Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyneras
Hamlin-3 has already demonstrated it has an extreme government intent on concentrating power in as small an area as possible with it's insane 16th amendment. I would only expect it to continue to treat everything outside its densest population centers as vassals or helots. The USA really only worked because power and wealth were well distributed and this is the exact opposite. I'd expect at least 1 more civil war before the end of the century, followed by general grinding oppression. This USA would probably lose Texas and California to Mexico once they realized the nation was self destructing.
|
I mean, the fact that you can't offer evidence that the Senate has ever been good in our timeline somewhat undermines your point. London was the head of the Westminster system, sometimes called the "dictatorship of democracy", and even though it has members with histories as nation states (e.g. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales), it hasn't actually devolved since the rise of the Irish Republic, which coincided with full manhood suffrage and had been coming for half a decade. It's also not true that wealth and development were evenly spread out across the country. The South was poor during Jim Crow, it was far more rural, it was broke. Today, the distance between Mississippi and Maryland in median income is thirty-five thousand dollars - nearly 4/5th the median income in Mississippi.
If Hamlin-3 legislators were trying to cut out the South, they would've been to make states in accord with the military districts - Leaving the South with less Senators than New England. Not making it so that everybody got co-equal representation based on the population of their states.