Quantcast
View Post
EricHiggin said:

So if the red states votes counted actually counted more then it would be an advantage? So there votes already don't count enough?

I don't understand what you're thinking here.  

Small population states have an advantage with the electoral college.  

Each electoral vote in Wyoming covers a population of 192,500 people.  

Each electoral vote in California covers a population of 719,272 people.  

What that means is because of the electoral college, 1 vote in Wyoming counts the same as about 4 votes in California.  

EricHiggin said:

You said "the US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population." So who owns them, and the military has the rest.

So guns would only useful for offense purposes in this case? Why?

>You said "the US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population." So who owns them, and the military has the rest.

I wasn't talking about specific ownership.  Only pointing out that about 5% of the population owns most of the guns.  The rest of the 95% doesn't own very many guns.  

>So guns would only useful for offense purposes in this case? Why?

What alternative would there be?  Do you think the blue states would invade red states?  

EricHiggin said:

Well I didn't think I would have to list every single thing the central portion could do. I guess I'll name a few more things they would use to persuade, like oil, coal, waterways, air travel.

Imagine not being able to fly straight across the country and having to go around the central portion every single time, where as the central portion would mostly only need to fly straight up and down. In terms of everything they can use to their advantage, this also wouldn't happen slowly over time, it would be put in place very quickly so the coasts couldn't simply plan ahead and import more overnight. You also failed to address the raised prices of everything and how that's going to impact the 'wealthier' coastal area's. You also haven't taken into account the water needed to grow that food and who's growing the food. How do you easily and cheaply grow your food if the central portion controls most of the waterways?

Why would you have to go around the central portion every time?  If you fly from Florida to Alaska, you're going to fly over Canada. You aren't going to fly around Canada.  

Unless you think red states would try to shoot down planes, there's 0 reason to think they wouldn't just fly over.  

And if they were to start shooting down planes, how do you think other countries would respond?  Whose side do you think they'd take?

EricHiggin said:

How do you easily and cheaply grow your food if the central portion controls most of the waterways? You think because a Conservative farmer is in California, that they will side with their state or the coastal area's together? They are likely to sell to the central portion who is paying more on purpose to make sure the coastal area's have shortages. With the prices being so high, and having no other choice because it happens so quickly out of the blue, the central area will be able to afford it as well. Will the central portion also just let the coastal area's import as much as they can without hassle? What if those shipments are turned around or just delayed? What if the central portion purposely uses it's excess funds to gobble up as much imported food as possible so they have a monopoly on it, so the coasts are basically forced to purchase from them on way or another. The red states would also instate conservative policies and will get rid of illegal immigrants, reverse abortion, cut back on welfare, etc, which will change any purple states to solid red again. The boarder states could even 'open the border' and allow the immigrants to easily cross into the coastal regions while keeping them out of the central portion for the most part, forcing the coastal regions for focus more heavily on border security. The possibilities are endless.

The point is the central portion could easily outlast the coastal area's and it wouldn't take long for the coastal people to push their Gov to make a deal and get things back to the way they used to be.

>You think because a Conservative farmer is in California, that they will side with their state or the coastal area's together?

No i think the whole idea is nonsense, because there are no red vs blue states.  There are purple states.  

But sure, let's say the conservative farmer is evil and is perfectly okay with starving his neighbors to advance his side.  

>They are likely to sell to the central portion who is paying more on purpose to make sure the coastal area's have shortages.

That doesn't make sense.  It would still cost more to ship food farther distances.

>What if the central portion purposely uses it's excess funds to gobble up as much imported food as possible so they have a monopoly on it, so the coasts are basically forced to purchase from them on way or another

Why couldn't the coast states do the exact same?  

>Will the central portion also just let the coastal area's import as much as they can without hassle?

You could literally ask the opposite question.  

> The red states would also instate conservative policies and will get rid of illegal immigrants, reverse abortion, cut back on welfare, etc, which will change any purple states to solid red again.

Uh what.  

States aren't going to magically turn red due to passing conservative policies.  

>The boarder states could even 'open the border' and allow the immigrants to easily cross into the coastal regions while keeping them out of the central portion for the most part, forcing the coastal regions for focus more heavily on border security.

How would this one way wall work? 

EricHiggin said:

The point is the central portion could easily outlast the coastal area's and it wouldn't take long for the coastal people to push their Gov to make a deal and get things back to the way they used to be.

Not really.