Is the United States headed toward a two-state solution?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Opinion by John Broderick

Unorthodox times may require unprecedented actions. I fear that time may have arrived in America, as painful as it is to acknowledge.

Watching our democracy and its cherished values free-fall dramatically into disrepair, distrust, and dysfunction during President Donald Trump’s time in office, culminating in an insurrection on the U.S. Capitol that he helped organize and encourage, it would be foolish to see those dark days as somehow behind us.

Sadly, tens of millions of our fellow citizens embraced those cringe-worthy days as “making America great again.” Bridging that divisive chasm as “one nation under God” may no longer be possible or even advisable.

President Joe Biden is out of central casting for normal, thoughtful, and experienced leadership that allows him to intelligently tackle and discuss the vexing challenges we face at home and abroad after four years of chaos and confusion created by the norm-breaking and law-breaking Trump administration. But truth, competence and inclusion have apparently fallen out of favor these days.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-chief-justice-%ef%bb%bfis-the-united-states-headed-toward-a-two-state-solution-opinion/ar-AAYCTlR

[Walleye]

1. It would never work. We shouldn't give these people legitimacy. They're just outlaws

[brush]

2. Sadly I have to agree. We're already in a low-grade civil war.

Even though there's not a Mason-Dixonesque, geographical dividing line between red and blue states, there are ways, complicated ones to be sure, to divide into two nations.

I'm 100% against it but the trumpers seem to be moving in that direction, and at high speed so we need to look at the separate Palestinian territories in the Middle East. They are not a contiguous land mass and checkpoints are in place for back and forth travel. Passports would be necessary, but the biggest, most complicated and arduous task would be dividing the nation's assets, which would at first glance favor blue states as they contribute much more to the federal budget than they get back, which helps prop up red states (this fact may discourage red staters from going forward with...

No, no. Wait. We have to remember many are low-info megats without much in the way of critical thinking skills to understand a two-state solution is not in their best interests so let's proceed with dividing up the assets.

There are port access rights to consider, the treasury, air travel/airspace access, military installations, tele and radio communications permissions, power grid disconnections and so on and so on and so on...oh, forget it, it can be done but I have no more time for this except to say I'm going to make sure I'm in a blue state when it comes to it.

[kelly1mm]

3. Whenever this comes up people seem to think the divide will be by red and blue states. I don't

think that is necessarily true are a vast majority of the states including both very red and very blue states have significant portions/areas that would be 'the other teams'. Take Nevada - clark county (Las Vegas) would be blue and the rest of the state would be red. Washington State would split between Seattle and the Puget Sound and everything over the Cascades would be red. Louisiana would be New Orleans Blue, the rest of the state red. Basically blue areas would be geographically much smaller and more like strigs of city states surrounded by outer suburbs and rural areas. The danger to this is the VAST majority of water/food/energy production will be outside of blue areas and subject to disruption.

[hlthe2b]

4. CO and NM could readily go with CA, WA, OR, but damn that's a lot of red throughout the midwest

I should think Illinois could join that western alliance, ultimately joining up with the eastern states: the NE/MidAtlantic states. Lot of trapped Dems/and upset Indies in those red states, though.

And I might remind those who think that may be where we are headed, whether we want to or not, one hell of a lot of our military bases are in those deep-red states. Food for thought, even if many just want to dismiss this as tin foil hat time...

[kelly1mm]

11. Again, I don't think 'states' will be able to stay as intact units. Eastern Washington and Oregon

will join with Idaho, WY, UT, NV (- Clark County). Even on the east coast the states may not keep intact - western NY through central PA and western Maryland and western VA would hook up with most of WV, KY, TN.

Austin in TX would become a city state, same with greater Atlanta in GA.

[hlthe2b]

12. I don't see many of the smaller cities winning out against the rest of the state & I discussed

this is in another post. But it will be a nasty fight. Those that would opt for such drastic steps will not likely be willing to compromise on much of anything.

[kelly1mm]

13. I hope it never comes to fruition as I agree it would be UGLY. nt

[wnylib]

14. You would put blue Buffalo into red territory?

In NY, as in some other states, cities tend to be blue, while rural areas tend to be red. All in the same state and geographical regions.

[kelly1mm]

22. Yes I would as I don't think Buffalo has the population to counter the significant surrounding 'red'

areas. Some cities (Atlanta comes to mind) would be able to be independent city states. I doubt Buffalo would.

[hlthe2b]

5. yes, there are blue cities/counties in nearly every deep red state. The fight would be intense.

[tirebiter]

6. Simple answer is no, two states is not a solution

It wasn’t in 1865 and it still isn’t.

[RicROC]

7. In New York State. Sen. Steven Hawley is already proposing 3 separate administrative districts.

One would be the New York City, Westchester and I assume Long Island. A second would up Upstate (Albany, Syracuse, Watertown, West Point) and a third, Western New York State (Buffalo, Rochester, Elmira, Jamestown, Corning)


I think he is already sensing a split up the US and is making plans that New York State as a whole does not become part of a Blue State Confederation, but would split apart.

[PlanetBev]

8. Won't work

Too many good liberals would be stuck in bad states.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. Unrealistic fantasy piece

The author briefly expresses concern that an actual physical “two state solution “ might occur, but doesn’t offer any explanation on just how that separation would logistically unfold. Everything from passports to Social Security to taxes to nuclear weapons would have to be figured out.

It’s not going to happen.

Far more likely, is a “50 state solution”, where each state becomes a separate fiefdom, with its own set of rules, occasionally guided or restrained by SCOTUS. If permanent minority rule becomes a reality at the federal level in 2024, then it’s conceivable that red states will become ultra fascist shitholes, and blue states may be “allowed” to continue with business as usual, to keep tech and entertainment companies from relocating outside the US, and to keep the blue state taxes rolling in. Congress will become even more ineffective, giving up any pretence of serving the people.

[NEOBuckeye]

10. Multi-Member Legislative Districts & Multi-Party Politics

Outright splitting the country in two is untenable. Unlike during the Civil War, when the lines were far more clear cut, the current political divide is asymmetrical. What do you do in a place like Ohio where the state has been damn near run into the ground by the Republicans, but the major cities—Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati—are more Democratic than ever?

The actual solution here goes for the jugular of the political divide by adding additional colors to the red-blue either/or spectrum. We do this by adding seats to congressional districts and assigning them by % proportion of votes. Imagine actually having at least one or two Democratic or alt party reps in a heavy Republican district because our system actually encouraged and supported a multitude of viewpoints, rather than the current winner-take-all approach that disempowers the 0-49% of the population whose candidate didn’t win?

We could even do something similar for executive seats like State Governor and POTUS by converting them to proportionally elected boards with a rotating chair.

Such ideas clearly don’t yet seem to be popular because so many Americans and our media can’t think in anything but binary, yes/no, left/right, two equal sides bullshit.

It’s not that hard people, and we don’t even have to wreck our country to fix the problem. Just think outside of the two party box for crying out loud.

[tirebiter]

15. We already have a 50 state solution ongoing.

California has counties the size of some states.

[SunSeeker]

16. No, we didn't let the Confederates do it and we're not going to let Republicans do it either.

This land is our land, we're not handing any part of it over to anyone.

[3Hotdogs]

17. It could happen. There are enough assholes, running enough states that a Constitutional Convention

could be called. The result could be a cross between the Articles of Confederation and the present Constitution. Some parts of the Constitution like defense could be retained across the country. Others would be run under separate articles.

Liberal state governments are in the minority.

[Dysfunctional]

18. I doubt that 3/4 of states would vote for it.

[3Hotdogs]

21. I don't. I believe 3/4 of the states - or damn close to that % are Republican controlled.

[roamer65]

24. "Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."

John F Kennedy.

[Dysfunctional]

19. Climate change will eventually decide what kind of countries or fiefdoms the world has.

[roamer65]

23. THIS☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️

☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️

[Evolve Dammit]

20. "Indivisible" may soon be tested, just as "liberty and justice for all" is being tested.