Should downstate IL secede?

[RINO Tom]

No, and we don't want to, I really want this horrid hypothetical to die, etc.  Illinois is a great and diverse state, from Chicago to Cairo, and we like it that way!

Should the rest of [state] secede from [its biggest city]?  Only an idiot voted yes.

[RINO Tom]

No, and we don't want to, I really want this horrid hypothetical to die, etc.  Illinois is a great and diverse state, from Chicago to Cairo, and we like it that way!

Should the rest of [state] secede from [its biggest city]?  Only an idiot voted yes.

Southern illinois should just rename itself Northern Kentucky. 

"Northern Kentucky should just rename itself Southern Illinois."

[RINO Tom]

Yes. I don't care if it hurts my party, it's just the right thing for the sake of community representation.

Uh, no it's not. The new state would be an economic basket case and would have no money. Much like upstate NY downstate Illinois relies on metro Chicago to fund it.

Every state relies on its main population center to fund it, there's just an army of morons who insist of always separating ours for the sake of hypotheticals.  Our state without all of Chicagoland is almost as big as yours with the Twin Cities.

[RINO Tom]

LOL, I was 8, but I'm not sure why that's relevant.  My entire family is from there, and I still feel a lot of attachment to the state and have a vested interest in it turning things around.  My point in all of this is why are we even asking about Champaign's status if it didn't have Chicago?  It DOES have Chicago, and it always will have Chicago as a complimenting asset.  Illinois is one state, period.

It's also not fair to assume that Downstate Illinois would be the same as it is now in a world where it isn't attached to Chicagoland.  Cities like Rockford and Peoria and Champaign have specifically developed the way they have because of Chicago; if Chicago were never part of the state, another area in this new state of "Downstate IL" would have become much more important, and somewhere like Peoria would probably take on the size and importance of a Des Moines over time.  Additionally, Downstate's government would have operated a lot more like an Iowa or an Indiana has - two states with way fewer problems than IL - and likely would have economic conditions more similar to both over time.  However, the fact is that Downstate does share a state with Chicagoland, and everything about those cities is a result of sharing that state.  It's completely unfair to imagine Downstate without Chicago unless we pretty much "started over," in which case Downstate would be a totally different place for obvious reasons.

[RINO Tom]

Yeah, and so should upstate NY.

Good luck upstate...NYC taxpayers fund like 80% of the state

...and Downstate interests are responsible for mandates on local government and other policies that drive up government costs up by just as much. Maybe a free and independent Upstate NY wouldn't share some of the highest per capita spending on education and Medicaid in the country?

There is no reason why we could not be an economically viable state on our own, and having a state government that better represents the interests of rural places and small cities would do a lot to improve the quality of life for people living here. NYC would most likely be better off, too, if it could govern itself.

The corrupt suburban machines originating out of Long Island and the Lower Hudson, on the other hand, would be left in rough shape. The Capital Region aside, most of Upstate New York could do better with a government that is closer and more accountable to its interests.

Exactly.  Upstate NY and Downstate IL are the way they are BECAUSE of those cities.  They weren't struggling regions that NYC and Chicago graciously annexed, they're the remainder of the states with those cities, and they adapted accordingly.  There is zero reason to believe that the problems which respectively plague each region would persist at current levels with the removal of those cities.  Would they also face additional problems and stand to lose from the removal of those cities?  I certainly think so ... but people are taking away the advantages of having those cities in their states while keeping the problems of having those cities in their states, and that is stupid.