U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-21-2014, 05:10 AM
 
Location: Ohio, USA
1,085 posts, read 1,348,786 times
Reputation: 970

Advertisements

Change the "Delmarva" peninsula to just Delaware.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-22-2014, 11:54 AM
 
Location: The Circle City. Sometimes NE of Bagdad.
18,597 posts, read 19,568,094 times
Reputation: 48836
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D View Post
I wonder if this will play out. Californias will have even more water issues this way, at least in certain ones. Especially for the LA metro, which is oddly split up considering the IE (at least some of it, I believe) and OC will be in SoCal but the rest won't. LA currently gets a good amount of water from the Colorado River. If this goes through, they won't. Their water prices will shoot through the roof...

If I was in the Bay Area... I'd be fighting the name Silicon Valley with every fiber of my being. That's a terrible name for a state.

But I wonder if six is too much?
I don't think Congress would buy into it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Carrboro, NC
1,462 posts, read 1,448,224 times
Reputation: 1878
California's not 'too big to manage'. It has a crummy state Constitution that allows terrible propositions to be put on easily, such as this one. This doesn't fix the problem it just magnifies it by a factor of 6. It's not the only state with a dysfunctional state-level government. Lots of states have pretty terrible governments that slide under the radar because they're not the most populous and important state in the country.

In my opinion, ballot propositions serve a purpose but they should only be used to regulate voting and governmental operations. They should be kept out of economic and social issues because it's easy enough for people to be fleeced into voting for something terrible.

Now if they were just splitting it into two parts, NorCal and SoCal, that would be more logical and I could get behind it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,920 posts, read 6,554,989 times
Reputation: 5394
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricNorthman View Post
How about putting West Virginia back with Virginia? The war is over.
That war will never be over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,920 posts, read 6,554,989 times
Reputation: 5394
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl View Post
The American states range from small to large in both population and size. In some cases size correlates to population (California and Texas as examples). In other cases, size does not correlate to population (Alaska, New Jersey, Montana, Massachusetts, etc.).
These land areas and associated populations come with political implications. For example, sparsely populated states get the same Senate representation that the larger ones do. In that regard, states like CA and TX are under represented in the Senate and states like Alaska and Montana are over represented relative to their populations.
I can't help but think that this type of discussion can't happen without considering those consequences....even if "just for fun". For me, that fun would be in how to shape the states to an advantage that I'd like to see.

To that end, I'd combine the Dakotas into one state. I'd also tie Utah and Idaho together because of their strong Mormon communities and influence. I'd cut California into two manageable sizes and I'd also cut Texas in two. I'd peel off the panhandle from Florida and give it to Alabama and combine the greater Jacksonville area into Georgia. In the end, we'd still have 50 states and we wouldn't have to redo the flag.
I realize we are wedded to the Constitution as if it were the holy grail and for every interpretation of it, we end up thinking "what did the framers have in mind." but what if we wanted to think out of the box. the reason that our Senate was based on states was due to the fact that the republic was only about 10 years old in 1787 when the Constitution was written and our 13 colonies-turned-states still operated on the notion that the state was paramount and each state was an entity all its own. At that time, many people saw themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers instead of Americans.

but that is hardly true today and certainly most states that came in after the original 13 were merely lines drawn on a map; many states thus had regions that really had nothing in common.

so how about thinking outside the box. Why do states have to have representation in Congress. we still have a federal system with the states operating in their own sphere, having powers of their own. There is no reason that a state has to have itself represented in Congress.

so what if we even things out, get rid of the absurdity that California's 35 million people get the same 2 senators as North Dakota's two cows and their owner. Why not set up 100 senatorial districts across the country with some that may be only within one state and others that include more than one state within their boundaries?

A democracy is based on people being represented, not on a piece of real estate (our states) being represented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,920 posts, read 6,554,989 times
Reputation: 5394
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-D View Post
I wonder if this will play out. Californias will have even more water issues this way, at least in certain ones. Especially for the LA metro, which is oddly split up considering the IE (at least some of it, I believe) and OC will be in SoCal but the rest won't. LA currently gets a good amount of water from the Colorado River. If this goes through, they won't. Their water prices will shoot through the roof...

If I was in the Bay Area... I'd be fighting the name Silicon Valley with every fiber of my being. That's a terrible name for a state.

But I wonder if six is too much?
Darn right. Call it the State of Bay Area or, if you prefer, the State of Francisco. SF should stand up and shout: you may have gotten the 49ers but you're not getting the name of our state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 11:10 PM
 
506 posts, read 263,766 times
Reputation: 316
I'd propose splitting California into "Northern California" and "Southern California", with San Luis Obispo being in the north, Fresno (the special case) being on the north, and Mammoth Lakes being on the south. The capital of "Northern California" would be Sacramento, and that of "Southern California" to be Bakersfield or Los Angeles.

Splitting Texas may also be interesting, though I don't know how I would want to split Texas. Maybe have a "North Texas" that has Oklahoma added in and a "South Texas". We can have the dividing line continue along the horizontal line that divides New Mexico and Texas. "North Texas"'s capital could be Dallas or Oklahoma City. "South Texas"'s capital could be San Antonio or Austin.

I think the current Montana-Idaho-Wyoming configuration doesn't need to be touched upon quite yet.

We could combine the the Dakotas. Put the capital at Bismarck or Aberdeen, SD.

Combine Arkansas and Louisiana and put the capital at Shreveport.

Transfer the Florida Panhandle to Alabama.

Merge Kentucky with Tennessee and put the new state capital at Nashville.

Merge Maryland and Delaware. Annapolis is good enough as the new capital.

Merge Connecticut and Rhode Island. The new capital could go at Hartford.

Merge Vermont and New Hampshire. The new capital could go at Concord, Montpelier, or Manchester, NH.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2014, 12:15 AM
 
Location: Metro Atlanta & Savannah, GA - Corpus Christi, TX
4,475 posts, read 7,299,646 times
Reputation: 2217
I don't know how Texans would feel about being split up, but I like the idea of the Florida panhandle going to Alabama. Tallahassee eastward to Jacksonville should go to Georgia though.

I would put the new Florida-Georgia border at Ocala. Ocala being on the Georgia side along with Daytona and Cedar Key.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2014, 12:30 AM
 
Location: Arvada, CO
13,240 posts, read 24,450,303 times
Reputation: 13011
Do this instead:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...l_pop_maps.jpg
__________________
Moderator for Los Angeles, The Inland Empire, and the Washington state forums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2014, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Austin
596 posts, read 677,704 times
Reputation: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by tisnjh View Post
I'd propose splitting California into "Northern California" and "Southern California", with San Luis Obispo being in the north, Fresno (the special case) being on the north, and Mammoth Lakes being on the south. The capital of "Northern California" would be Sacramento, and that of "Southern California" to be Bakersfield or Los Angeles.

Splitting Texas may also be interesting, though I don't know how I would want to split Texas. Maybe have a "North Texas" that has Oklahoma added in and a "South Texas". We can have the dividing line continue along the horizontal line that divides New Mexico and Texas. "North Texas"'s capital could be Dallas or Oklahoma City. "South Texas"'s capital could be San Antonio or Austin.

I think the current Montana-Idaho-Wyoming configuration doesn't need to be touched upon quite yet.

We could combine the the Dakotas. Put the capital at Bismarck or Aberdeen, SD.

Combine Arkansas and Louisiana and put the capital at Shreveport.

Transfer the Florida Panhandle to Alabama.

Merge Kentucky with Tennessee and put the new state capital at Nashville.

Merge Maryland and Delaware. Annapolis is good enough as the new capital.

Merge Connecticut and Rhode Island. The new capital could go at Hartford.

Merge Vermont and New Hampshire. The new capital could go at Concord, Montpelier, or Manchester, NH.
Why? Of the states Arkansas borders, I think it has the least in common with Louisiana.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top