dug into their trenches, how do we get there? Playing "gotcha" and "dropping bombs" will never get us anywhere. When I grew up, that behavior was called bullying and gloating.

Stomach
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1345
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:28 pm

Re: Split the State?

Postby Stomach » Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:16 pm

Meade wrote:Instead of splitting the state, we should go the other way: reclaim the Upper Peninsula from Michigan and rename the Great Lake to our right "Lake Wisconsin".


Look at me, I'm agreeing with Meade. Maybe he'll invite me over for a brat?

Also, when can we give Texas back to Mexico? I'll be sad to lose Austin but that's the way it goes.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests