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.
So that means at the STATE level, the opposition needs to rise up and make sure they can defeat the controlling party so they can redraw lines. Makes state politics more important and equally as important as federal politics. Part of the game of state politics sir. And maybe Maryland and Illinois are good states to break up too.
Southern MD should join DC and Northern VA to be New Columbia. I think the Chicago metro area should be their own state called Chicago. I bet you would not mind that if you lived there. Would not be subject to the rest of Illinois's business.
Using your previous criteria of shared interests and culture, exactly what interests and culture does rural Southern Maryland share with urban DC and urbanized Northern VA?
Its time for the USA to expand out to 55-60 states. Simply put, the people are under represented now.
I can buy the argument that the people are underrepresented now due to population growth.
The solution to that issue, however, is not to increase the number of states, but to enlarge the House of Representatives (the "Peoples' House") from 435 to some more suitable number. The House has had 435 members since 1913, when the U.S. population was 97.225 million, or one Representative per 224,000 constituents. With a population of 325 million (+/-), that has been diluted to about 1 Representative per 747,000 constituents.
If the number of representatives in Congress had kept pace with population growth, the House would have something on the order of 1,450 members today.
Changing the law to permit a larger number of Representatives would be much easier than trying to carve new states out of existing ones. Granted, this would start another redistricting fight, but we have those at least once every ten years with the publication of the decennial Census anyway. It would still be easier than subdividing the current set of states.
Its time for the USA to expand out to 55-60 states. Simply put, the people are under represented now.
1. Hawaii was the 50th state added in 1959. USA population was 178,000,000
2. In 2017, USA population is 330,000,000
3. This has been the longest we have gone in our nation's history without a new state being added.
4. It is ok to have states divided based on culture, politics, etc. That is how the people are best represented.
5. Thus it is ok to change things up. And break states up to get better representation. Northern Virginia is not compatible with the rest of Virginia. The Northern VA counties and cities should break off and join Washington DC and the southern Maryland counties and become a state. Obviously their interests is to serve residents who work in gov't related jobs. While the rest of VA might not have those interests. (New Columbia, Virginia)
6. New York should break between the city and upstate. Tapanzee bridge is a good dividing line. Obviously a conflict there. (New York, New Amsterdam)
7. Northern California and Southern Oregan can become Jefferson and not have the interests of LA, San Fran, and Portland in the way.
Maybe could make cases for partition in other states too. Just not sure how to go about this legally. The USA needs a shake up to help better represent its citizens. Also the federal government is too powerful. The Federal government had two main repsonbilities at the formation of the nation: 1) common national defense 2)common currency. Aside from that the states had jurisdiction. Most tax money back then went to the states, not the feds. Now its just insane the beuraracy we got going now.
I think I am speaking from a practical point of view. Not "left" or "right"
cool we split all the high pop large states and give them all 2 senators...
(and so ends the Rs , they rely on red empty states)
I can buy the argument that the people are underrepresented now due to population growth.
The solution to that issue, however, is not to increase the number of states, but to enlarge the House of Representatives (the "Peoples' House") from 435 to some more suitable number. The House has had 435 members since 1913, when the U.S. population was 97.225 million, or one Representative per 224,000 constituents. With a population of 325 million (+/-), that has been diluted to about 1 Representative per 747,000 constituents.
If the number of representatives in Congress had kept pace with population growth, the House would have something on the order of 1,450 members today.
Changing the law to permit a larger number of Representatives would be much easier than trying to carve new states out of existing ones. Granted, this would start another redistricting fight, but we have those at least once every ten years with the publication of the decennial Census anyway. It would still be easier than subdividing the current set of states.
I have been an advocate of this for many years, but have since expanded my thoughts in that there should be a 3rd Senator from each state appointed the old way and the establishment of regional governmental seats to accommodate an expanded house: DC, Atlanta, Dallas, Des Moines, Phoenix, and Boise all interconnected virtually.
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.
