Here's my idea. We conduct the same elections that we already have in place, but the presidential election will actually determine which candidate will get which state. There'll be one president for the red states, and one president for the blues states. And, every 4 years, each state will have the option to switch sides if they so choose. What do you think?
2007-10-26 09:57:11 · 29 answers · asked by teenhamodic 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
For the record, this "question" was more of a commentary on the amount of polarization in our country. I doubt anything like this could ever happen, but you never know. At least, it might help settle once and for all whose policies actually work best.
2007-10-26 10:11:47 · update #1
I would also be interested to see whether this idea appeals more to Republicans or Democrats.
2007-10-26 10:21:31 · update #2
Great - with all their tax dodgers the Reps
are bankcrupt in no time and can't make war.
2007-10-26 10:19:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Constitutionality aside, the devil would be in the details.
If we went to war, does that mean that only the soldiers from the red state or the blue state would go?
Does that mean if a hurricane hits a red state and a blue state, only one state would get aid?
etc
etc
etc
2007-10-26 17:29:22 · answer #2 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
those state's presidents are governors - state's rights yadda
no the U.S. shouldn't but I've often wondered what it would be like if the Pres. candidate w/ the most electoral votes becomes Pres. while the runner-up becomes VP - so the WH would be split - but that would probably just cause more bickering
2007-10-26 17:01:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It is impossible in this country. Period, end of story. Will never happen, regardless of the polarization you see. Think it through just a bit more and you'll understand why.
2007-10-26 18:11:53 · answer #4 · answered by snoopy 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Remebmer the Civil War?
A divided nation has obviously not worked in Iraq, China, places around Europe and so on.
2007-10-26 17:02:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Chaotic. You think there is fighting now. That would bring down the whole country. No personal offence but that is not a very well thought out idea.
2007-10-26 17:20:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. We just need to finishing voting the right-wing extremists out of power. They aren't really a part of America anyway. If they were, they wouldn't support Bush's attempts to destroy the Constitution and Americans' freedom rights.
2007-10-26 17:08:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
So...if the red state "President" and the Blue state "President" disagree on the methods of national policy, do they go their separate ways?
Do you have two secretaries of state?
Do you have two secretaries of defense?
Are states with one color president obligated to "provide for the common defense" for states of another color president?
Have you taken a high school government class yet?
2007-10-26 17:08:29 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Why not just create a whole separate country?
I hope you know the liberal states would never be able to stay afloat due to the high number of abortions right?
This idea would appeal more to both parties. Republicans want to keep their freedom. And Democrats want a complete classless Socialist Republic.
2007-10-26 17:00:24 · answer #9 · answered by 412 KiD 5 · 7⤊ 5⤋
Sounds like an idea, if every state gets to decide how much spending will be done on the Bush wars.
2007-10-26 17:00:58 · answer #10 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋