4433
Comments (437)
sorted by:
289
deleted 289 points ago +320 / -31
178
muy_libre [S] 178 points ago +182 / -4

Replenish the tree of liberty... with commie blood tho pls

[Edit] The fact that some people think I don’t understand that the blue counties are more populous is maddening. Of course I know that. What I mean is that the way dense shitholes have so much power over other counties with no check like the electoral college system is very stupid. It’s tyranny. Each state should have an electoral college based on the counties.

56
basedvirginian 56 points ago +59 / -3

Jefferson’s ghost probs will gladly help kill the communists ruining his city of Charlottesville and University

34
Destineed369 34 points ago +35 / -1

Fucking despicable. This is my home and they turned into a communistwealth. The public owns this state. Fuck DC

10
mitchmcconnell123 10 points ago +11 / -1

Well, we flipped it back red.

Dems got slaughtered last night in very race up and down the ballot.

People are waking the fuck up.

-1
FormerGraveheart -1 points ago +3 / -4

We? You had nothing to do with it. You aren't one of us, and calling yourself Mitch McConnell proves that well enough.

3
Lorrainer 3 points ago +3 / -0

Upvote for sarcasm

30
NullifyAndSecede 30 points ago +35 / -5

The only peaceful alternative is decentralization/balkanization

Secede from the Feds, Secede from the State, run your own affairs locally.

Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy’, why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighbourhood? Each block? Each house? Each person?

― Murray N. Rothbard

[H]ow can there be a logical stopping-point to the secession? May not a small district secede, and then a city, and then a borough of that city, and then a block, and then finally a particular individual? Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession.

― Murray N. Rothbard

29
Dutch_Process 29 points ago +33 / -4

Secession would not be a peaceful alternative.

  1. It is capitulation to an enemy that is in asymmetrical warfare with you, and you essentially are surrendering part of your country to the enemy.

  2. It would most likely kick off a hot war for recourses or major access routes through the nation.

I think it is foolish and ignorant to think that secession would be peaceful by any means.

13
CAPTAIN_TENDY_PLATE2 13 points ago +13 / -0

I think the argument being made by people who believe the above, is that our society has become so polarized to the point there exists two entirely opposed people living within the same geographical boundary, and we are SO opposed, that we are literally enemies now, trying to exist under the same system, same borders, same govt etc.,

All of that to the point that there can no longer be status quo, things will continue to get more and more hostile until something bad happens. And I believe what the root of the argument is, being whether or not there's a way to move forward without that "something bad" happening, or at least delay it for a while.

Secession would be that "alternative" in which the cities just get to be the cities and the rural areas get to be the rural areas, and we just leave each other alone outside of things like trading goods.

It would be a situation where there would be like.... maybe a consortium of cities that are governed under one administration (or perhaps they even all govern themselves independently), and then the rural areas outside of the cities would do something else. Whether that's still having a fed, or just a loose affiliation of states etc.

People never explain their arguments very well, though, they just toss out rhetoric and move on.

12
duckduck 12 points ago +12 / -0

It is simply a divorce. The country is split into two, Greater America and Commieforniayork, and both countries are independent from one another. Countries have been split up before, it's not that unusual, and in this particular situation, there is a chance for a civilly peaceful divorce. I don't believe red wants to live with blue, and vice versa. It is a deal both might be willing to sign.

17
Brokenmatrix2021 17 points ago +17 / -0

The red doesn't want to live with the blue but the blue want to live with the red so they can subvert and bully us. They need us so they can feel superior.

10
FuckingWiseCracker 10 points ago +10 / -0

They also want the revenue from our taxes for their commie programs.

5
unred 5 points ago +5 / -0

Blues withouts reds would destroy themselves.

6
AmericanMonarchist 6 points ago +6 / -0

I think the argument being made by people who believe the above, is that our society has become so polarized to the point there exists two entirely opposed people living within the same geographical boundary, and we are SO opposed, that we are literally enemies now, trying to exist under the same system, same borders, same govt etc.

You are right. A civilized people can disagree on methods, but never goals. Everyone needs to be pushing in the same general direction and we can debate how we accomplish said push. Libertarianism doesn't work and our Founding Fathers knew this. They enacted freedom of religion not because they thought it was feasible for all faiths to co-exist, but because they didn't want Christians -- or even protestants depending on how you interpret Benjamin Franklin's observations -- quibbling on what method of devoting yourself to Christ is allowed. The Founders supported freedom of speech, but only insofar as it allows debating how to better America as defined by their culture. Anti-American speech was banned by the Founders not even ten years after the Constitution was signed.

People never explain their arguments very well, though, they just toss out rhetoric and move on.

I enjoy long posts, but I have learned that most people ignore anything that takes more than a couple of seconds to read. People want headlines rather than articles.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Heavy_Metal_Patriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Red State Secession: Retreat -> Rebuild -> Reconquer

0
Meddlesom 0 points ago +1 / -1

Red State Secession: Surrender -> Submit -> Be conquered

11
DroolingElmo 11 points ago +13 / -2

Violent secession might be acceptable in a minecraft setting

9
NullifyAndSecede 9 points ago +9 / -0

It's a peaceful act of those who secede.

It makes clear who is the aggressive/violent party.

5
Speechify 5 points ago +5 / -0

Secession is only ever an intermediate step, perhaps even an act of good faith to avoid conflict (cf Declaration of Ind.). Secession is not inevitable, but the destruction of the cities by the numerically, geographically, ethnically superior population is inexorable.

2
Republic_or_Nothing 2 points ago +2 / -0

I agree, that's why the only offer on the table should be Secession unless you make mail-in-ballots illegal in the form of a constitutional amendment.

7
Mathetai 7 points ago +7 / -0

“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” -Ayn Rand

5
Donger-Lord2 5 points ago +6 / -1

I don’t want a peaceful alternative. No tyrants gets left alive. I’ve got a list.

4
_Cabal_ 4 points ago +4 / -0

Over 600k died as a result of the last secession attempt. Wasn't at all peaceful.

4
NullifyAndSecede 4 points ago +4 / -0

Walking away and asking to separate is far more peaceful than shooting with an aim to takeover.

The government deciding to shoot us for wanting to be free of their bullshit does not make us violent.

2
_Cabal_ 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you're asking permission, you're already dead.

3
Turtler 3 points ago +3 / -0

While I agree with Rothbard's larger point that a one world government is neither necessary or desirable and there is nothing inherently evil with secession, the issue is these quotes do not really come to a tenable conclusion. "How can there be a logical stopping-point to the secession?" Well, the logical stopping point comes from a combination of unity- when you get a political and/or cultural bloc that is more or less united in its aspirations, ambitions, and goals to form a coherent whole- and tenability IE how large or small can a given unit be in order to avoid being overrun by realistic adversaries, and to provide for the means of life it has (whether by directly controlling them or by being able to acquire them through trade with more or less secure sources).

The South's secession failed for a number of reasons, not the least of which were due to execution (for instance, initiating combat by bombarding Fort Sumter, whether you think it was right or wrong, did not paint them as the aggrieved side, likewise trying to take vast areas that were NOT interested in seceding from the Union- from West Virginia to Kentucky the neutral state that was invaded), but largely because of the problems with it. It did not have enough industry or resources to sustain total war against the Union, could not command enough foreign support to offset that, and so was ground down.

That's the problem with individual secession from a PRACTICAL standpoint, if not a moral or legal one. Throughout the Sinosphere there's a saying that "The tall flower gets cut down." Which says something about the collectivist mindset of China etc. al. going back thousands of years, but also raises a point: individual secessions can be stopped individually, by terminating a given individual. And while we may look upon such people as heroic martyrs like Jesus, from a secular point of view the state wins. Quantity does have a quality of its own and there is safety in numbers; the Zebra that gets out of its pack is one of the most likely to be killed by hunters.

Theoretically Manhattan or this or that neighborhood could secede peacefully if everybody agreed with it...but then would it really need to secede if that were the case? Sometimes it might be beneficial (as in the case with Czechia and Slovakia), but that still brings us back to the first.

And in other cases it will always be under the threat of being brought back into the fold by coercion, open or veiled as it might be.

This is why I think it is worth considering LONG AND HARD how to make coherent, defensible, self-sufficient(ish) communities or political entities. Because if we do go down the road of secession, we're going to run the risks of Leftist counterattack, illegal alien swarming, and crime.

10
AHonkTooFar 10 points ago +10 / -0

Poisoning the poor tree, think of all the spike proteins!

4
bratt 4 points ago +4 / -0

I know you know this, trees don't give or carry or affected by diseases affecting higher life forms. Similarly round-up works on plants but does not mostly harm people. Of course some trees are toxic to humans. Fact checked true: The Tree of Liberty needs the blood of traitors, because beside the moisture and minerals, traitor blood carries a high load of salt to support all their reeeeeing. The blood of patriots carries minerals which support strength, honesty and courage.

2
FuckingWiseCracker 2 points ago +2 / -0

Awesome, Fren!!

2
AHonkTooFar 2 points ago +2 / -0

Kek

7
Johnrgalt 7 points ago +7 / -0

Electoral college should go down to the county level.

I don’t think founders realized how corrupt and powerful a city can become.

Counties need same protection from cities, as smaller states needed from bigger states when the electoral college came to fruition.

5
MAGAsJustBegun 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yes, exactly this. That's what I said in my comment before reading yours.

It shouldn't be possible for one single city that's 30 miles wide to be able to control an entire state... But that's reality for half of America's states.

I doubt our founders ever fathomed a single city having many millions of citizens.

55
Spicy_maymay 55 points ago +55 / -0

We are living under colonialism. Tiny shithole cities set the rules for all the rural people in the other 90% of the state.

26
SquiggyMcPepe 26 points ago +26 / -0

This is why they push for so much shithole third world nation migrants because being tossed into an American shithole city is far better than their own nations shithole cities. California is deep blue because LA county got filled with tens of millions of welfare minions and migrants and get to dictate state policy off the numbers. The rest of cali is near solid red.

8
CAPTAIN_TENDY_PLATE2 8 points ago +8 / -0

I don't think they necessarily care who gets tossed into those shitholes, but rather, that there are warm bodies. Conservatives aren't going to willingly move into a deep blue state because they're attracted to the culture. If conservatives move there, it's because they don't have much choice in the matter for some reason or another.

Everyone else who willlingly lives in a city, and likes it, are in alignment with leftist values. Doesn't matter if they're citizens, immigrants, etc.,

The people running these shitholes only care about packing human beings in there as tightly as they can, and dumping more and more in, because they end up voting blue, and as long as they can get massive amounts of voters, nothing else matters.

Look at the major cities. Chicago, new york, LA. Seattle, St. Louis. They're all absolute shitholes.

To the point they eventually end up being destroyed, like Detroit.

And those city people overwhelmingly move to another city when it does happen, with a few going out into the suburbs or somewhere non-urban.

The problems we have in this nation are simply defined as urban vs rural.

3
Hafez 3 points ago +3 / -0

We’re probably headed back to city-states. Political power is getting more concentrated. Might not necessarily be a bad thing.

5
Riolinda 5 points ago +5 / -0

They’re not just shithole cities that are blue… it’s places like Loudoun, Charlottesville, Williamsburg, Fairfax, Newport News. It’s rich white liberals who’ve never been to the trailer parks hidden from their sight.

2
russianbot4673 2 points ago +3 / -1

nice to see someone here who understands the concept of cities vs rural. seems pretty rare here.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
BehindTheSatan 2 points ago +2 / -0

The problem with the rural areas is they don’t vote in their own interest. They do have the numbers to take the votes, but it requires some unity. Finally, it was bad enough that people started voting for freedom.

44
Speechify 44 points ago +44 / -0

Yep. Soon as we realize there are no blue counties, blue states, or a blue country; just communist cities surrounded by Americans - when we realize that, it begins.

11
russianbot4673 11 points ago +12 / -1

it seems like a difficult thing for people to grasp. this is the crux of everything we are up against. it goes back, in history, to the dawn of civilization. people corrupt each other. in various ways. they're bad influences on each other, and when people are closer together they spread bad influence. cities are also the centers for specialization. so you had manual laborers out in the fields or whatever, working an honest job with their hands, but in the cities you had people who could specialize in painted pottery for example.

not to say pottery is the tool of the devil, but the point is that the surplus of food coming into cities allowed for people to specialize in things that weren't really necessary for survival. pots can carry water sure, but eventually you get more and more 'artistic' pottery, or things that are done just for decorative purposes. take it to it's extreme and you have modern day art galleries full of 'modern art' where it's just a bunch of bullshit in there.

so people can make a living with progressively more and more degenerate 'art', as well as criminal undercurrents/organized crime taking hold of cities.

and also there's a stress factor. i had to write a paper on an old science experiment, i think it was in the 70s, back in school. they put rats in cages, but some of them they put in extra rats. they wanted to see what overpopulation did to the rats. surprise surprise, it turns out, that when rats are surrounded by other rats, 24 hours a day 7 days a week, there's always some other or multiple rats breathing down their neck, they get stressed out. that resulted in all sorts of deviant behaviors, and they all mirrored shit you see more of in cities. some rats became aggressive and attacked others, some became hypersexual and basically raped females and males. mothers would abandon their offspring for their own safety. sounds like muggings, rapes, and abortion or just bad parenting a lot doesn't it?

after doing that paper, ever since then i've gradually kind of crystalized in my mind that this is really what all this stuff comes down to. it's not so much left vs right as it is corruption that was spawned in hellhole cities, being forced on the rest of us. it's kind of common sense when you think about it. walking on a sidewalk, or sitting on a subway train, allllways surrounded by hundreds of people when you're outside. that shit would get to you. your guard would always have to be up. you see a weirdo get on the train, everyone says nothing, knows to avoid eye contact, but they're all watching out of the corners of their eye to see if this person creates an issue. that's your life in a place like NYC, in some of those neighborhoods, day in day out. having to worry and keep a watchful eye on hundreds of people around you. it becomes 2nd nature where you don't even think about it, and that's probably when you're really fucked. these are the people who are all on behavioral meds and see psychiatrists. what a coincidence.

15
mintyfresh 15 points ago +15 / -0

With maps like this, laying siege to the cities will make it easy.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
133
longshot3750 133 points ago +133 / -0

This is why pure democracy is so terrible, and why the electoral College is so vital.

76
realPhantomFuck 76 points ago +76 / -0

Our Founding Fathers were geniuses

46
DinosOnNoahsArk 46 points ago +47 / -1

Which is exactly why Democrats, leftists, and the media (I know, same thing) have been campaigning to end the electoral college.

26
newuser999 26 points ago +26 / -0

It comes up everytime the dems lose

21
CAPTAIN_TENDY_PLATE2 21 points ago +21 / -0

Without the EC, they would win every election. On a purely "most votes win" system, they would lean on two things: Cities and the filth that inhabit them, and printing out ballots to stuff.

In a system with the EC we have currently, they can win, but they have to cheat harder than they would if we didn't have one at all.

In a system with a federal level ruling that the EC would extend down to every single level, where let's say it's based strictly on counties, and every county got one vote.

The left would NEVER win another election again, it would be the complete inverse of what would happen if we do not have an EC at all.

And if you really think about that, and be intellectually honest about the reasons why that is, then it's impossible to NOT see that the left is corrupt, morally bankrupt, and a bunch of thugs.

9
JoeyBlowey 9 points ago +9 / -0

I've been saying this to anyone that would hear it. Individual counties representing a certain number of electoral votes for each state. NY would be a completely different state to live in.

Governors would genuinely have to appeal to ALL voters if they want a chance to run the state.

2
Amaroq64 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not sure about that.

It would still be population-based right? So the rural red zones would get, what, one elector each, and the shithole cities would get 50?

4
FormerGraveheart 4 points ago +4 / -0

You don't have to do it that way at all. It could just as easily be, one county, one elector. Fuck the cities.

3
basedvirginian 3 points ago +3 / -0

You could do it proportional by county. Similar to how congressional seats are drawn (when fair)

2
DinosOnNoahsArk 2 points ago +2 / -0

And by putting this idea in the brains of people consistently, they soften up the idea to growing generations, and will eventually be able to push this idea through.

They do this because it works. They have a track record of successfully doing this.

3
1
DinosOnNoahsArk 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, I'm aware of this, and beyond pure ignorance, I can't comprehend why citizens of these states would be ok with this.

2
LesboPregnancyScare 2 points ago +2 / -0

i doubt they are. leftists enact policies they want, damn the citizens. remember a clear majority want to curb immigration. yet here we are: borders wide open, illegals flooding in, we are giving them money, shipping them to who knows where.

5
Edial 5 points ago +5 / -0

They dropped the ball on a few things. They should have made it crystal clear legal that we can go to our border and kill would-be invaders without penalty for one thing.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
-3
flashersenpai -3 points ago +1 / -4

geniuses who made a system that subverts itself

k

17
IroWide 17 points ago +17 / -0

President Theodore Roosevelt once said that there were a certain class of people that were too ignorant to govern themselves and must be governed by those of us that can handle it. At first, it sounds harsh and anti-liberty....but once you look at the average hoodrat, or see some green-haired college girls, you see his point. Or perhaps you've met the suburban mom who loves America but wants to ban everything she doesn't like, lol.

3
_Cabal_ 3 points ago +3 / -0

The idea that every random asshole has an equal say in governance of a society is categorically retarded. This is why voting wasn't included in the bill of rights. People aren't equal. Yet all votes are treated and weighed as equal. It's wholly nonsensical. Similarly, you wouldn't defer to your grocery bagger for medical advice.

1
trumper1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who decides whose vote is worth counting? The state?

1
_Cabal_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

The state has always decided, one way or another.

The state currently decides that illegal votes are allowed to count, and they are valued just as much as legal votes.

I don't know what the answer is. That doesn't mean the problem ceases to exist.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

all democracy is terrible

109
Rydanovich 109 points ago +112 / -3

BuT The BluE ZoNEs HAvE mORE peOplE ITs DeMoCrAtiC MAjORiTyy

99
Pandas4Trump 99 points ago +101 / -2

After population density exceeds 9000 persons per square mile, the people become dumb and depraved

64
deleted 64 points ago +64 / -0
31
basedvirginian 31 points ago +33 / -2

It’s almost like 🧐 our cities 🧐 and the policies promoted within them 🧐 breed mental illness 🧐🧐🧐

27
TeaPartier_1776 27 points ago +27 / -0

Jefferson was right about a lot of things. Especially about how disgusting and morally bankrupt cities are. My feelings towards these concrete cesspools have transformed from mere distaste to outright hatred over the past few years.

14
CAPTAIN_TENDY_PLATE2 14 points ago +14 / -0

Same, same.

And it really bugs the shit out of me that their votes are weighted by just however many people they can pack in there.

That's not in the spirit of a representative government. There needs to be some sort of law about population density, where there's some sort of cap on how many votes can be tallied per unit of population density.

Either that, or have an electoral college sort of system at the state level. Where each county gets a number of votes, not necessarily a direct representation of the amount of people there. And then their votes go to the majority of actual votes.

Maybe each county gets 4 electors or something, and they vote the way their people do.

And if the left wants to cry and scream that this sort of system would make it so they NEVER win any elections ever again? Then I say perhaps they should come up with some actual policy that's beneficial for people outside of their shithole cities, and perhaps they should care about things other than power and wealth, being given to them on the hands of filth who elect them in those places.

Maybe then, they'd actually get some votes outside of a metropolitan area.

And if not? Cry me a river until you do.

7
Bolo 7 points ago +7 / -0

This is my thought exactly. I’ve noticed in Minneapolis suburbs they are building all these new fancy apartments everywhere. The kind of building that only attract hipsters and leftist scum. Pack them in like sardines and change the votes of the cities.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
7
Guruchild 7 points ago +7 / -0

I live in a nice area outside the suburbs, pop density is about 150/sq mile. And we all know each other. Also about 95% conservative.

3
EveryDayPatriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Like that utopian rat experiment?

1
ghost_of_aswartz 1 point ago +1 / -0

True. And part of that is the concentration of sociopathic, corporate exploitative services that swarm around where people are and toxify them further. Do you think that starbucks is actually a good place to work on your laptop? How productive have you ever been, working on your laptop in a noisy, bustling coffee shop with no outlets and shitty as F wifi, and nothing to eat or drink but sugary things; and it's all expensive.

12
spezisacuckold 12 points ago +12 / -0

After it exceeds 800 people per square mile, the people more often than not vote Democrat.

At about 800 people per square mile, people switch from voting primarily Republican to voting primarily Democratic. Put another way, below 800 people per square mile, there is a 66% chance that you voted Republican. Above 800 people per square mile, there is a 66% chance that you voted Democrat. A 66% preference is a clear, dominant majority.

https://davetroy.medium.com/is-population-density-the-key-to-understanding-voting-behavior-191acc302a2b

4
Pandas4Trump 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think my brain added a zero to make an over 9000 meme

3
Megadeth 3 points ago +3 / -0

Herd mentality ... it's real :-) .

3
freeamerica4ever 3 points ago +3 / -0

That is so strange.

6
spezisacuckold 6 points ago +6 / -0

It's a reason why Zoning Laws need to be implemented at the state level to curb county new development population density to ensure American freedoms survive.

5
DrWeeGee 5 points ago +5 / -0

ITS OVER 9000!!!!!

5
1776pill 5 points ago +5 / -0

Here’s what doesn’t make sense: fairfax county is a 2nd amendment sanctuary county.

So how does a county that turns the state blue usually also go for a right winged measure like that?

4
Chickapede 4 points ago +4 / -0

I grew up in Ffx Co. It used to be an awesome place. Commuter neighborhoods into offices in DC and the Pentagon. Lots of military families stationed there. Great school system. It all began to change in the 1990s after the Clintons got to town. They moved big government in and more jobs with contractors and big government. Still a lot of old people and people who grew up there stayed. But housing prices went from normal $250K for lovely homes to now 1.5 million for same home... when you have that much power and so many belongings, you want to be able to defend yourself and your property. Trump's idea of scattering Federal departments around the country and making people live amongst the people who they served had much merit.

3
1776pill 3 points ago +3 / -0

It still boils down to a very vocal, negative minority. I would visit occasionally back in the mid 00s, and that area still had an overall conservative vibe. Most people I talk to were family oriented. One problem back then that I’m sure has gotten worse is it was swarming with illegals.

1
basedvirginian 1 point ago +1 / -0

I just cannot stand the attitude a lot of the contractors/federal workers had towards the rest of the state. P much all the new NOVA people around my age (mid 20s) are insufferable snobs.

I realize most of NOVA is likely not like that, but I feel like being close to DC some of the arrogance rubs off on the NIMBY types to an absurd degree

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
Stanwyk74 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's like California. Usually the conservative side of a ballot initiatives wins. But somehow the dems always win too. Red flag.

4
2
youngfellow 2 points ago +3 / -1

Got something that isn’t a Wikipedia link?

8
Pandas4Trump 8 points ago +8 / -0

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/diffusion-of-responsibility

Also known as the bystander effect. Soros District Attorneys accelerate it by making self defense defacto illegal beyond the confines of a domicile.

16
PlatinumFMorgan 16 points ago +16 / -0

A bullshit line to cover up massive election fraud and fake ballot stuffing.

7
JackOfDiamonds 7 points ago +8 / -1

You're typing that in retard caps, but that doesn't invalidate the point. Do you really think trees and squirrels should get to vote in people elections?

Republicans need a better argument against popular sovereignty than "Because it helps our opponents." If you want to philosophically convince people, you have got to go to brass tacks and show why blue zones having more people shouldn't mean that they get more say in elections.

7
Rydanovich 7 points ago +7 / -0

Cities don't feed people. Farms do. Why should the city get to decide what's best for the farmer? Because there's more people in the city? Do two hundred thousand people who have never worked on a farm suddenly know better because there are more of them?

1
ufkyflflfguio 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's almost like voting itself is an illegitimate way to decide things.

3
Czech2Check2 3 points ago +3 / -0

What’s the alternative? Just letting cities disenfranchise the voters in rest of the state?

69
TheRedPlank 69 points ago +70 / -1

This map shows precisely why a "peaceful divorce" isnt really possible at a state level

47
GenericInsult 47 points ago +48 / -1

We need a mini-electoral college for state levels.

17
TheRedPlank 17 points ago +17 / -0

Could just reform the whole electoral college to 1 vote per district

32
GenericInsult 32 points ago +32 / -0

1 vote per district county

12
TheRedPlank 12 points ago +12 / -0

I like it

6
GenericInsult 6 points ago +6 / -0

https://i.imgur.com/QUyn7NX.png

The numbers just don't work. Biden cheated his way into office.

6
Rvnyx 6 points ago +6 / -0

Will need some rules obviously so these faggots don't break up into 1000s of small counties, Dems gotta dem

2
FormerGraveheart 2 points ago +2 / -0

A simple rule such as: no county may change its borders or area at all unless a supermajority of counties in the state agree to the change. Or maybe even 75%. That should do it.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Stanwyk74 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah or like a max of 10. You would never see vote fraud againm

2
Goldlight 2 points ago +3 / -1

should be county level electoral college on the federal level

1 county 1 vote

2
LesboPregnancyScare 2 points ago +2 / -0

the cities can be starved out of existence easily. power shut off, trucks and farmers stop delivery. all of it very easy to implement

1
ghost_of_aswartz 1 point ago +1 / -0

build a wall out of empty cargo ship containers aroudn the blue city areas, with the opening facing towards them. Then you convert the inside to cry closet vending machines where they pay 20 dollars to go inside and cry

plot twist, it doesn't open back up for 48 hours and by then they don't ever come out

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Then keep going. There's no reason it has to stop at the state level.

54
GenericInsult 54 points ago +54 / -0

The Left: "lAnD DoEsN't vOtE"

27
basedvirginian 27 points ago +27 / -0

The left: why would someone want to live in the country lol there’s like hardly any degeneracy to partake in!!1!

10
TeaPartier_1776 10 points ago +10 / -0

It’s almost like people would rather live five miles away from their nearest neighbor than five feet away from their neighbor’s gay orgy.

47
deleted 47 points ago +47 / -0
44
HeavyVetting 44 points ago +44 / -0

Closer and closer to the Hunger Games where the elites rule over the rural areas from their fancy cities.

10
GenericInsult 10 points ago +10 / -0

I live in Houston (ie: District 5)

4
WikkiWikki420 4 points ago +4 / -0

I live out in the place that niche.com ranks #1 place to live in 2021. It’s also a very conservative area, as if we here were surprised. But now there is a fight where some want to remain with Houston and others that want to be recognized as their own city.

3
GenericInsult 3 points ago +3 / -0

The Woodlands?

2
WikkiWikki420 2 points ago +2 / -0

Damn right

27
Winged_Splinter 27 points ago +28 / -1

It's why we need an electoral college for state elections.

3
_Eric_Ciaramella_ 3 points ago +3 / -0

been saying this for years.

1
ufkyflflfguio 1 point ago +1 / -0

Or, how about we stop pretending that voting is a good way to decide things.

20
skumario 20 points ago +20 / -0

Illegal resettlers, mass immigration and packing the cities with refugees and illegal votes plus scamming with Dominion and mail in ballots.

14
TanfoglioStock2 14 points ago +14 / -0

Fraud in 1 Big City/County is enough to turn a State. Gets so old listening to retards act like you need 10000 people and NASA, KGB and MI6 involved for it to be “Widespread voter fraud”. Need less than 10people to fuck up a State if they are the right people.

14
doug2 14 points ago +16 / -2

Probably an unpopular take : warning**

I mean not really, what if one person only lived in each county except the blue ones and everyone else lived in a blue county and the vote was "should we give the 1 person counties 30% of the income generated by multiple people counties?"

That's a non broken system that would have a map like this. The dems play better in cities, that's an acceptable strategy when you have pure 1 person 1 vote type systems. The issue is the cheating, thats it. They have so many people they can easily add 300k votes and not get caught.

We need to start working on gaining votes in high city areas bc we aren't going to change population density.

6
KennethsFrequency 6 points ago +6 / -0

You would think that the high-strung lunatic inhabitants of the city's would easily recognize that the reason they live in these miserable shitholes , stacked on top of eachother is because of the decades long rule by crooks,....but alas, it must be us racist bigots who live nowhere near or like them that is the cause....

The cities and democrats deserve eachother

2
CAPTAIN_TENDY_PLATE2 2 points ago +2 / -0

You're halfway there.

The issue is indeed the cheating, but they wouldn't be able to do that in the first place were voting not tied to one person, one vote.

Our current system is only half-functional. At national level elections, it's at least SOME protection against cheating, but it can still happen enough to flip even a presidential election.

Because all they have to do is keep printing ballots and stuffing them into enough districts to flip the EC vote.

And since the current EC is based on population density, they obviously choose the densely populated areas to stuff the ballots.

You don't see them going after a state that only has like 3 EC votes. They go after the big population states. That's ALWAYS where the cheating occurs.

If we just toss out the idea of population density, though, and give every county exactly one vote, no matter how big or small the population... And extend that down to state level elections, too...

Then they'd have to stuff the boxes of half or more counties in half or more states to win. I just don't see them being able to pull that off. Their corruption is generally anchored into the shithole cities. Because if a conservative stronghold of a town that has a population of 1500, sees some shady shit going on, someone's likely to get drug behind a yee-yee truck.

3
flashersenpai 3 points ago +3 / -0

You're halfway there. The number of votes for anything doesn't make it right or moral. My rights aren't up for a vote.

1
o0-R3lyk-0o 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sounds Malicious

11
Thehumancentipede 11 points ago +13 / -2

How exactly do you want it calculated? The population centers are full of liberals

14
NotJudging 14 points ago +15 / -1

Electoral college at the state level

7
Striking_Accountant8 7 points ago +7 / -0

The alternative is to have representatives from each county so people living in a big city don't make decisions for everyone else.

0
unashamed 0 points ago +1 / -1

Lol, that's called state government but with less districts

3
_-Th0r-_ 3 points ago +5 / -2

Yeah this is a dumb post. It’s simple math, and they think it’s “fucking stupid.”

Even if they did cut a few counties off and expel them to create a “Northern Virginia” state, electoral college votes are weighted by population. So if that’s all the population, it’s still going to be EVs for Dems.

The fact that every state gets 2 minimum to start can help us though if it is a squeaker.

Regardless, this is a silly post.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

You don't calculate it. Voting is a meme.

7
Viewer01 7 points ago +7 / -0

The problem is the democrat archipelagos. We really do need to redraw state borders and so forth because that would solve a huge amount of friction.

6
NotJudging 6 points ago +6 / -0

All states need state electoral college. It'll end this.

7
ed_shaw 7 points ago +7 / -0

It is exactly mob rule the Founders voiced concern about and the authoritarians claim is inevitable -- mob up in the cities and gang up on the rest of the states or the nation.

7
ModelMinority 7 points ago +7 / -0

Densely populated areas are for dumb people too lazy to maintain a lawn.

6
aangler100 6 points ago +6 / -0

Main stream media, Democrats, &RINOs :

2016 there is no such thing as election rigging

2017 there is some vote fraud, but we catch it all

2018 voter fraud does not change the outcome of elections

2019 you are racist

2020 election fraud is a computer "glitch"

2021 fair elections are racist

1
MAGA_Argent_Crusade 1 point ago +1 / -0

"fortified elections"

6
RealRedneck 6 points ago +7 / -1

PEopLe vOtE laND dOEsn'T!!!!!121!1

6
Logan051361 6 points ago +6 / -0

lets vote By County. Most counties in a state win. Their, i fixed it

1
MtF250 1 point ago +1 / -0

Let's vote by the acre.

6
thegeeseisleese 6 points ago +6 / -0

States need to move towards an electoral system. 1 point per county. Most counties won in the state wins that state. That way state representatives have to represent their whole state and not, you know, two cities in their state.

3
bidensniffingkids 3 points ago +3 / -0

Counties are pretty arbitrary (although you could argue the same for states). I would do an electoral college - like system based on the congressional districts. This prevents a single liberal city from fabricating thousands of votes.

5
UnitedStatesofSmash 5 points ago +5 / -0

This is what happens when land ownership is no longer a requirement to vote. You have cities with large populations full of people with no real skin in the game voting on policies that affect the people that do.

3
TehAgent 3 points ago +3 / -0

^ This

I used to be against only land owners voting but I see why. People that have nothing of their own WILL vote to take from those that do.

5
Susurro 5 points ago +5 / -0

We MUST solve the puzzle of why cities create progressive minds! It's psychological and CAN be reversed (much like homosexuality — Oh, snap! Went there!! 👀).

The psychology of Leftism........This is where we need more effort but it gets zero attention.

1
ufkyflflfguio 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because there are too many people around for you to have them all in your trust network. Since you can't trust your neighbors, you (falsely) believe you need big gubmint to protect you from them.

4
RedFoxOnFire 4 points ago +4 / -0

States need to elect electorally based on counties

2
Batman 2 points ago +2 / -0

That would solve a lot.

4
no_steppy13 4 points ago +4 / -0

Because some counties have much bigger populations than others? This doesn't feel like a hard concept to grasp.

Edit: Apparently, based on the upvotes this thread has gotten, I was wrong about the concept being simple to understand.

4
freundwich 4 points ago +4 / -0

Why, if it's based on population?

4
Scot 4 points ago +4 / -0

There are no blue states. Only red states with shit-hole blue cities.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
StaryHickory 4 points ago +4 / -0

The issue is too much centralized power. Counties should not be playing ball with corrupt population centers who want to suck the resources from the surrounding areas. If counties would routinely secede and reform new social constructs then centralizing power would cease to be effective and would stop being done.

The problem we have is staying moored to defunct and corrupt social structures when the right thing to do is walk away. Its the same thing with the US government, states, counties, cities, and individuals should be routinely walking away from it.

1
freeamerica4ever 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's an interesting idea.

3
NotJudging 3 points ago +4 / -1

State electoral college now

3
ShrikeDeCil 3 points ago +3 / -0

That happens on the national county map too.

The "Top 100 cities list" ... we need to make some effort to push actual R-side thinking in there. It's conceding the big cities/inner schools/etc that's where the rot is entering from.

3
DonttrustChina 3 points ago +3 / -0

Dems are right about one thing, land doesn't vote.

There need to be protections, to make sure the different needs of urban, suburban, and rural voters are met, and a few major cities don't just dominate everything, because that's a recipe for disaster as the disenfranchised people producing all the food rebel.

But it is also fairly silly to say "look, we occupy a bigger area on the map because we live further apart, therefore we outvoted you". That's one of our weaker arguments.

3
Stanwyk74 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yup need an electoral college at the state level. One corrupt city should never be allowed to keep counting the votes. You get a max.

3
HansMann 3 points ago +4 / -1

?? Land doesn't vote? Most of that red is bare wasteland lmao

The blue cities are fucking massive

3
PickleSticks 3 points ago +3 / -0

States need to start doing their own electoral colleges, big cities shouldn’t decide the entire states election

3
BowelSharpton 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's why I 110% agree with a recent comment I read: there are no "blue states", only blue CITIES (making the REST of the state cyanotic - like NY, CA, WA, OR....)

3
NotMyGovernor 3 points ago +3 / -0

Internal Electoral College type systems would solve most of this and until I see people like Wendy Rogers etc pushing these ideas I will have to assume the GOP doesn’t actually want to solve the election fraud crisis.

3
AlphaOmaga 3 points ago +3 / -0

“Land doesn’t vote”

“Yea, but it feeds your ass”

2
Jon888 2 points ago +2 / -0

Top right is really just DC expanded

2
Kekistan_United 2 points ago +2 / -0

ive been spreading the same sentiment around.

while i agree the population density is not represented here as a data overlay, onto the area shown...

the whole fucking country put GEOTUS into the highest recorded number for votes for US president, EVER.

and then is subsequently surpassed, overnight, in the same fucking election, by ShitPants Biden...

its like winning the lottery twice in the same hour for the highest amount ever

and then walking outside and being struck by lightning.

so yes, of course, to the libtards, that can happen

2
Kappershits 2 points ago +2 / -0

LaNd doEsNt VoTe ThOuGh

2
Fussbudget 2 points ago +2 / -0

we should go back to the old Roman way of things. only people who own property should be allowed to vote

2
Canadian4Freedom 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sounds like there needs to be an electoral college system at the state/county level...

2
5DPancake 2 points ago +2 / -0

New Jersey has far fewer counties, but it's nearly as annoying. It's big city-dwelling gutter trash that causes all the issues for everything else. The last two counties in NJ I lived in each went 58% and 63% red. Fuck city people. If you nuked cities life would go on, if you nuked rural areas, farmlands, etc, and the entire species would perish. There may be less enough but we're literally more important than they could ever dream of being.

2
Supernova 2 points ago +2 / -0

Time to adopt the electoral system at the state level.

2
HistoryInvestigator 2 points ago +4 / -2

The fact that people don't understand these counties don't have the same populations and results in the race being what it is really boggles the mind.

3
123breadman 3 points ago +3 / -0

If there were more remote work, things would look different. Less heavy blue areas since they would be moving to red areas.

2
Goldlight 2 points ago +3 / -1

county level electoral college for states

2
becky21k1 2 points ago +2 / -0

The electoral college should happen on the state level.

Win the most counties, parishes, or whatever other equivalent legal political areas in a state, win the state. Maybe you give the highest population ones two votes instead of one to make it seem more fair.

-3
deleted -3 points ago +1 / -4
1
becky21k1 1 point ago +2 / -1

I don't care if it's fair to the leftists.

When a map looks like that, the team the red represents should be in charge, not your boyfriends the leftists.

-3
deleted -3 points ago +1 / -4
0
becky21k1 0 points ago +1 / -1

Sounds like you might be a leftist

2
yurimodin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just like IL

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
RentFree2020 1 point ago +1 / -0

But, "People vote, not land!"

1
Fandigo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Audit all of those blue zones. ALL OF THEM! We already know some precincts report in 100% democrat, even though this is statistically impossible. The higher the population density, the easier it is rig votes. You can report 1 address having 100s of people, and this would go unnoticed because apartment buildings exist. A lot of which are left empty in major cities because the property market is rigged.