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.
You first decide how may states. I think 50 is always a nice number. That says about 6 million people each.
You then start from the great cities and extend them contiguously until you have 6 million people. NYC gets stripped to 6 million. Long Island, Yonkers and Westchester go independent. And Philadelphia and Atlanta and Washington (ignore the DC problem)
Then you take what is left over and divide it up into the 6 million segments to absorb the rest.
When you are done you have Fifty states with rationally common interests.
In the east they may not get out of the city limits. In the west they may extent thousand and thousands of square miles.
And we end up with a reasonably representative republic.
Very interesting idea, but I think it would a disaster if you had multiple states within one metro. It's already a headache dealing with the multi-state agencies, tax issues, different laws/regulations, etc. that are present between NJ/PA, NJ/NY, etc. If anything, I would make the two new states in my modified map into one. Trying to get five state governments (NYC, LI, Westchester, Yonkers, North Jersey) in the NY metro to cooperate would be pretty much impossible.
Downstate Illinois is once again proposing in the state senate a bill to split the Chicago area away from the rest of the state.
ironic, since the Chicago area actually gives a lot more to the rest of the state than the state gives to Chicago. Chicago is a cash cow. Most people in Chicago would be fine if we cut off the southern 80% of the state. It would certainly help our finances.
Split Pennsylvania in half, Ohio in two, and New York in three. Combine the western part of PA, northeast Ohio, and the Buffalo/Niagara Falls metro area into a single state. Cleveland, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh belong together and share common interests. Those cities would thrive if they were in a state where the government favors urban amenities over facilitating sprawl. Look no further than the debate over the west shoreway in Cleveland.
Merge the rest of Ohio with Kentucky.
Not sure what would happen to Columbus. It feels like it should be in North Carolina, but West Virginia and Virginia get in the way.
Just let South Jersey separate, which was attempted about 1980. That would be Burlington County, Camden County, Gloucester Count, Salem County, Atlantic County, Cumberland County, & Cape May County. The same counties who tried to separate the last time.
Very interesting idea, but I think it would a disaster if you had multiple states within one metro. It's already a headache dealing with the multi-state agencies, tax issues, different laws/regulations, etc. that are present between NJ/PA, NJ/NY, etc. If anything, I would make the two new states in my modified map into one. Trying to get five state governments (NYC, LI, Westchester, Yonkers, North Jersey) in the NY metro to cooperate would be pretty much impossible.
You have to name your poison I think.
If you wish to establish states with NYC and close coupled as the model you are going to end up with 20 states of 15 million each.
There is another way. We might vary the number of Senators...Go for geography on the state borders....NYC/Nassau/Westchester/Lower Conn./Northern NJ. Run it down and bump it against the northern border of PA. Then assign a Senator for every 3 million people.
When we get out to the great open spaces we start from the large municipalities and grow contiguously until we hit the minimum population.
If you wish to establish states with NYC and close coupled as the model you are going to end up with 20 states of 15 million each.
There is another way. We might vary the number of Senators...Go for geography on the state borders....NYC/Nassau/Westchester/Lower Conn./Northern NJ. Run it down and bump it against the northern border of PA. Then assign a Senator for every 3 million people.
When we get out to the great open spaces we start from the large municipalities and grow contiguously until we hit the minimum population.
This may actually be in order. I understand that the 2 senators/state concept is very important in U.S. government history (Connecticut Compromise) and is meant to protect the interests of the smaller states. At the same time, in the 21st century I feel that there is a lot of legislation that needs to be passed that the vast majority of Americans support, but is being held up by podunk senators from random states. Rather than protecting the smaller states, the Senate's makeup may actually be harming the nation as a whole.
This may actually be in order. I understand that the 2 senators/state concept is very important in U.S. government history (Connecticut Compromise) and is meant to protect the interests of the smaller states. At the same time, in the 21st century I feel that there is a lot of legislation that needs to be passed that the vast majority of Americans support, but is being held up by podunk senators from random states. Rather than protecting the smaller states, the Senate's makeup may actually be harming the nation as a whole.
so your saying rural, low population states are full of idiots?
and no matter what any law needs to pass BOTH houses.
Well no. It makes no real difference whether they are bright and wise or evil and dumb. They get their way at least negatively. . If the low population states wish they can block anything. What does take? 25% or less of the population can prevent any legislation from occurring.
But it is only a certain 25%. We give a narrow set of people far more authority to refuse change. Why should RI residents have what 60 times the right to block change as people in CA?
Yup we need a second house...at least with respect to peoplle represented.
Well no. It makes no real difference whether they are bright and wise or evil and dumb. They get their way at least negatively. . If the low population states wish they can block anything. What does take? 25% or less of the population can prevent any legislation from occurring.
But it is only a certain 25%. We give a narrow set of people far more authority to refuse change. Why should RI residents have what 60 times the right to block change as people in CA?
Yup we need a second house...at least with respect to peoplle represented.
Because the senate see each state as an equal part of this country, which legally they are, every state has the same rights and responisblites.
If RI doesn't want something but California does, if both houses were like the House or Reps. then California, New York, Florida, Illinois and Texas would get whatever they wanted, while the rest of the country would get ignored.
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.
