Secession Trend Up?

[Kenzo]

Here in Western Australia the topic comes up every so often and we cant leave unless a national referendum is voted on to change the constitution, so basically it would be the rest of Australia kicking us out

In 1933 there was a vote to succed from Australia, but was turned down by the Privy Council in the UK in 1934, as the Privy Council was dispended in 86, the decision would be up to Australia's High Court if it happened today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessioni..._Australia

I have no idea about Australian politics , issues or problems...either it`s not in  the news or i dont just notice them. The insane covid lockdowns i do remember thought...With the threat of China in Pacific, it may be wise to be part of Australia ...

I am against British crown thought.....because well..   i think the royal  family is disgrace , but that`s just my personal view.

[BeTheGoddess]

I have no idea about Australian politics , issues or problems...either it`s not in  the news or i dont just notice them. The insane covid lockdowns i do remember thought...With the threat of China in Pacific, it may be wise to be part of Australia ...

I am against British crown thought.....because well..   i think the royal  family is disgrace , but that`s just my personal view.

Thats one fkd thing here. Many Australians want a republic and to ditch the monarchy, the constitution of 1901  was designed to be a temporary document, even the late her Majesty Queen Lizzy wanted an Australian republic and had stated this publicly many times; she wanted an Australian republic to be by vote of the people, not her cutting the strings--so what happens when she dies? The fkn federal government puts up some derp as fk "Voice" referendum and not a republic one because he thinks its disrespectful to the late queen... no, its disrespectful not letting us vote on a republic.

Sorry to flood your theread with my rant

[Kenzo]

Thats one fkd thing here. Many Australians want a republic and to ditch the monarchy, the constitution of 1901  was designed to be a temporary document, even the late her Majesty Queen Lizzy wanted an Australian republic and had stated this publicly many times; she wanted an Australian republic to be by vote of the people, not her cutting the strings--so what happens when she dies? The fkn federal government puts up some derp as fk "Voice" referendum and not a republic one because he thinks its disrespectful to the late queen... no, its disrespectful not letting us vote on a republic.

Sorry to flood your theread with my rant

No problemo mate , an i am just killing my time here too

I dont like monarchy as a matter of fact .  The US style " constitutional federal republic"  would suit better for Australia, but i dont have a vote in that .

Sounds like they really screwed the whole thing there ,  that`s f..up  .

[Maxmars]

The topic of secession is much more robust than the media treatment it is publicly given.  In fact, it is also more complicated than the political treatment it is publicly given.

I have several perspectives regarding this topic; not the least of which is the entire "polling" of popular "opinion" and how reporting of results is both interpreted and 'used.'

- Polling, who does it, and why

A word about "YouGov" the "source" of the poll...

---

"YouGov is an international online research data and analytics technology group.
...
Our innovative solutions help the world’s most recognised [sic] brands, media owners and agencies to plan, activate and track their marketing activities better..."

---

My confidence in this source is medium to low.  One, because they are a marketing-focused for-profit enterprise, and two, because they are a foreign marketing resource activity that has no vested roots, or stake, in the people of the U.S. save their existence as data points relating to marketing.

Frankly this poll seems particularly relevant to those who 'decide' how to generate 'click-bait' and other attention-getting market opportunities.   Also, the posturing of this publication as some sort of 'bellwether' of "American sentiment" is disingenuous, considering the manner of its dissemination.

- The question asked - and of whom

"Would you support your state seceding from the U.S.?"

Simple, straight forward, and devoid of complicating detail, no?  Since reason and detail matters not, only sentiment informs the answer, so any response to this question become questionable.  How many children answered?  How many disaffected paid activist irritants?  How many hopelessly undereducated or ignorant reactionaries, how many political theater-entrenched surface thinkers?

We have no clear indication of the validity of the data except that it was ostensibly asked of "Americans" in regard to their "state."  Which seems especially relevant when you consider that many people might not really understand the nature of secession, outside of the mentality of a child "running away from home" because their favorite toy got taken away, or they are simply mad at mommy or daddy.

Now I must add that I do not wish to malign or discount the practice of polling, or the pollsters, but I am not so kind to those who presume to interpret the data for us... and tell us with 'certainty' what the results mean and how confident we should be about their assertions.  Their assertions might suffice for marketing (which has an aim of exploitation) but not for the resolution of societal or political ills.

+++++++++

I think more significantly, the entire notion of "secession" is simultaneously misunderstood and shamefully misrepresented - leading to most discussions about this topic being woefully incomplete and fragmented or disjointed. 

Since the information age engendered a 'new' culture of information consumption, it has failed to provide the benefits it could have, we now see many Wiki/YouTube-educated media consumers convinced that they "get it" and they "know" all about topics like secession.  They probably don't.

- What is secession?  

Secession is the 'declaring of independence' from your fundamental source of authority.  Most people would never consider what has to happen once you declare 'independence.'  They are only convinced that their favorite political personalities to hate, or their most irritating social reality, is no longer within the grasp of control of someone they themselves don't control.  They discount the giant tidal wave of unintended consequences which will fall upon them like a giant tower of Jenga blocks.  

In essence, secession is akin to a suicide threat.  Both tragic, engendering sympathy; and violently offensive to those who genuinely want to resolve the friction.

+++++++++

The U.S. seceded from Britain - in part because authority and sovereignty would not be shared (or even recognized.)  That movement took hold because it was commonly experienced that there were neither resolutions nor redress.  

Most of the angry people who feel that they should 'walk away' from the US may simply not realize that it would, in fact, "solve" nothing.

Any question of secession must be evaluated based on changes in sovereignty.  In that light the question becomes real, and the potential solutions are illuminated more clearly.  So yeah... every political party that loses representative majority will engender the 'secession' discussion... every sadly afflicted person who equates "politics" with "politicians" will rebel against their 'cult' villain and cry out "Secession!"  Every power-hungry entrepreneur will mobilize their resources to make the 'sound of fury' when their political investment sours.  And again, and again... "secession" will be the simplistic rallying cry.

The political thespian machinery will exploit that... using polls just like this to create the impression that "we all think" a certain way on the topic du jour ... and YouGov (and others) will be there (for a fee) to give them exactly the right tools to do so.  This is where political contributions go to die.

[Kenzo]

The topic of secession is much more robust than the media treatment it is publicly given.  In fact, it is also more complicated than the political treatment it is publicly given.

I have several perspectives regarding this topic; not the least of which is the entire "polling" of popular "opinion" and how reporting of results is both interpreted and 'used.'

- Polling, who does it, and why

A word about "YouGov" the "source" of the poll...

---

"YouGov is an international online research data and analytics technology group.
...
Our innovative solutions help the world’s most recognised [sic] brands, media owners and agencies to plan, activate and track their marketing activities better..."

---

My confidence in this source is medium to low.  One, because they are a marketing-focused for-profit enterprise, and two, because they are a foreign marketing resource activity that has no vested roots, or stake, in the people of the U.S. save their existence as data points relating to marketing.

Frankly this poll seems particularly relevant to those who 'decide' how to generate 'click-bait' and other attention-getting market opportunities.   Also, the posturing of this publication as some sort of 'bellwether' of "American sentiment" is disingenuous, considering the manner of its dissemination.

- The question asked - and of whom

"Would you support your state seceding from the U.S.?"

Simple, straight forward, and devoid of complicating detail, no?  Since reason and detail matters not, only sentiment informs the answer, so any response to this question become questionable.  How many children answered?  How many disaffected paid activist irritants?  How many hopelessly undereducated or ignorant reactionaries, how many political theater-entrenched surface thinkers?

We have no clear indication of the validity of the data except that it was ostensibly asked of "Americans" in regard to their "state."  Which seems especially relevant when you consider that many people might not really understand the nature of secession, outside of the mentality of a child "running away from home" because their favorite toy got taken away, or they are simply mad at mommy or daddy.

Now I must add that I do not wish to malign or discount the practice of polling, or the pollsters, but I am not so kind to those who presume to interpret the data for us... and tell us with 'certainty' what the results mean and how confident we should be about their assertions.  Their assertions might suffice for marketing (which has an aim of exploitation) but not for the resolution of societal or political ills.

+++++++++

I think more significantly, the entire notion of "secession" is simultaneously misunderstood and shamefully misrepresented - leading to most discussions about this topic being woefully incomplete and fragmented or disjointed. 

Since the information age engendered a 'new' culture of information consumption, it has failed to provide the benefits it could have, we now see many Wiki/YouTube-educated media consumers convinced that they "get it" and they "know" all about topics like secession.  They probably don't.

- What is secession?  

Secession is the 'declaring of independence' from your fundamental source of authority.  Most people would never consider what has to happen once you declare 'independence.'  They are only convinced that their favorite political personalities to hate, or their most irritating social reality, is no longer within the grasp of control of someone they themselves don't control.  They discount the giant tidal wave of unintended consequences which will fall upon them like a giant tower of Jenga blocks.  

In essence, secession is akin to a suicide threat.  Both tragic, engendering sympathy; and violently offensive to those who genuinely want to resolve the friction.

+++++++++

The U.S. seceded from Britain - in part because authority and sovereignty would not be shared (or even recognized.)  That movement took hold because it was commonly experienced that there were neither resolutions nor redress.  

Most of the angry people who feel that they should 'walk away' from the US may simply not realize that it would, in fact, "solve" nothing.

Any question of secession must be evaluated based on changes in sovereignty.  In that light the question becomes real, and the potential solutions are illuminated more clearly.  So yeah... every political party that loses representative majority will engender the 'secession' discussion... every sadly afflicted person who equates "politics" with "politicians" will rebel against their 'cult' villain and cry out "Secession!"  Every power-hungry entrepreneur will mobilize their resources to make the 'sound of fury' when their political investment sours.  And again, and again... "secession" will be the simplistic rallying cry.

The political thespian machinery will exploit that... using polls just like this to create the impression that "we all think" a certain way on the topic du jour ... and YouGov (and others) will be there (for a fee) to give them exactly the right tools to do so.  This is where political contributions go to die.

Thanks MM for the long effort

I did not know this YouGov  ,as what or who it is...or does it do the polls in good way , my bad ..

Pretty much agree with your view .  The " sovereignty"  might itself mean maybe something different now,  than like 100 or 200 years ago ? because the " globalization"  big corporations / rich entitys that now days operate and use power around World ?

[Maxmars]

Thanks MM for the long effort

I did not know this YouGov  ,as what or who it is...or does it do the polls in good way , my bad ..

Pretty much agree with your view .  The " sovereignty"  might itself mean maybe something different now,  than like 100 or 200 years ago ? because the " globalization"  big corporations / rich entitys that now days operate and use power around World ?

Oh, I think there is no fault about "who" ran the poll...

I think "YouGov" is no different than any other polling service.  And in theory, polling "should" work, it is a simple matter 'counting' really... same as "voting."  (But we can see just how well the "status quo" afficionados have made it impossible to count votes anymore.)  This is much the same.  It's almost as if the only way you can reliably trust polling is to do it yourself.

I think it complicates things when we ignore the fact that unlike in pre-industrial times, more power is now economic, as opposed to traditional or political. 

Even if we get our favorite 'personalities' in office... They cannot 'master' anything... Politicians don't "bring change" any more than actors "make" the movie.  That's why I call it "political theater" (and making "appearances" for the "game" is "political thespianism.")  But Machiavellian characters who do that actually "create" "appearances" with the help of the accursed.  (Pardon that hint of self-recrimination... for I cannot pretend that I haven't ignorantly allowed myself to propagate "appearances."  I despise "falling for it," but I have.)

[Byrd]

Welp... it seems the poll is legit and proper (https://polsci.umass.edu/research/umass-...ethodology - and yes, I check these things) but I think it's one of those issues that people react to without there being any serious discussion or debate.

And the idea is pretty dumb, IMHO.  All states rely on Federal government monies to some extent and very few could actually survive on their own.  Once they leave, they have NO treaties with any other state, the remaining US, or any other nation in the world.  There's no obligation for the US government to send troops to (say) Texas (29,000,000 people and change) if Mexico (for a rather silly example) wanted to send their army (261,000 people at most) to try and annex Texas (19,000 soldiers approximately.)  Nor could Texas immediately conscript and train enough people to hold back 200,000 soldiers ready to march across its borders the minute they say "bye, Felicia" to the rest of the US.

But let's say that doesn't happen.  Other things will.  Since Texas would be a Different Country, you'll need passports or visas.  Truck drivers will have to have visas or passports.  States can start charging Texas to cross their borders, etc.  And there goes the interstate highway system (Abbot will be too busy frothing about the border to improve our roads.  He's already shown that side of his policies.)

So it's an idea without any discussion.  If we'd been having serious discussions, you'd see different results, IMHO.

[Maxmars]

Welp... it seems the poll is legit and proper (https://polsci.umass.edu/research/umass-...ethodology - and yes, I check these things) but I think it's one of those issues that people react to without there being any serious discussion or debate.
....
So it's an idea without any discussion.  If we'd been having serious discussions, you'd see different results, IMHO.

First off - THANK YOU...

I think that it's important to determine the specifics.  And also, it bears mentioning that they are not hiding the data.  So I apologize, unnecessarily maybe, to all you statistically inclined folks out there who know that the problems aren't in the math.

But perhaps more importantly, aside from the specifics, it shows that information consumerism has led to a point in public affairs where people can be manipulated, and that is only amplified by ignorance, which we must eliminate, contextually speaking.  Debate has a civic purpose... its chief strength is that it can't be directly controlled without obvious tyranny.  Since the information we receive seems to be in lieu of debate, the debate is 'crafted.'

You are most correct, I think, that if there were a serious-minded discussion or debate about secession, it might just educate us all.  Too bad no one will join me in the debate forum.

[Kenzo]

Oh, I think there is no fault about "who" ran the poll...

I think "YouGov" is no different than any other polling service.  And in theory, polling "should" work, it is a simple matter 'counting' really... same as "voting."  (But we can see just how well the "status quo" afficionados have made it impossible to count votes anymore.)  This is much the same.  It's almost as if the only way you can reliably trust polling is to do it yourself.

I think it complicates things when we ignore the fact that unlike in pre-industrial times, more power is now economic, as opposed to traditional or political. 

Even if we get our favorite 'personalities' in office... They cannot 'master' anything... Politicians don't "bring change" any more than actors "make" the movie.  That's why I call it "political theater" (and making "appearances" for the "game" is "political thespianism.")  But Machiavellian characters who do that actually "create" "appearances" with the help of the accursed.  (Pardon that hint of self-recrimination... for I cannot pretend that I haven't ignorantly allowed myself to propagate "appearances."  I despise "falling for it," but I have.)

I just remembered Brexit .....now i dont know does it qualify as secession , and i dont live in UK....but somehow i did got the picture it did not go as people wished ...i may be wrong also . One thing they selled the Brexit was to stop migrants , but it actually increased after Brexit ( if i remember )

Maybe Brits are now happy , by not anymore in EU ...not sure the economy there thought, i remember seeing news how rich people are moving out UK , ( rats leaving the ship ?  )

So in that sense ,politicians don't "bring change"  necessarily.

[Maxmars]

In regard to the EU and the U.K.'s "Brexit," I believe there were always doubts in some circles regarding the relationship between "UK sovereignty " and "EU primacy."  Interestingly, the same few generations of people who saw the birth of the "European Community" in the '70s and its maturation into the European Union actually experienced, first-hand, all those things they were warned about before they committed to the 'EU.' 

The UK was the only sovereign nation that appears to have understood the math and withdrew.  The idea that a nation of people should abandon the laws they developed and the courts they implemented, in favor of a 'theoretical' ideal provided by an "outside" entity whose only connection to your nation was 'geographic regionality' proved ill-advised.

But they did demonstrate what many the West thought unlikely... that the 'divorce' could be amicable... go figure.

I think it is difficult to categorize Brexit as a "secession."  No nation in that loose affiliation of economic cooperation can be said to be 'subordinated' to the whole... (unless you ask the banks for whom this was all done.)