Besides which, the folks in the state capital would have to approve the secession. Do you think the politicians are really going to be okay with giving up a major state asset? Eastern Washington state has been trying the same stupid stunt for decades now. The end result is always the same, the electorate in and around Seattle is far too big and greedy. That's why folks in Spokane pay for a new Seahawks stadium, despite the fact that 99% of them will never make it to a home game in person. It's also why an entire state can vote for the PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. candidate except for two counties, and yet the PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. wins, which is exactly what happened in the last Gubernatorial election in Washington.

The rural areas of a state are stuck with the decisions of the metropolitan masses, and there's really no provision in any state constitution anywhwere that would allow them to somehow overrule the majority. It's also why winning Nebraska or North Dakota in the presidential election is not really a factor 99% of the time.

Your best bet is to live in a state that has virtually no metropolitan population, or with a rural population that is competitively close. Anyone ready to go to Wyoming yet?(population approx 530,000, Cheyenne is the most populated town at approx 53,000, roughly 1/10th the state. I don't think anyone could call Cheyenne a metropolitan area).