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.
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.
Not true. Virginia was broken in a deal between Unionists in Wheeling and the Federal government. The Unionist government had little support and was always a minority government. The Union governor, Pierpont, told Lincoln- "The Union men of West VA were not originally for the Union because of the new state." West Virginians were happy to be Virginians, which is why the original name of "Kanawha" was rejected and "West Virginia" was chosen. Once the war was over West Virginians threw out the Unionist government and their constitution.
Lincoln signed the bill because Pierpont had 3 Congressmen and 2 Senators who would immediately retaliate against Lincoln and because Pierpont hinted that what support there was for him might waver if he didn't give them the new state. It was also a way to punish Virginia for making the Confederacy a going concern.
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?
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.
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.
