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.
That is a terrible idea.
You know Alaska has less than a Million people right??
In fact only 17 states out of 50 have more than 6M people.
For Alaska to get to 6M it would have to cross a different country and hundreds of miles of ocean.
Hawaii has the same problem.
also Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Utah would have to be combined. That is just crazy big. compared to little 300 sq mile NY.
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.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely understand and respect the purpose for the Senate's composition. It just seems unfair that certain individual senators have such a huge influence.
It's interesting because over the years the Supreme Court has forced every state legislature (and I think city councils, etc too but not sure) to make its upper house (usually called the state senate) population-based. It seems that the Senate is the only outlier in the nation in this respect.
You know Alaska has less than a Million people right??
In fact only 17 states out of 50 have more than 6M people.
For Alaska to get to 6M it would have to cross a different country and hundreds of miles of ocean.
Hawaii has the same problem.
also Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Utah would have to be combined. That is just crazy big. compared to little 300 sq mile NY.
The other side of that argument however is that 2.57 million people in the four smallest states have the same say in the Senate as 100.5 million people in the four largest states. So we favor the citizen of small states by a factor of almost 40. That is of particular concern in their ability to block action. In fact 31 million voters from 20 states have the power to block senate action. So just a little over 10% of the population has a veto right over the rest of us. And more practically 20% of the population can and does block the desires of the rest pretty frequently.
As I also suggested if we wished to maintain the geographic integrity of certain or all states we could resort to proportionality. Then Alaska could still have two Senators...but their vote would be worth 1/30th that of the two from CA.
I also am not sure there is anything wrong with crazy big...if unpopulated. I would expect that AZ and NM and NV share a whole lot in common. Likewise the Mountain West. And Alaska would tie well with them even if geographically separated. Tie Hawaii to part of CA.
The other side of that argument however is that 2.57 million people in the four smallest states have the same say in the Senate as 100.5 million people in the four largest states. So we favor the citizen of small states by a factor of almost 40.
As I also suggested if we wished to maintain the geographic integrity of certain or all states we could resort to proportionality.
exactly!!! it is not the physical size of the empty states that is the problem it is their population and representation.
I am more for splitting up more populous states into smaller chunks (California into 3, Pennsylvania into 3, Texas into 5) than randomly assigning a population to carve out states from.
What are you going to do? Move the state lines every two years??
I have attached a map of how I would divide the states.
I divided California and Texas into multiple parts. I Joined most of the interior west states together.
NYC is its own state, the rest of the state can be called buffalo or something.
Western and central Pennsylvania are their own states. Philly, Delaware and Southern NJ is now Delaware Valley
New English States is now one state called New England.
Iowa and Missouri are now one. The Dakotas are now one
States:
1. Maine
2. New England
3. Connecticut or Rhode Island whatever you wanna call the Combo
4. Buffalo
5. New York
6. Delaware Valley
7. Columbia (no longer a district)
8. Maryland
9. Virginia
10. Pennsylvania
11. West Pennsylvania
12. N Carolina
13. South Carolina
14. Georgia
15. North Florida
16. Disney World
17. So Flo
18. Alabama
19. Mississipi
20. Tennessee
21. Kentucky
22. Ohio
23. Indiana
24. Michigan
25. Illinois
26. Louisiana
27. Arkansas
28. Missouri
29. Wisconsin
30. Dakotas
31. Nebraska-kansas
32. Oklahoma
33. Puerto Rico
34. Virgin Islands
35. North Texas
36. South Texas
37. New Mexico
38. Colorado
39. Wytanaho
40. Nevada ( formerly north Arizona)
41. Utah
42. Arizona
43. SoCal
44. Los Angeles
45. Norcal
46. Oregon
47. Washington
48. Alaska
49. Hawaii
50. Minnesota
If you wish to hold 50 states they need to have about 6 million each for a reasonable apportionment. One might allow some tolerance but I would think no more than 10%. Presume you want something that would hold for say 50 years without redoing. Given the nature of government you cannot redo the states every 10 years. Too much infrastructure and long term finances involved.
Another approach might be "let a 100 flowers bloom". Make a new state wherever a reasonable community of interest exists. Say combine the low population areas into large ruralish areas of common interest with their cities.
Then make the Senate proportionate. Lots of states with perhaps one Senator each...but each with the proportionate power of his population.
Easy to deal with as you simply change the proportion every 10 years.
Perhaps two senators or even three in large population states. But a single in a low population ruralish state.
I've never understood how Maryland was put together, but it seems like a long story with politics. There's that far western part of the state that seems so far from Baltimore, and Ocean City seems so far to the east.
If you wish to hold 50 states they need to have about 6 million each for a reasonable apportionment. One might allow some tolerance but I would think no more than 10%. Presume you want something that would hold for say 50 years without redoing. Given the nature of government you cannot redo the states every 10 years. Too much infrastructure and long term finances involved.
Another approach might be "let a 100 flowers bloom". Make a new state wherever a reasonable community of interest exists. Say combine the low population areas into large ruralish areas of common interest with their cities.
Then make the Senate proportionate. Lots of states with perhaps one Senator each...but each with the proportionate power of his population.
Easy to deal with as you simply change the proportion every 10 years.
Perhaps two senators or even three in large population states. But a single in a low population ruralish state.
In my map most states had 4-12 Million people with a few exceptions.
There were about 4 with more than 12 and about the same with less than ten. I think 4-12 is much more reasonable than 6M.
6 is way too small for the majority of cases and way too big for western states
Awesome map! I don't think DC should be a state though. Yes, it absolutely has its own culture and its own interests, but I still believe that it should be a city for all Americans to share. Now, I also strongly support any amendment that gives DC residents full Congressional representation (and less fed govt. meddling for sure), but in the end I don't think it should be a full state.
I've read through this thread and was surprised not to see a relatively small change go unmentioned: states with river borders, and the issues this creates.
Take a look at states bordering the lower Mississippi, especially, and you'll notice that the ever-changing course of the river has made the unchanging borders of states a little ludicrous as time has gone on, with ''islands'' of one state or another existing on either side of the river bank due to former bows and meanders moving. Even if it's nearby the the river, straight borders make a lot more sense when rivers are so swiftly-changing in their lifetimes.
On a broader level, a lot of the states' current borders are due to history than what would best suit the needs of the 21st century. It's notable that the UK reformed its counties in the 20th century, creating new ones ( things like Greater London and Highlands ) and eliminating a lot of the small ones ( Rutland, Middlesex, and Banffshire ), but British counties have comparatively less independence than American states.
There is definitely something to be said for the major metropolitan areas that are split between states becoming one, though. I'm thinking of greater NYC, Chcago, and Washingon DC being split between three state-entities. The states of Philadelphia and NYC proposed on this thread make sense to me, but I doubt they'll ever come to be.
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.
