Re: Should State boundaries be redrawn.
Not too sure the potential benefits would outweigh the overwhelming complications in such a venture. Because of just the costs alone I would not support such a move, odds are the entire effort would just end up as more Debt.
Originally Posted by RDK
On an ideological level I would be even more against the ramifications of the Federal Government telling States they do not have enough population to hold the boundaries as they are, or the flip side of that being too many people thus split the state up. It would be another step towards a Constitutional Democracy with the Federal Government having such power. Even if kept to every 10 years by census, the complications would lead to all kinds of fighting.
I can see potential complications with lines being more about potential party line vote protections over really dealing with population density for Senate or House Seats. When it comes to the House, we already draw the most absurd lines to protect the the likely party line vote outcome for the seat in question. This would only get worse moving State boundary lines around.
State revenue problems would only increase as the Federal Government may inadvertently cut away areas generating higher tax revenues by density, bring up another potential fight kin to when counties split up. The obvious fight becomes the areas that have the most tax revenues. As an example here in GA there has been back and forth for years now over splitting up Fulton County (the county in which Atlanta is in.) If this were to happen odds are the north area would split away into it's own county. Most of the wealth is in that area of the county. But the pushback has been from what is now "south Fulton" who's primary services are financed by the overwhelming tax revenue the north area provides. Something like 70% of the revenue from one smaller part of the county would walk away. Leaving a much larger by population but less tax revenue generating from a generally poor populace to fend for itself. I can see something similar happening on a State level when California for example wants to protect its revenue source and of course Democratic voting pattern. So, insists on any State split containing what it can live without to some other State (new State or merged into another.)
For these and perhaps other reasons I would not be for such changes, one could argue well would be to benefit one party over another. Moving us closer to the concerns of tyranny of the majority.
- Frustrated Independent
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people.Ē - Penn Jillette amazingly enough, and I agree.