It would go something like this: Any county (or parish or borough) of a state that borders another state may vote by a 60% majority of its legal residents to secede from their state and join the bordering state. The bordering state they vote to join must agree via a 2/3 majority vote by its legislature for the transition to take effect. The county will then switch states. The state that the county voted to leave will be fully compensated at fair market value over a period not to exceed 10 years for any state property that can be demonstrated to not have been funded and supported by The People of the seceding county. The seceding county may not vote to switch states again until the compensation for the switch has been completed. I'm sure the actual wording would necessarily be a lot more legal and less clear, but you get the idea- let the borders of states be fluid so The People have more choice in how they are governed. Not only will people have less animosity as a result of feeling 'stuck' in a state run by political polar opposites, but state governments will likely be a lot more interested in keeping their people happy, lest those people all vote to leave. Thoughts?
What I'm not sure of is how Electoral College votes would be handled. In some cases, voting districts a county borders would make the allocation simple. But I think in most cases it would just have to go with whatever percentage of the population is switching states, they take that same percentage of the original states EC points with them, rounded to the nearest point. That could be a problem down the road, if, for example, a large portion of a state switches, but does so one at a time over decades, the EC college allocation could drift out of balance. There's surely a better way though.
Impossible. There are so many issues tied in with a county the lawsuits alone would take forever. Look at Arizona and California who've had a bitter fight over water since forever, if California could start gobbling up counties it would impact every state the Colorado river flows through. Massive fights between states about who controls waterways in the NE and especially the taxes, it's taken the Supreme Court countless rulings to get it somewhat stable. States could literally pay off counties in a straight line to join them and cut another state in half and stick a toll bridge on it. Just way to complicated.
It's an interesting idea, but I think you'd eventually get some very weird looking borders, and it would result in some very strange politics. There might be a whole little region of local counties that want to secede from a state, but need a "corridor" to connect to another state to do so. So they might start using their influence to create a "tunnel" of counties to connect to the state they want to join. And what happens if a county joins to another state, but later certain counties change their mind, and that county is no longer connected to that state? Would that county have to automatically revert back to the original state it was part of? Or would a county that became surrounded by other counties in another state have to join the state that completely surrounded them? In that case, the political map might resemble a giant game of the Japanese board game "Go".
I don't think any competent state legislature would vote down an opportunity to gain more districts (and thus more representation in the House). Governors would likely be more inclined to antagonize one another, as would the people. n I read some literature that describes how Rep. voters in a Dem. state are generally happy so long as the President is of the same party, and vice versa. Only when their party controls neither the state nor the executive do they feel less efficacious. I think this plan would raise the stakes for local governments to reflect the popular will in a few places, but I'm not sure that popular consensus should be so powerful, especially if we start cannibalizing electoral districts based on the idea.
Why? what you are suggesting is chaos. Regions can't just up and become part of other states, there are governments, district apportionment issues, infrastructures, police forces, contracts, interagency communication lines, water distribution, civil engineering jurisdiction, telecommunication organization, insurance commission purview issues, courts of jurisdiction and all kinds of police and jurisdictional complications, city councils, postal system, and all of such things depends on things remaining constant, you can't just up and say' let's be a part of another state, that's crazy talk. You really haven't thought it through. Moreover, people vote, we already 'choose how we are governed'.
That would ultimately lead to large states forming with multiple counties acting as de facto states. You haven’t solved the problem, but made it worse
All of that can be worked out in negotiation. Ultimately its just dollars. It would be bit more chaotic than folks being locked into a particular state, but I think calling it 'chaos' is disingenuous. The process of switching states would be complicated, but no more so than large corporate mergers, which happen all the time. We don't all 'choose how we are governed.' In rural WA, for example, King County (Seattle) chooses how we are governed. In case you not visited both the Seattle metro area and the vast farmlands an hour or so east of it, its like two different countries, just with one of them making all the laws for the other. If trends continue, with urbania increasingly dominating the politics of ruralia, ruralia is going to split away by some means or another, eventually. By creating a legal, recognized and well defined process beforehand, the chaos of this innevitable split will be far lessened.
I explained why it's crazy talk. There are far more issues beyond dollars, it's called 'power'. Giving territory to another state, that means moving house represetatives for those districts, and on that , alone, the idea is DOA. No one in legislature will take you seriously, like I said, it's crazy talk. No state is going to give up any of it's representatives, the basis of power in the house, to another state. Moreover, moving a region would inevitably result in districts being chopped up, and that is not subject to 'negotiation', as districts are set into place every 10 years. So crazy is your idea, it can't be even taken seriously
So you're saying its a bad idea because the power structure would never allow it. Thats item #1 on my list of indicators of GREAT ideas. Tis true re-allocating representation in congress and electoral power would be the most hotly contested aspect of this. However, in the long run, wouldn't it effectively nullify that aspect of our republic? Once boundaries had been re-re-redrawn all over the country (a process likely many decades long), with each one moving a 'point' here, a 'rep' there, the current status where some ppl's vote effectively counts less than others because their state has a higher pop-to-rep ratio would be diluted and eventually diffused.
It's crazy talk, to be blunt. All you seem to be saying it is possible, sure, it's possible, but that doesn't mean it's not crazy talk. It's an idea that DOA. Call up any rep or senator and ask them, see what they think. The reason I say it's crazy talk is because it's not even a good idea. It isn't anywhere in the ballpark of being a good idea, let alone a plausible one.
You'd end up with depopulated islands of democratic tyranny. But sure, sounds great. The country would likely then look a lot like this:
Talk about Civil War!!! I don't think there would be anybody left to even bother with borders, votes, and laws!!
I like the idea in principle, but I think it should be larger than just one county. Look at the electoral map. I wouldn't mind eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and northern California having a way to form their own state. Those areas do have representatives in the House, but they are denied any Senators who represent them in the Senate, and they cannot elect the Governor of their choice.
I don't think The People would tolerate armed conflict against their brothers to suppress mere secession to another state. This aint 1860, and its not like they're even leaving the Union.
It would be one county at a time. I suspect one county would quickly be followed by its neighbors, and then their neighbors, all across the nation until the states become a lot more politically homogenous, thus substantially (and relatively quickly) reducing the duopolic animosity that currently is dragging us down.
So exactly how many times would any one County/Borough etc be entitled to vote on such transfers? Because I can literally see every local government polity in the United States holding 'referendums' on succession every time one party or the other won office in local elections. In total the US would see more county governments changing their political allegiances every year than most constituents would actually be changing their underwear. (So basically chaos.)
At first, it very well could. But it would eventually stabilize once the states are reformed into more politically compatible demographics. Thus substantially reducing partisan hostilities as groups become more secure that their individual and local values are safer from being trod upon by a slight and/or manufactured majority of their political opposites.
