Master Index of Archived Threads


STATE your case

Frayed Knot Mar 20 2012 02:28 PM

Let’s start by assuming the U.S. of A has decided to add a state. Doesn’t matter which one for our purposes here -- D.C. statehood, Puerto Rican statehood, or maybe northern & southern California finally decide they’re long over-due for a divorce -- that can all be discussed elsewhere. But, at the same time, the powers at be are only going to allow this if we agree that the round numbers of 50 states and 100 senators are maintained. So assuming that simply throwing one state completely out of the union isn’t an option (you were all getting ready to chuck Texas weren’t you?) what measure do you support to make room for our newest state? Some suggestions - or feel free to supply your own: - Combine the Dakotas Face it, they’re practically the exact same size & shape and if you were to drop anyone in this county into the middle of either 99% couldn’t tell the difference (“let’s see, is it 25 degrees below or 30?”). Plus like 15 people actually live in each state (or so I’ve heard, I personally can’t confirm any) and combining them sooner would have relieved us of a bunch of annoying politicians over the years - Give West Virginia back to Virginia The original secession was probably illegal in the first place and only slid through because Lincoln et al weren't above bending rules to embrace a defection from the Confederacy. Of course I’m not sure Virginia actually wants its former western half back at this point but maybe if you told them that this would make theirs the largest state east of the Mississippi it would convince them that they were back to being the most imporatant colony like they were briefly 20-some decades ago. - Have Conneticut annex Rhode Island There are folks in this country who own private property larger than Rhode Island and that’s true even if you include the half that’s under water, so it’s kind of hard to figure how it ever became a state in the first place. Giving it to the Nutmeggers wouldn’t be like killing it entirely, just sort of declaring it the Pluto of states and reducing its status ... like to a slightly larger than average county. Plus the combined mass would still be pretty tiny and, hell, maybe CT can clean up some of the rampant corruption; we know no RI politician has been able to.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 20 2012 02:34 PM Re: STATE your case

I like combining the Dakotas.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 20 2012 02:35 PM Re: STATE your case

I've long since thought the Dakotas needed to be mashed together. Plus, who doesn't like the sound of "Dakota?" Either that, or we perforate Florida at the border, and push it off into the Caribbean, like we shoulda long time back.

Ceetar Mar 20 2012 02:36 PM Re: STATE your case

How about just giving Maine back to Mass?

Edgy MD Mar 20 2012 02:37 PM Re: STATE your case

Vermont rejoins New York. Win-win.

HahnSolo Mar 20 2012 02:41 PM Re: STATE your case

Too many "I" states too close together in the midwest. Let's combine two. Illiniowa, anybody? Illiana?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 20 2012 02:45 PM Re: STATE your case

You could split Delaware at C&D Canal, giving the Northern third to Pennsylvania, and the Southern 2/3rd to Maryland. Nobody would know.

soupcan Mar 20 2012 02:51 PM Re: STATE your case Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 20 2012 02:54 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: maybe CT can clean up some of the rampant corruption; we know no RI politician has been able to. Are you kidding? Check the recent histories of Waterbury and Bridgeport politics before you think that CT cleaning up RI is an option. I'd like to combine New Hampshire and Vermont. You get the stodgy, stubborn liberal NHers and mix in the granola-y, free-love VTers. Even the two states together look like yin and yang. It'd be like a Reeese's peanut butter cup of statehood.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 20 2012 02:54 PM Re: STATE your case

If I'm mashing together Vermont and some other state, it's N'Hampshire, buddy. Actually, let's do this: 1) Dakota 2) New Vermontshire 3) Maryware and DelJersey and Pennsylavania 4) Connectisland 5) Montaning (2 of the 3 lowest pop densities/2 of the bottom 6 pop raw numbers don't each deserve 2 Senators) And bring in: 1) PR 2) Northern and Southern California (a three-state, 1,300-mile coastline is ludicrous) 3) East and West Texas (just too big) 4) Upstate and Downstate New York 5) Some sort of West-East Florida division, and a renaming (y'know, give it a fresh start)

Mets – Willets Point Mar 20 2012 03:17 PM Re: STATE your case

DelMarVa - All of Delaware, all of Maryland, and the eastern shore of Virginia.

Ashie62 Mar 20 2012 04:47 PM Re: STATE your case

Combine 2 states and add.. Ireland Israel..

Frayed Knot Mar 20 2012 06:20 PM Re: STATE your case Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 20 2012 08:21 PM

Mets – Willets Point wrote: DelMarVa - All of Delaware, all of Maryland, and the eastern shore of Virginia. I remember as a kid looking at the atlas and "redesigning" states so they'd have more logical borders. In that exercise I believe I took Maryland - which is squeezed down to about a 5 mile waist in two different spots - and eliminated it entirely, giving the eastern shore area (along with that tail of Virginia like you said) to Delaware, the central portion to Virginia, and then grafted that western pan-handle part onto West Virginia. I should have made that one of my choices for elimination here. The only part I didn't like about my project was that logic dictated ceding NYC plus my native Long Island to New Jersey and I just didn't want to do that. btw, it's about time we gave the Upper Peninsula region of Michigan over to Wisconsin. No fair occupying two separate land masses and calling yourself one state.

The Second Spitter Mar 20 2012 07:33 PM Re: STATE your case

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You could split Delaware at C&D Canal, giving the Northern third to Pennsylvania, and the Southern 2/3rd to Maryland. Nobody would know. Not sure if serious.

Edgy MD Mar 20 2012 07:35 PM Re: STATE your case

After a few months, the vice president might suspect something was amiss.

The Second Spitter Mar 20 2012 07:38 PM Re: STATE your case

And 1/2 publicly traded corporations in the US.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 20 2012 07:44 PM Re: STATE your case

The Second Spitter wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You could split Delaware at C&D Canal, giving the Northern third to Pennsylvania, and the Southern 2/3rd to Maryland. Nobody would know. Not sure if serious. Kind of. Upstate is liberal, urban, jazz, manufacturing & science, a suburb of Philly, cheesesteak-eating Phillies/Eagles fans. Downstate is conservative, rural, country music, agricultural & military, Nascar, a far-flung suburb of Washington, crab-eating Orioles/Redskins (Ravens?) fans.

Gwreck Mar 20 2012 08:13 PM Re: STATE your case

I'd add Puerto Rico and DC to give us an even 52.

Edgy MD Mar 20 2012 08:53 PM Re: STATE your case

That's more likely than any eliminations or mergers. But historically, states are added two at a time --- New Mexico and Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii, to ensure representational equity for the pollitical parties. A state of New Columbia would send three Democrats to Congress for the foreseeable future. Puerto Rico would likely split their Congressional delegation. The reality that there is no territory with a meaningful movement for statehood that is as safely Republican as DC is Democratic is certainly a damper on the District's statehood ambitions. The best hope for a window of opportunity might have been at the time of the Quebec secessionist vote of 1994, when there was a developing movement bubbling in Canada's Atlantic provinces, should they be severed from the rest of Canada by Quebec's secession, to petition to join the US. Presumably their joining would have included an apology for being a hotbed of loyalism back in the day. I've long been of the idea that all American Indian territories should collectively petition to become a non-contiguous state. I kinda don't like that I was born in a 50-state country and I'm like to die in one. I like states and I don't care who knows it.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 21 2012 04:21 AM Re: STATE your case

I don't like the idea of DC statehood; it's too small an area to get two Senators. I think instead that the district should be absorbed into Maryland. We'd enfranchise the voters without making a tiny little state.

Edgy MD Mar 21 2012 04:35 AM Re: STATE your case

OK, well, you raise a point then. What makes a stet a stet? What's area got to do with it, got to do with it? We got half a million people living in a place founded under different circumstances for a different purpose. How about, since you've been given king-like powers, rather than having Maryland absorb the district, we have New Columbia absorb the supporting counties in the Maryland and Virginia burbs --- Frederick, Montgomery, Howard Anne Arundel, Prince George's, and Charles from the Maryland side, and Loudon, Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Prince William and Stafford from the Virginia side. It'd be the capital bomb. (I'll let you in on a poorly kept secret --- neither Virginia nor Maryland really want the District. We're like the Northern Ireland of the mid-lantic.) Anyhow, thanks for the franchise. I feel like... an American!

Frayed Knot Mar 21 2012 06:41 AM Re: STATE your case

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think instead that the district should be absorbed into Maryland. That sound you hear from just south of you is from Marylanders screaming NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Ceetar Mar 21 2012 06:50 AM Re: STATE your case

Screw it, let's cut it all up and remap it in some sort of even geographical sections. Or population sections! Redraw the lines at the Census each year to keep it even. "Sorry guys, you're part of Montana now. Please find a DMV and change your license."

Mets – Willets Point Mar 21 2012 08:19 AM Re: STATE your case

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't like the idea of DC statehood; it's too small an area to get two Senators. I think instead that the district should be absorbed into Maryland. We'd enfranchise the voters without making a tiny little state. Representation is based on population, not area. The District of Columbia is more populous than Wyoming and nearly the same size as Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska. This way of thinking is why we're saddled with the antiquated Electoral College. "All these states have lots of territory so they should get a big say in how we elect the president. Why should these places where lots of people live have a say just because they're the places where most of the people in the US live?"

TheOldMole Mar 21 2012 08:57 AM Re: STATE your case

I reject the idea of rejecting the idea of chucking Texas.

Vic Sage Mar 21 2012 10:06 AM Re: STATE your case

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't like the idea of DC statehood; it's too small an area to get two Senators. I think instead that the district should be absorbed into Maryland. We'd enfranchise the voters without making a tiny little state. Representation is based on population, not area. The District of Columbia is more populous than Wyoming and nearly the same size as Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska. This way of thinking is why we're saddled with the antiquated Electoral College. "All these states have lots of territory so they should get a big say in how we elect the president. Why should these places where lots of people live have a say just because they're the places where most of the people in the US live?" i agree; the notion that Wyoming, with a population of 500,000, has the same representation in the Senate as California, with 38,000,000 people, is ludicrous. I understand that the House is where the proportional representation comes from, but the Senate should have SOME recognition that no, in fact, NOT all states are equal. States are arbitrary geographical institutions, not monolithic viewpoints that need representation in and of themselves, separate and apart from the people living there. There should at least be population threshholds; if a state has under 1 million, it gets only 1 senator, 10+ million = 3 senators. In this case, there are 7 states in each of those categories, so the total # wouldn't change, but the interests of actual PEOPLE, as opposed to bureaucracies, would be greater reflected by the votes in the senate (at least in theory). of course, this would take a constitutional amendment that would never happen. as for unrepresented folks, i don't know that you necessarily have to grant statehood or even annexation to afford representation. Couldn't DC for example remain and independent district, but be permitted to vote in 1 of its neighboring state's (say, Maryland) local elections, which would incentivize that state's congressmen and senators to represent that districts interests, too? That might just involve amending a state constitution, rather than a federal one.

Frayed Knot Mar 21 2012 10:07 AM Re: STATE your case

TheOldMole wrote: I reject the idea of rejecting the idea of chucking Texas. So, I suspect, do a lot of other people here, which is precisely why I pre-rejected the idea of ejecting it.