In response to:

What the Election Won't Settle

M.K. Wrote: Oct 29, 2012 4:02 PM
Separate the red states from the blue states. Let each group have its own business plan and energy policy. See which works best. I would bet on the red states because liberals don't know anything about job creation and they hate oil and coal.
Fred_PA_2000 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 12:07 PM
While I agree with your sentiments, I have always been a little baffled by the following conundrum:

Namely, blue state voters tend to have higher incomes than red state voters. And the blue state voters reliably vote to transfer wealth from the more wealthy to the less wealthy. Which results in (typically) net tax deficits for the blue states (they get back less than they pay in), and net tax surpluses for the red states. If the red state voters were merely voting their own self-interest, they'd vote to continue the transfer of blue-state wealth to their own red-state coffers.
I'm reminding all my friends here in Denver not to believe their vote is worthless. Our swing state’s nine electoral votes could hand the presidency to Romney or Obama -- and the Colorado outcome in 2012 could turn on a few hundred ballots, much like the Florida outcome in 2000.

Historians point out that within months of achieving statehood in 1876, Colorado with its measly three electoral tipped the presidential election for Rutherford B. Hayes. Yet the dominant issue of that era, equal rights for former black slaves, wasn’t settled by the election. It troubled the American conscience for almost...