I started this pole because I'm curious of what people think. Which division do you feel is the most redundant and/or pointless? After you vote please explain your reasoning.

I voted Hummer because GM really doesn't need this division. GM already has 3 divisions (Chevy, Cadillac, GMC) plus Isuzu selling truck based SUV's... most of which could probably do everything that a Hummer H3 or H2 can do with the advantage of higher fuel economy. Believe me, if gas prices were lower I would love to drive a much larger vehicle but they arent and many people are moving away from these vehicles into crossovers. I don't think that a Hummer crossover is a good idea. Look how the Compass tarnished Jeep's image to its enthusiasts. A division that is entirely composed of a shrinking market segment is not a good investment for GM. Also even though I'm a GM guy I would buy a Jeep before I bought a Hummer. Finally, the true Hummer, the H1, is gone and all that is left is a Tahoe and Trailblazer with different, uglier sheet metal.

On this order

1. Hummer
2. GMC
3. Saturn
4. Saab
5. Buick
6. Pontiac
7. Cadillac
8. Chevrolet/Opel/Vauxhall (these are the foundation of GM)

I voted against Saab.

I'm not sure where does Saab fit in the pricing spectrum. As I assume it is and is marketed as a premium label, I would hope that the standards of quality are appropriate to the desired image.

I remember recently driving on a suburban multi-lane surface road. In front of me in different lanes were two sedans a Chevrolet and a Pontiac. Without the trunk keyhole cover emblems, I would not know them apart.

I think Buick is doing much better now, with portholes on its Lucerne models. I read the stories in 2003 about how much of a joke it was to resurrect the 1950s styling of Harley Earl, Sr. Brand identity is one half of a car's success. The other half is enticing new and younger buyers. Thankfully the average Buick buyer is no longer over 50 years of age.

I care about the Earth a lot; I send a lot of things that cannot be recyled locally to a recycler in Chicago, though I do not know what kind of a carbon footprint is created by this act.

Anyway, if GM is profitable because of Hummer, then let it be. It is the people who choose to drive these monstrosities of innefficiency and self-worship. The idea that a car is "safer" because you can mow down a family in a Ford Escort and not get yourself hurt is preposterous. Now with the fuel price increase, the Hummer is even more a symbol of excess, because only those to whom money does not matter, or those with very high limits on their credit cards, can afford its operation.

Depends what you mean by "get rid".
If you mean sell rather than close/end, I'd vote Saab: GM does not seem to do good things with that make. I guess it may be better in the hands of another group, or even some non-automotive group/owner, i.e. as separate make. It seems that Saab lost lots of its spirit since it is fully owner by GM, without gain more popularity.

I'm not sure that, as a European, I should be voting, but I voted for the Hummer. Not, I'm afraid, on ecological or even economic grounds, but because it seems to me to be a cynical attempt to appeal to the worst in the American (and, unfortunately, not only the American) psyche: ultimate machismo combined with excessive bling. And even in a market sector not noted for beauty, it's so bloody ugly ... GM already has perfectly good SUVs made in the USA and elsewhere in the world; the Hummer is ultimately unnecessary.

You haven't seen yet the International's XT series yet then the description of that one is a "nice" example:
http://www.internationaltrucks.com/portal/site/ITrucks/menuitem.2fea1fe726559abc- 31f8e968121010a0/?vgnextoid=8cec3378c8d9e010VgnVCM10000085d0eb0aRCRD

OMG ... well, nobody said GM was the only offender!

I wonder why these are not more common amongst the rich tasteless people. If you can get a Hummer with chrome wheels, why not get one of these directly ?