TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
A Red March to Fix The States
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [96]
1
 2  3 4

A Red March to Fix The States:

Pro-Freedom Fanatic
  • Fact: Left-leaning states are overwhelmingly more populated than right-leaning states, the single exceptions being Texas and a coupla tiny New England places.
  • Problem: Rural conservatives are overwhelmingly overrepresented in Federal institutions, giving the whole country a conservative and authoritarian slant.
  • Solution: Use demographics as a weapon. Swarm the underpopulated conservative States with a dedicated number of far leftists: Take over their institutions and make conservatives a powerless minority on every constituency.
  • Viability: A single million leftist Californians could totally neuter Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. A single million leftist New Englanders could utterly neuter many States in the South, like the Carolinas and West Virginia. Given sufficient dedication, we could make a reverse gerrymandering and permanently suppress conservatism without violence.

Discuss.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
 2 Mandemo, Sun, 18th Dec '11 5:26:47 AM from Cookie Jar Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
GIMME COOKIES!
Unless you plant to fix economy and make them able to live in those states, that's useless. Just having them to march to another state would do nothing.

However, you plan does have a good premise. If you have more people leaning to opposite political spectrum to move into state than state has other idology, it could work. However, one needs to make sure that original states manage to keep their left leaning status, to prevent it from becomening zero sum game.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
At any rate, Joe Conservative from the People's Republic of Kalifornia and the Commonwealth of Taxachussetts aren't as insane as those around Flyover Country... Even if it made liberal majorities on the populated States less solid and made the odd Congressional run here and there, it'd neuter the core of American conservatism.

To be honest, I'd rather have five more Scott Browns or Gary Johnsons in power as a tradeoff for getting rid of ten Santorums and Bachmanns.

In order to prevent that risk, amendments to the State constitutions making electoral college votes proportional would minimize the risk to losing presidential elections. We'd steal many more senators than those we would lose, and we'd lose some power in the House, but the benefits outweigh the costs. Most importantly, we'd replace all DINO with real Leftists, so a supermajority of ours could actually repeal all conservative Federal laws.

The key to the strategy is to selectively target severely underpopulated reactionary States for takeover. By injecting 300 hundred thousand far-leftists into each, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho would go left permanently. That's 6 leftist Senators permanently secured. Let's say we lose the two Senators from Cali, we're still +4. Let's say we lose a few Representatives in Cali, but instead we take over the vast majority of Representatives on the target States.

California has still a large margin to win the Electoral Vote. If it's made proportional before the Red March, it's not that much of a threat anyway.

edited 18th Dec '11 6:45:24 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Three-Puppet Saluter
Ha ha, you think progressives are interested in repealing conservative laws? Even the moldy K Street Republicans made a stab at repealing Obamacare, but from 2007 through 2011, nobody tried the same with the Patriot Act - despite the fact that opposition to it was a big feature of most Democrats' platforms.
Hail Martin Septim!
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
A big part of it is the Blue Dogs' fault: The beauty of the plan is that by using dedicated far-leftists, we'd both get rid of a significant part of conservative representation and bully our own leftists in name only in Congress into compliance with a leftist agenda... Or out of office.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
 6 Nohbody, Sun, 18th Dec '11 6:16:43 AM from Somewhere in Dixie Relationship Status: Mu
Just zis guy
@OP: Yes, because permanently suppressing (the OP's wording, not mine) opposing opinions is such a good idea. I mean, look at the paradises on Earth like North Korea, Cuba, Iran.

As for "without violence", I suspect that more than a few conservatives won't wait for having to wear the yellow blue star on their clothing before objecting rather strongly to being made into second-class (at best) citizens in the way your postings in the forums (not just this thread) suggest you consider not only acceptable, but praiseworthy.

edited 18th Dec '11 6:17:24 AM by Nohbody

Three-Puppet Saluter
Come on, now - if the Tea Party can hold the establishment Republicans' feet to the fire, why can't your true Scotsmen do the same?
Hail Martin Septim!
 8 Lost Anarchist, Sun, 18th Dec '11 6:18:51 AM from Neo Arcadia Itself
Violence Is Necessary!
@OP:

Sounds like a good plan. First question, however:

How are you going to mobilize the mainstream into your pocket progressive revolution?

Also, they need more reasons to march other than voting every crook out of Congress, or something similar to that.

And usually, I agree with you whenever you say things on taking this nation back, through revolutionary/anarchist means...

edited 18th Dec '11 6:19:35 AM by LostAnarchist

This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio
 9 Nohbody, Sun, 18th Dec '11 6:25:59 AM from Somewhere in Dixie Relationship Status: Mu
Just zis guy
Doma Doma, I'm pretty sure there's no significant Tea Party movement support for trying to suppress (again, not my term) liberalism/progressivism, nor in turning them into untermenschen.

edited 18th Dec '11 6:26:19 AM by Nohbody

 10 Lost Anarchist, Sun, 18th Dec '11 6:30:54 AM from Neo Arcadia Itself
Violence Is Necessary!
[up] Oh, I'm sure there is - but no one cares to research it, because it sounds stupid. And seeing as this is the Tea Party we're talking about... IT IS STUPID if they want it.
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
[up][up] Yeah, social liberals are a vast conspiracy to gain power over conservatives and then... leave'em alone?

It's not like we're going to ban them praying and going to church and hunting and eating Big Macs and watching football and marrying and divorcing and driving Silverados. We'd just legalize stuff they'd rather see banned (the whole point of the maneuver), but actual interference in their lives is unlikely.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic

edited 18th Dec '11 6:45:49 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
 13 Trev MUN, Sun, 18th Dec '11 6:55:07 AM from YOU STALKER, YOU!
The Infamous Trev-MUN
Wow. Savage Heathen and Lost Anarchist sound like liberal versions of my father.

It's depressing and kind of scary to see people on both sides of the aisle prescribe to this "warfare" model of politics.

Pro-Freedom Fanatic
[up] I'm a minority (sorta, I'm Hispanic), bisexual, nonmonogamous and a drug user. I enjoy obscene speech a fair bit. I'm pro-vice, and I'm pro-union.

Conservatives get the government to go to war against folks like me, and deprive us of our freedom and our civil rights, simply by criminalizing our lifestyles. I'm just proposing to fight back and take that ability from them, ensuring that we don't get oppressed anymore. I am not suggesting being vindictive and banning the conservatives's lifestyles, I just want them to be unable to ban ours.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Three-Puppet Saluter
[up][up][up] I've heard progressive arguments to outlaw prayer (in public settings, whether condoned by public officials or not), hunting (and all other private gun use), fast food, and energy-inefficient cars. That's a 50% measure of tyranny you specifically denied - a pretty awful score.

What laws are there against obscenity, swinging/adultery, being Hispanic, being bisexual, or being in a union? (But I'm totally with you on the drug use and the vice. Libertarian, you know.)

edited 18th Dec '11 7:06:03 AM by DomaDoma

Hail Martin Septim!
 16 Oh So Into Cats, Sun, 18th Dec '11 7:29:22 AM from The Sand Wastes Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
At first I thought this was about communism, or at least a Soviet invasion.

Guys, you need to title your threads better :/
"Beware of the wolves. They were raised by wolves."

Eidolonomics: ~60.4k/100,000 words
 17 Greenmantle, Sun, 18th Dec '11 7:42:41 AM from Albion Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
[up]

Due to The Great Politics Mess-Up, your Soviet Invasion has been delayed indefinately.

However, there is a (remote) possibility of China Taking Over The World.

...ahem.

If there aren't enough far-left people in the USA, how about importing them? From China or North Korea, or example?
 18 Oh So Into Cats, Sun, 18th Dec '11 7:46:43 AM from The Sand Wastes Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Yeah, I was thinking that if we wanted to get a Soviet invasion in here, we'd need to get time travel technology on an industrial scale, which we do not have yet — unless this was already done under super secret Soviet super science and us capitalist pigs just do not know about it.

So I was very confused about the title.
"Beware of the wolves. They were raised by wolves."

Eidolonomics: ~60.4k/100,000 words
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
@re: No serious proposal for banning energy-inefficient cars would affect existing cars. Rather, they're stricter emissions guidelines for future cars, which incidentally result in higher miles per gallon. It's a win-win for all except for Big Auto and Big Oil.

Gun control is essentially dead: I don't think the Dems would try to rescue it in the foreseeable future.

As for banning unhealthy eating, that's fringe San Fran types, doctors and health bureaucrats.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Proud Canadian
>implying there are enough far leftists in America

>implying centre left government wouldn't be the best

It worked best when Canada had 15% unemployment, it would work for America.

edited 18th Dec '11 8:21:21 AM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
Three-Puppet Saluter
Gun control is out of the picture only until the Supreme Court is more to your liking. And a self-professed leftist who seems to think most of the Democrats in Congress are too soft had better not dismiss other leftists as fringe, or there's not much of a Red State Project left. (I concede the SUV argument, as you did the one about prayer.)

Apart from drug laws, what oppressive laws do you think your leftists would bother to repeal?

Hail Martin Septim!
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
Bans on gay marriage and adoption, some immigration restrictions, other bans on vice, FCC censorship and extended police/surveillance powers. They're likely to do away with three strikes laws, privatized prisons and other such authoritarian nonsense.

At any rate, after defeating gun prohibition violent crime would fall through the floor on their own (cheap drugs would ensure addicts didn't have to turn to crime, and most gangs would have to downsize): Crime rates going down ain't exactly conductive to gun control.

edited 18th Dec '11 8:34:09 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Proud Canadian
At any rate, after defeating gun prohibition violent crime would fall through the floor on their own

[lol]Good joke

edited 18th Dec '11 8:37:15 AM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
I somehow doubt people in the quantity you'd need for that care enough about politics to drop everything just for the possibility of making things more appropriate to their opinions.

^^Violent crime has been steadily dropping in the US for a long time.

edited 18th Dec '11 8:39:41 AM by INUH

Pro-Freedom Fanatic
[up][up] I meant drug prohibition. It was a typo.

[up] That's why nobody gives a fuck about gun control lately, 'cause it ain't the '80s anymore.

edited 18th Dec '11 8:40:59 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Total posts: 96
1
 2  3 4


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy