Should we abolish state borders and just be one unified country?

[IranianDemocrat]

?

[Andy_Stephenson]

1. No

absolutely not!

[AndyTiedye]

21. Hell, NO!

The former USA would become the United State of Texas.
California would become some sort of occupied territory.

[fabius]

29. Double Hell No!

Living in Oregon I'm pretty sure I don't want it to become Texas. No offense to Texas but you've really had a couple of lousy governors and still have some polluted air!

Federalism ain't bad at all when Repugs take over Washington.

I AM in favor of abolishing the Electoral College.

[SharonAnn]

2. yes

I'm tired of this Balkanization of America

[Blue-Jay]

3. No way!

That would take all the fun out of ribbing the Michiganders. :D

[Dookus]

4. No!

I ain't livin' in the same state as Mississippi, Goddamn!

[IranianDemocrat]

5. ROFLMFAO

That was great...

[dfong63]

6. the nation is too large to be governed in that way

national govt is already too remote and unaccountable. merging it with state govt would make things worse.

[aquart]

7. What a stupid idea.

Really.

That was my first thought. My second? You have to abolish the constitution to do it.

Good going, IranianDemocrat. Give George his wet dreams.

Then you can start on how we should all dress alike.

[oldleftguy]

8. Except for Texas...

:bounce: (My appoligies to DU'ers in Texas). There must be some.

[madrchsod]

9. well

wisconsin is a nice place to visit but i wouldn`t want to live there..in fact this part of illinois was wisconsin till we stole it from them...

[revree]

10. No, it would ruin the fun...

of having a sports team from your own state to root for!!!

[Flying_Pig]

11. No. Bad idea...

How could we possibly trust a massive "one state" government, when we see how screwed up and corrupt our federal government is? At least states can still pass some reasonable and sane legislation (like CA's pollution laws, and VT's "sig. other" laws). We would lose that in a big state, and gawd forbid, Texans might gain *complete* control then, and we WOULD have a civil war!!!!

[Toucano]

12. Nope

I don't have adequate congressional representation for our population as it is. Without state governments, the US Congress would have to be a 10,000-person institution.

Now think of how many interns you'd need!

[Dookus]

13. duped...

[roguevalley]

14. sure.

Just annex Canada first. I live in Alaska. :0)

[roguevalley]

15. of course, there is the advantage you missed.

we could ALL vote in the California recall. :-D

[uptohere]

16. no

[Booberdawg]

17. Put away the pipe. Step back from the screen

Go to bed. Sleep it off.

[einsteins stein]

18. WHY?

What would be the purpose? I can't think of any good reason, but since you asked the question, you must have been thinking about....what?

[pasadenaboy]

19. Its totally impossible constitutionally,

but the answer is yes.

Any country where the guy with the most votes loses (Gore 2000) because certain voters in some states are more represented than others is insane.

Here's the example:

California: One senator for every 26,000,000 people
South Dakota: One senator for every 400,000 people.

California: one electoral vote for every million people
South Dakota: one electoral vote for every 250,000 people.


How is this democracy? Why is my vote less because I live in California? This is insane.

[TheDonkey]

22. Electoral College is different.

That is another issue (I don't agree with).

But as for why South Dakota has 2 Senators is for their fairness. California gets the upper hand by having more representatives in the House.

[pasadenaboy]

24. I still don't get equal representation there, either.

CA: One rep for every 1,200,000 people
SD: One rep for 750,000 people

I am in no way equally represented in the federal government, either by the house of representatives, the senate, or the president.

[AndyTiedye]

23. Direct Presidential Election is Another Matter Entirely

I support that, for reasons obvious to us all.

I do not support the abolition of states altogether, for reasons which should also
be pretty obvious to someone who lives in California.

[pasadenaboy]

25. As long as Reps, Senators, and Presidential elections

did not disadvantage large population states, I have no problem with states.

Its just that because of the state situation, those states with larger populations are underrepresented in the federal government.

[TheDonkey]

20. No, Federalism good.

The State vs National competition and cooperation benefits us too much to want one giant centralized state.

It also gives us more oppurtunities to have representatives hear our specific needs (many time geographically needs).

[Renew Deal]

26. No, I don't want to live in Florida.

[HazMat]

27. No, but I believe we need to shift

some of the power of the state governments to the federal government where it makes sense to do so.

Our system of government was designed in a different time and primarily around the states. The federal government was weaker and more secondary in nature. In the 18th century, I'm sure most people didn't travel more than a few miles from their home. The state next door was practically a foreign land.

Innovation in transportation and communication has managed to shrink the country and the world to the point where life is based more around the whole (the country, the world) rather than the part (the city or state). States and cities across the country seem like they're right next door.

As a result, I think that the system is outmoded. It's a mess. There are too many redundant laws, overlapping agencies, unecessary bureaucracy.

IMO, there are many areas of government where we would benefit from centralization and standardization; it would be much more efficient.

Two examples:

Schools: We should have federal public school standards/curricula. This would make it much more easy to judge performance and help to ensure an equal education.

Gun control: We should scrap the current patchwork system and implement a federal system. Each state could tailor laws to it's needs, but there needs to be a central system in place. Guns move between states making it a federal problem. Most guns in urban areas originate from rural states. Urban states could pass all the laws in the world, but it wouldn't stop gun trafficking.

[Clete]

28. I think this country should be split into two at the

continental divide, into the West United States and the East United States. Why the continental divide? It's kind of a natural geographic division. For those who don't know this water runs downhill in opposite directions either towards the Pacific ocean or the Atlantic ocean at the divide. It's true. I didn't believe it until we were traveling east alongside Glacier National Park in Montana. There was a stream alonside the road that was flowing west. When we crossed the divide the stream flowed east. It's true. I saw it with my own eyes.

Both sides of the US can be fairly self-sustaining. Of course you would want trade between the two sides, but I think two separate governments would be best. It would provide a balance of power that we don't have now. What we have now is a nation that can be a force for good like it was under Bill Clinton, or a force of destruction and evil like we have now. If only half of the continent went to the dark side it would be fairly insignificant with the balance of the otherside and Canada and Mexico keeping things in check.

[maxanne]

30. not a bad idea Clete,

but I favor more of a north/south divide. I want to rid myself forever of the Trent Lotts, Newt Gingrichs, Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, Judge Roy Moores, not to mention the Rick Perrys and George W Bushs.

[Clete]

32. I think that was tried before.

The geographic division between north and south doesn't make a good barrier. Actually with two smaller countrys, those middle states would be divied up between the two halves making them less potent in power than they are now.

[proud patriot]

31. No Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay !

It wouldn't be prudent :evilgrin:

[Forkboy]

33. Why stop there?

Let's get rid of national borders to :)

[leftofthedial]

34. No, we should abolish state borders and be a whole bunch of

virtual countries

We need to figure out a way to organize ourselves "politically" (and I'm not sure that is the right term anymore) without regard to geography.

[Yupster]

35. It would sure save a lot of money

We could get rid of 50 expensive legislatures and bureaocracies who spend half their time complying with federal demands and mandates anyway.

There's no reason a kid from Mississippi should get half the school money that another kid gets just because of the state she lives in.

I think it's time to get rid of states. The Constitution was written with states having important powers. Those powers have pretty much been eroded by Constitutional Amendment or court decision anyway.

The best thing about the Constitution is its amendment process. I say use it to abolish states.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. If You Don't Have States... You Don't Have Senators......

And if you don't have Senators you don't have the checks and balances our founding fathers so wisely created....

God help us if there was no Senate and no filibusters to put the brakes on the DeLay-Hastert-Issa led House of Representatives...

God help us all.....

And don't forget that the Fourtheenth Amendment of the Constitution pretty much requires that your basic civil rights are protected from state to state...

[IndianaGreen]

37. What!?! And make Bush Fuehrer of the USA, are you nuts?

You better do some reading to the history of this country before you start talking about ending what little federalism we have left.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. The Senate Is A Thorny Problem

It is not a truly representative body since CA has 20,000,000 constituents per Senator and VT has 350,000 constituents per Senator but it is a brake on raw majoritarianism which is inimical to liberal democracy....

It just demonstrates how allusive a "perfect" system is...