|
Nintendo Kid posted:The point of them is that forcibly merging two states in any way is already going draw just as much pushback as completely abandoning current state borders, both legislatively and even constitutional. So given the fact you'd need massive support to do it, why wouldn't you go full speed ahead and do things attempt to eliminate all cross-state-lines metro areas by turning them into single state areas, massively adjust borders to ensure more equal population distribution (admittedly the 38 state one chopping up Alaska into two states fucks that up), and so on? Because creating states out of other states (either merging, or cutting part out) requires the consent of each affected state as well as Congress. So Delaware and Wyoming and all other tiny states can keep mashing Betray and refuse to be incorporated into larger states which would dilute their voting power.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:Because creating states out of other states (either merging, or cutting part out) requires the consent of each affected state as well as Congress. So Delaware and Wyoming and all other tiny states can keep mashing Betray and refuse to be incorporated into larger states which would dilute their voting power. This is equally true of any attempt to make states fake-merge for shared senators and the like though. Only you'd also need to get a constitutional amendment first and that'd be even harder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is equally true of any attempt to make states fake-merge for shared senators and the like though. Only you'd also need to get a constitutional amendment first and that'd be even harder. Your plan requires the consent of every state, which is 12 states harder than a constitutional amendment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Your plan requires the consent of every state, which is 12 states harder than a constitutional amendment. In order for the share-senators plan to be meaningful you need every state onboard as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In order for the share-senators plan to be meaningful you need every state onboard as well. It's a dumb plan but it is a dumb plan doable by two constitutional amendments, which is less hard than every single state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's a dumb plan but it is a dumb plan doable by two constitutional amendments, which is less hard than every single state. It's doable with two constitutional amendments and every single state participating because if states do not participate they get more power that way. Versus states to be merged "normally" requiring every state's participation and no amendments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's a dumb plan but it is a dumb plan doable by two constitutional amendments, which is less hard than every single state. Two amendments plus a SCOTUS win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Two amendments plus a SCOTUS win. Don't see where you'd need that, the amendments can't really be challenged in SCOTUS. Unless you mean to force any states that didn't want to join up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
funtax posted:Yes, but could she - or ANYONE - stand against the juggernaut of a potential Ben Carson Senatorial run? I want a Steele-Carson primary. CHAOS BREAKIN OUT IN B-TOWN! CHESAPEAKE WATERSHED, CHEDDA BREAD! PROTECT OUR BIBBLES!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Don't see where you'd need that, the amendments can't really be challenged in SCOTUS. Unless you mean to force any states that didn't want to join up. You'd have a state filing a case arguing that a repeal of the "equal suffrage" restriction on amendment subject matter counts as, itself, an "equal suffrage"-related amendment and thus subject to a unanimous ratification process before taking effect. The state would have standing (their rights are arguably infringed) and could make the filing as soon as it "illegally" was adopted at the 2/3rds mark rather than the 100% mark. And it's not like SCOTUS hasn't taken cases relating to the ratification process before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
The Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D) will consider running for the open Senate seat, announcing in the next several weeks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Add Rep. Chris Van Hollen to the list of likely Maryland Senate candidates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Add Rep. Chris Van Hollen to the list of likely Maryland Senate candidates. easily my preferred candidate, as it opens up the seat in the district where I live for me to run 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:In a 5-4 decision the court finds the 22nd amendment unconstitutional and all elections after 2004 invalid. "But we just wanted a ruling on medical marijuana!  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Per the NYT, O'Malley will not be running for Mikulski's seat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Bibbles up, Hos Down! Steele 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Ben Carson also announced that he won't run for the MD Senate seat, in case anyone cares (you shouldn't).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Russ Feingold is leaving the State Dept to return to WI and will take a listening tour of the state once he does, while occasionally teaching some at Stanford Law. Per his FB.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Russ Feingold is leaving the State Dept to return to WI and will take a listening tour of the state once he does, while occasionally teaching some at Stanford Law. Per his FB. Rematch of the decade coming up
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Add Rep. Chris Van Hollen to the list of likely Maryland Senate candidates. He's now officially declared his candidacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
e: wrongo
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:He's now officially declared his candidacy. Who will take his place in the House?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
MIGF time to put up or shut up and run my campaign to replace him
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Who will take his place in the House? Chris Matthews' wife.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
“Hey, there she is — it’s her,” he said, staring at his wife on the screen. “It’s her.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Chris Matthews' wife. Speaking of how did Greenspan bag someone 20 years his junior after notably bagging Ayn Rand
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
mooyashi posted:Speaking of how did Greenspan bag someone 20 years his junior after notably bagging Ayn Rand See also: Henry Kissinger
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
An NBC reporter was jogging today on the National Harbor shore and spotted Donna Edwards taping a produced statement with a prompter. Her office won't comment on the substance but says she will make her decision about the Maryland Senate race "in the coming days".
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Chris Matthews' wife. I'm like 50/50 on running, no joke
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:An NBC reporter was jogging today on the National Harbor shore and spotted Donna Edwards taping a produced statement with a prompter. Her office won't comment on the substance but says she will make her decision about the Maryland Senate race "in the coming days". Who's Donna Edwards again, and how much of a trainwreck should be expected while Van Hollen crushes everyone?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I'm like 50/50 on running, no joke Do it but for god's sakes don't mention it here
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Who's Donna Edwards again, and how much of a trainwreck should be expected while Van Hollen crushes everyone? I thought Donna Edwards was running for Van HOllen's seat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I thought Donna Edwards was running for Van HOllen's seat? Donna Edwards already has a House seat (MD-04). You may be thinking of Kathleen Matthews, wife of Chris Matthews.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Who's Donna Edwards again, and how much of a trainwreck should be expected while Van Hollen crushes everyone? Probably the first PCCC candidate. Primaried a pro-Iraq War AA Dem in 2008(?) in a seat based in PG County. She fits a demo unrepresented in the current Senate as a black female and has always had strong support from the same people who later drafted Warren for Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Probably the first PCCC candidate. Yup. The PCCC and DFA started sending out "Draft Edwards" alerts about three seconds after Mikulski announced her retirement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Edwards would be a good Senator, but I don't see her getting much traction since Van Hollen is with her on 99.9% of the issues, but he is white, handsome, and has more connections / money / experience. Van Hollen will end up a pretty good liberal Senator who mostly flies under the radar, except for one or two big issues. i.e. Udall, Heinrich, or Wyden.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
FFS. Go away already, Charlie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Yeah, how dare he lose a gubernatorial election in a closely divided state by a point in a massively Republican year!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Well, there's also that failed Senate run in 2010, in which Dems split their votes between the indy (Crist) and the Dem who won the primary, thus handing the race to the GOP. But yeah, let's go to bat again for the warmed-over failure who changes parties more often than his hairstyle, because third time will definitely be the charm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Christ had no excuse for losing the governor's election in 2014. Might have been a midterm, but Voldemort was unpopular as all hell as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:28
|
|