Resolved: the US is too large and ought to be divided...

[Genivaria]

One world government is best government.

That is the correct answer.

[Alaje]

Pretty much what it says on the tin:

This topic is for a discussion of the idea that the US is too large and should be divided.

Yea or nay?
Why or why not?
If yes, how?

I lean towards yes. Roughly speaking, each of us can know 100-300 people. 3 levels of governance seem to be most workable. 3 to 30 million seems to work out to the best population level.

I think a division of the US would be beneficial. 3-30 million seems a little low, I could see a division into 3 countries.
Basically the South and Midwest, The North East( expanded a little to include Ohio, Maryland and Delaware), and the West coast. Hawaii could go to the west coast and Alaska could go the the South/Midwest.

This would lead to some problems The north east and West coast need the food production of the Midwest/south to support their populations, and the south Midwest need subsidies in order to maintain steady food production.

So a supra government like the EU has would be needed in order to raise collective taxes and administer highways and agriculture subsidies. Also free trade and movement.

Main opposition would come form the left within the US, because while they complain about the right holding them back they seem to think a refusal to mandate the purchase of insurance is the equivalent to slavery and must be imposed with a bloody civil war if need be.

That would be a waste of time, we're already one nation and it should stay that way.

[Death Metal]

No, because it's not too large.

Nor should we turn it into the EU, because the EU was a terrible idea to begin with.

[AETEN II]

America isn't too large, the problem lies in the population having such polar opposite, diverse opinions that are collected into three groups. I don't think it'll ever lead to a disastrous breakdown of the government, but it will continue to cause the nation's overall level of stress to increase, possibly exponentially. The idea of actually expanding our borders is ridiculous.

Although the main problem may just be with the senate. Seeing that its ineptness to be proactive leads to such chaos and stress within the country.

[Blazedtown]

What an absolutely appalling idea. We need unity, not division. Dividing America is the only way to truly end American dominance in this century, and must be avoided at all cost.

[Rio Cana]

No.

[Samuraikoku]

One world government is best government.

That is the correct answer.

This day will be a glorious one for the Imperium.

[The Montenegrin State]

In comparison to the Russian Federation?

[Earth Empire]

If you want to talk about a nation thats to large

Population wise:
China & India

Land Area wise:
Russia

this United States is not too large no matter what people think. so my answer is a big NO it should not be divided

I agree with this

[Tahar Joblis]

Pretty much what it says on the tin:

This topic is for a discussion of the idea that the US is too large and should be divided.

Yea or nay?
Why or why not?
If yes, how?

I lean towards yes. Roughly speaking, each of us can know 100-300 people. 3 levels of governance seem to be most workable. 3 to 30 million seems to work out to the best population level.

I think a division of the US would be beneficial. 3-30 million seems a little low, I could see a division into 3 countries.
Basically the South and Midwest, The North East( expanded a little to include Ohio, Maryland and Delaware), and the West coast. Hawaii could go to the west coast and Alaska could go the the South/Midwest.

This would lead to some problems The north east and West coast need the food production of the Midwest/south to support their populations, and the south Midwest need subsidies in order to maintain steady food production.

California, Washington, and Oregon - the West Coast - all produce a higher percentage of the US's agricultural receipts than they have a percentage of the US's population. A lot of food is grown in California.

Most of the South [eight out of eleven states of the Confederacy] produce a lower percentage of agricultural receipts than they have as a percentage of the US's population. The South's traditional cash crops are tobacco and cotton, neither of which are edible.

In terms of dramatic ratios of agricultural output, the flat virtually unpopulated grain states are high, the Northeast is low. Every other region falls somewhere in between.

A large amount of produce is imported from Mexico in any event; and while it's true that the Northeast grows very little, they also have good access to shipping lanes, can trade freely with the entire world, and have the most money. They'll be fine, in other words, whether or not the grain states throw a fit.

[Densaner]

Pretty much what it says on the tin:

This topic is for a discussion of the idea that the US is too large and should be divided.

Yea or nay?
Why or why not?
If yes, how?

I lean towards yes. Roughly speaking, each of us can know 100-300 people. 3 levels of governance seem to be most workable. 3 to 30 million seems to work out to the best population level.

I think that was tried in 1861. It didn't work out that well as I recall.

[Forsher]

The problem is the US is too divided as is.

[PapaJacky]

The USA is fun sized. There's actual no practical reason to divvy up the U.S. as we're not as big and sparse as Russia, who actually has problems with "securing" the entirety of their borders against advanced airborne threats, which means the B-2's are just lurking outside the Pacific!

But in the case of a divvy up, I think all the states that voted for Obama should merge into a new Union. That should cripple everyone else as the states Obama carried in '08 constituted 74% of the Federal Income, which means unfortunate states like Texas or Louisiana can't suck off the Federal teet anymore!

[North California]

The US shouldn't be divided, California should. That way my nation can become a real US State.

[North California]

One world government is best government.

Over my dead body. Fuck the blue helmet pigs!

[PapaJacky]

The US shouldn't be divided, California should. That way my nation can become a real US State.

North California is no California without the South. Let alone Oregon and Washington.

[Istrien]

I'd be interested in an independent California. Perhaps we could form some kind of union with other Pacific states, particularly Oregon and Washington.

[PapaJacky]

I'd be interested in an independent California. Perhaps we could form some kind of union with other Pacific states, particularly Oregon and Washington.

The book "Ecotopia" should interest you. I should also note that that California, Oregon and Washington combined paid ~$57b to the Federal Government more than the Federal Government has spent in those respective states. This means that in order to do what the Fed. is already doing, this new union can cut the Federal (new one) effective taxes rates by about 15% and we'd still break even. Balancing the state's budgets is a different issue, but given how much taxes Californians pay on the offset, this new union can thrive easily.

[Risottia]

... 3 to 30 million seems to work out to the best population level.

So, States with populations ranging from millions to tens of millions.

Who then federate themselves because it's more practical, just about as the EU (whose member states have populations ranging from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions) is trying to do.

I think the US could save themselves time and money and just stay together.

[Dyakovo]

One world government is best government.

Sure, look how great it's worked for supranational bodies like the EU...

I don't think you know what the EU is...

[Daistallia 2104]

... 3 to 30 million seems to work out to the best population level.

So, States with populations ranging from millions to tens of millions.

Who then federate themselves because it's more practical, just about as the EU (whose member states have populations ranging from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions) is trying to do.

I think the US could save themselves time and money and just stay together.

The size should really range toward the smaller for what I'm looking at. The idea is to foster more representative and responsive government.

A major underlying assumption is that the US ferderal government is broken, unable to do it's job, and captured by elites who direct it towards their own self interest. The numbers weren't drawn out of a hat, but have to do with how many people you can interact with and know, as well as what how many people a representative can really represent.

[Seleucas]

Yea.
I don't like large states in general; I prefer ones that are smaller. Having a whole bunch of Liechtensteins and Singapores would be preferable to me than a US which meddles in everybody's affairs.
I would probably divide it up into 50 states, and from there let counties decide which other counties they would like to be in union with.

[Fellrike]

I don't want to dissolve the Union. But it would be good to see the country decentralized. The Federal government has become much more powerful than the architects of the republic ever intended. It would be better, if the states could decide for themselves how to deal with some of the more divisive social and moral issues. That way, traditionalists, progressives and libertarians could each find a part of the country to call their own, and we could stop fighting over whose policies will govern the nation. I think this would make it easier for Americans of different beliefs to live together.

[United Koryo]

Trust me; they tried to separate during the Civil War, and they failed.

[PapaJacky]

I don't want to dissolve the Union. But it would be good to see the country decentralized. The Federal government has become much more powerful than the architects of the republic ever intended. It would be better, if the states could decide for themselves how to deal with some of the more divisive social and moral issues. That way, traditionalists, progressives and libertarians could each find a part of the country to call their own, and we could stop fighting over whose policies will govern the nation. I think this would make it easier for Americans of different beliefs to live together.

States' rights has only sullied the bond between Americans. I happily disagree and would be for the further centralization of our nation.