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.
Thats one of the most ridiculous outlines, why would Michigan want to deal with Saginaw, Flint, Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland all in one. These cities continually rank high in crime, and depression.
I also notice the other half of the state with Chicago. I know alot of people in Chicago would do just about anything to claim all of Lake Michigan.
It sure doesn't benefit Florida. Florida would trade the Redneck Riviera for just back wood redneck in Southern Georgia. At least with the panhandle, Florida benefits from the resort towns. It doesn't appear that Florida...err....Biscayne would even pick up Savannah. If you're going to give Southern Georgia, at the very least include Savannah!
As for what "was" the majority of North Carolina (now Albemarle) the big losses are Charlotte and Asheville. What "Albemarle" gains is much more coast line with both Hampton Roads and Myrtle Beach in addition to the Southern Virginia counties that are, in fact, part of the Triangle's and Triad's TV markets anyway. I'd say that the population would be a wash with the additions and subtractions.
The new "Piedmont" state is really hardly anything more than the current bloated Metro Atlanta CSA.
The new "Carolina" is a strange shape to me and doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Charlotte would be the big city of the state by far but placed very decentralized in it. I think that would be a problem.
I agree that is a really stupid map...
You should have the Gulf Coast split from about edge of Western LA to somewhere in the panhandle...but not upwards. Then give GA Jacksonville section, then FL would just be the rest of FL.
As a Cleveland resident, it seems better to be in the same state as Pittsburgh than Columbus and Cincy. The two cities are more connected to each other than the rest of Ohio or PA. In fact, I even made up a state where Cleveland and Pittsburgh are together, and named it Allegheny
New York (or whatever state had that city & metro) would become the most powerful state. California & Texas would both get screwed with this. So nope, just even trying to vision that wouldn't work out nicely for collective thoughts.
Old post but I do not think Texas is really that screwed by this. She retains the bulk of her prime territory and population. However, I do agree that California is screwed by this proposal.
1.I dont understand why alaska needs to be split into two.
2.This would ruin a lot of small cities that exist only because of their political power. The map seems to preserve major city's power in a state nicely and doesnt do anything stupid like making minneapolis grouped with the dakotas, wyoming, montana for example.
3.I think this would ruin vast areas of the country but overall the most economically important areas would benfit from this change.
Makes sense. The states were set up at a time when communication and transportation were poor, so smaller states were favored. It's not a coincidence that the states get bigger as you go west - both communication and transportation improved dramatically over the years. Today, we have fifty governments which often perform duplicate functions which could be handled much more efficiently by the federal government, or at least by a much smaller number of districts (states) than 50. That's why the current Tea Party push for states' rights kind of baffles me.
States are irrelevant today imo. Maybe it's just my perspective as someone from South Jersey who works and plays in Philadelphia during the summers, and who during the rest of the year attends college in Maryland but always goes to DC.
Sorry but I don't want people in other regions to influence the Pacific Northwest anymore than they already do with a pure federal system. But - I do think maybe we could divide the US into like 12 or 13 regions rather than 50 states. I mean what's the difference between Idaho and Montana or Alabama and Mississippi, or North Dakota and Minnesota? Nothing too meaningful.
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.
But - I do think maybe we could divide the US into like 12 or 13 regions rather than 50 states. I mean what's the difference between Idaho and Montana or Alabama and Mississippi, or North Dakota and Minnesota? Nothing too meaningful.
