Why Secede?

Why is Cumberland, Maryland resident Scott Strzelcyzk pushing to break the state in two (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/08/secessionist-movement-emerges-in-rural-maryland/)? The answer is: for the same reason the rural populations in other states, including California, have been longing to secede from the mother state. The key in this quest is the word “rural.”

Stereotypes aside, those living in rural America do tend more toward the conservative bent, while city dwellers are generally on the more liberal side. Yes, that is a generality, and no, not everyone fits that mold.

Referring to rural Americans, Obama told San Franciscans at a fundraiser that, “it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” He was preaching to the choir.

Those living in cities are a diverse lot, but their common denominator is that they all rely on the services provided by city government. Those in the rural areas are of necessity more independent, and they relish this independence.

Cities expand. As they expand, ever more rural land is lost as is the rural lifestyle and independence once enjoyed by those still living there. Unwanted city services and the accompanying taxes are foisted upon the once rural population. They must choose to comply with the urban lifestyle or move.

By definition, cities (including suburban areas) are more populous than rural areas. In our democratic form of government, there are no provisions for leveling the playing field. At the state level, rural residents must follow the dictates of those living in the cities. All too often, those living in the cities trounce the interests and desires of those in rural areas.

The obvious solution is to secede from the cities. Unfortunately, secession is only allowed with the consent of the majority in both areas -- fat chance. Then too, just where would the boundaries be? Rural areas surround most cities. In most states, it would be difficult at best to segregate the cities to form a cohesive separate state.

This is not a new conundrum. The country’s founding fathers grappled with this same problem at the national level. The original thirteen states were divided with sparse and dense populations as well as industrial and agrarian areas. It would be unfair for the more populated and richer industrial states to overwhelm the rural states in a presidential election. In fact, it was a potential deal breaker for acceptance of the Constitution. The solution was the Electoral College. Each state’s vote was weighted to give a level playing field.

While there is much discussion about eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote, this would make the less populous state completely irrelevant in a presidential election. Perhaps instead of eliminating the Electoral College, we might better apply this concept toward statewide elections too. By weighting city and rural votes, we would finally allow rural areas an equal say in governing the state. An alternative would be to give rural areas an equal representation in each statehouse.

Any way it is achieved, states are going to need to give rural areas a voice in the running of the government, or the call for secession will become increasingly louder until it becomes a rural v/s urban war.