What if State boundaries were redrawn so that each State had the same population?

[Electric Monk]

http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/

The 2010 Census records a population of 308,745,538 for the United States, which this map divides into 50 states, each with a population of about 6,175,000.



much more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/25/the-50-states-redrawn-with-equal-population/
http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/

That's certainly thinking outside the box. No way it's going to happen, but it's an interesting idea.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. Cool.

[sakabatou]

2. Looks like I'll be in Tule

[dem in texas]

3. What if the population shifts

Over the years, many states have lost population while others have gained. You would have to redraw the state lines, just like when the seats in the House of Representatives are reallocated based on the latest census count, some states lose seats, some gain seats.

[Electric Monk]

4. Hmmm.... Redraw the lines every X number of years? Like once a century, or something? nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. Often mass migration follows where the jobs are located.

[SoCalDem]

29. The problem is that we have a finite "magic number" of 435.

That number according to the constitution should be a rep for every 30K, and would have allowed for a truer (and definitely larger) body of congress... and more diversity.. and less gridlock..until we stopped increasing it in 1911...

and each state (especially these days) should have at least THREE senators

Representatives are apportioned among the states by population, as determined by the census conducted every ten years. Each state, however, is entitled to at least one Representative.

The only constitutional rule relatingto the size of the House states: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."[6] Congress regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth until it fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911.[4]

[Blue_In_AK]

5. There is no such place as the Alaskan Peninsula.

I assume they mean the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutians being part of Rainier? And what about the rest of Alaska? It doesn't have a name.

[JackInGreen]

7. I think the entire thing

is considered a peninsula of Rainier. From the Canadian border out.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. That kind of makes sense.

So we'd be included with Seattle?

[JackInGreen]

12. You would indeed, and Olympia

unfortunately it looks like we've still got Spokane though....

[Blue_In_AK]

17. Seattle good, Spokane bad.:)

[JackInGreen]

41. Oh, it's not 'Bad' per se

but not my cup of tea..and I don't really want to attend their parties either.

[nyquil_man]

6. I do like the idea of dividing the country into electoral/congressional districts

whose borders are unrelated to state borders. It turns federal elections into truly federal affairs.

It would be easier if there were a different number of electoral votes, though. With 538 EVs, this method leaves you with 10.76 electoral votes each. Easier with 500 or 550 EVs.

[Art_from_Ark]

8. Why not just do away with electoral votes altogether?

[nyquil_man]

15. Then what's the point of doing the map? nt

[Art_from_Ark]

16. Perhaps to have each Senator and each Representative

represent an equal number of constituents?

Of course, it's all just a fantasy, anyway.

[nyquil_man]

34. Or perhaps the point is "Electoral College Reform," which is the title of the piece.

[Nine]

25. From the creator of the map:

"Keep in mind that this is an art project, not a serious proposal, so take it easy with the emails about the sacred soil of Texas."

I think this is just a map nerd having fun. Personally, I love it.

[nyquil_man]

35. I'm a map nerd too.

I'm a bit of a math nerd too, though. Unfortunately, one nerd sometimes gets in the way of the other.

[DeSwiss]

9. Interesting, but.....

...I still prefer Mother Nature's drawings over all others.

- Her artistry is poetic.....

K&R

[Vox Moi]

28. We are here

[AtheistCrusader]

11. "Big Thicket" LOL

[Javaman]

22. Hey! HEY! don't you go making fun of my Big Thicket! nt

[davidpdx]

14. At least Oregon would merge with Hawaii

Let Washington take Alaska.

[diane in sf]

18. I dwell in Good Herb

[Laelth]

19. That would certainly make the Senate more democratic (small d).

That, in turn would make the Senate more Democratic (big D).

State law would have to be completely re-written, and that's a big problem. Certainly, this proposal sheds light on the anti-democratic bias of the Senate, but I suspect little more will come from this interesting thought experiment.

-Laelth

[MissMillie]

20. why are we changing maps?

[HereSince1628]

21. Wouldn't shoving big cities into units that dilute their political influence

guarantee a republican held US senate forever?

At the level of the states, I foresee ruined infrastructures as the nonurban states fight tolls and user fees, that would make high capacity urban transportation systems possible, as barriers to interstate trade.

In principle one of the things that's good about the senate is that senators represent all their constituents. Dividing up those constituents into camps with very different motivations isn't a good thing.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. My first thought was that . . .

Booker was not my Primary choice - but I'd rather have him and Menendez than some Republican tool.

[jeff47]

36. I'd expect the opposite

This map reduces the over-representation of the rural areas in the senate - Wyoming doesn't get two votes despite it's low population, for example.

And the political influence of the metropolises extend far beyond the political boundaries - The area surrounding Los Angeles would still mostly be blue, but now would have their own senators instead of sharing California's 2. And San Francisco would have an additional 2 instead of sharing California's two. And the areas surrounding San Francisco would have 2 Democratic senators instead of sharing California's 2. New York city would have 4 senators instead of 2, and the surrounding states would lean blue.

At the level of the states, I foresee ruined infrastructures as the nonurban states fight tolls and user fees, that would make high capacity urban transportation systems possible, as barriers to interstate trade.

Tolls and user fees are not the only way to fund such projects. Nor do such projects have to exist in only one state - DC's metro passes through two states and one pseudo-state.

In principle one of the things that's good about the senate is that senators represent all their constituents.

Except that Wyoming's 576,412 people have the same representation as California's 38,041,430. Not exactly fair to give Wyoming residents 66 times the power of California residents.

[HereSince1628]

39. at a national level the south and texas pick up Wyomings diminished representation.

but it's not just about senators...it's also about what that does to the economic base of the states and what it does to the political basis of the states.

I can't see major cities working as states, mostly because suburban and rural citizens already resist state spending in major cities.

The concentration of avenues of transportion all pass through cities which couldn't afford to maintain them.

In a place like Milwaukee as much traffic goes through the city as goes into the city. In any case, most of that traffic going in and out or going through doesn't buy gas, oil, tires in the city and so wouldn't contribute tax dollars for road maintenance.

On a political level, because Democrats are concentrated in urban areas the states would be even more partisan and they'd have mechanisms that would complicate anything like cooperation on 'what's best for everyone' because everyone would no longer mean anything like everyone.

Under this map I see cities going the way of Detroit.

[jeff47]

40. No, they don't. Texas and the South have fewer people.

There are more people all of the "blue" states than in all of the "red" states.

I can't see major cities working as states, mostly because suburban and rural citizens already resist state spending in major cities.

And removing those citizens from the state would make the city not work because.......?

The concentration of avenues of transportion all pass through cities which couldn't afford to maintain them.

You have that backwards. The cities subsidize the rural road network. There aren't enough people in rural areas to pay for the maintenance of their very long, empty roads.

In a place like Milwaukee as much traffic goes through the city as goes into the city. In any case, most of that traffic going in and out or going through doesn't buy gas, oil, tires in the city and so wouldn't contribute tax dollars for road maintenance.

Except those people do have an economic impact - they are buying goods and services that are based out of the city.

And while a lot of road maintenance is currently funded from gasoline taxes, there's no reason to believe that we have to keep doing that. Especially after such a massive political shake-up as the proposed maps.

On a political level, because Democrats are concentrated in urban areas the states would be even more partisan and they'd have mechanisms that would complicate anything like cooperation on 'what's best for everyone' because everyone would no longer mean anything like everyone.

If this was still 1973, this would be relevant.

It's 2013. In case you didn't notice, "what's best for everyone" has not been part of our political system for a couple decades now. Ever since the 1994 election, the Republican party has only been concerned about "what's best for Republicans", and does not give a damn about compromise. This problem has gotten even worse since 2008.

But let's roll back the clock further. The era of "big compromise" existed only after WWII. From the founding of the country until the Dixiecrats, the two major parties have been at war with each other. Quite literally in the 1860s.

That post-war era of the parties working together is not the normal state of affairs. It was a fluke caused by the parties re-aligning.

Under this map I see cities going the way of Detroit

Largely because you don't realize the cities are the sources of money in our country. Rural areas, despite their "self-reliant" propaganda, receive lots of money from city taxpayers.

[Brickbat]

23. I like the new names of the states.

Not crazy about picking up Fargo in mine, however.

[d_r]

24. it makes for an interesting map

but beyond that it is silly.
Here's an example. Why not keep Huntsville with Alabama and Chattanooga with Tennessee, rather than flipping them? The population in those areas would be about the same. This shows just one example of how arbitrary these sorts of decisions would be. Now reality. Chattanooga is separated from the rest of "King" by mountains. You'd have to go through Mammoth to get to the rest of the state. It is even worse for the western part of Columbia. No way across those mountains, basically you'd have to go to the city of Atlanta to get back up to the rest of the state. Despite that little tip up through Dalton, Atlanta still wouldn't have access to the Tennessee river (good), but now Columbia, King, and Mammoth have control over Atlanta's current water supply. Good luck with that Atlanta. King is going to keep the Coosa flowing through King into what is now Alabama and North Florida. Speaking of Florida, as if the aquifer wasn't in bad enough shape, now lets let canaveral cyphon it all off before it gets south to tampa bay and miami (and the desert formerly known as the everglades). The current state of Tennessee is now split across five states, who gets what resources? Thanks for breaking up the University system, that will be a nightmare. We will have to revise the prison system, the court system, and school systems. Etc.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

27. Interesting,

it beats those maps with the increasing sized circles denoting populations.

[TBF]

30. Well I see I'm still in Houston -

so that really isn't much of an improvement.

[Aristus]

31. Rainier? No.

Cascadia!



That's what the Pacific Northwest will be when we kick the rest of this dysfunctional country to the curb...

[MineralMan]

32. Minnesota doesn't look much different, oddly enough.

We'd add Fargo, but who cares? Most people think it's in Minnesota anyhow. Mesabi looks good to me.

Interesting idea for a map.

Now, let's have a look at which new states are blue and which are red. That would be interesting.

[aikoaiko]

33. Savannah and Charleston in the same state? Never.

Otherwise its a very cool map.

[Electric Monk]

37. Afternoon kick for this little thought experiment. nt

[XemaSab]

38. Being in the same state as Portland, Arcata, and Hawaii

would drive the good people of Jefferson up the wall.

I'm all for it.

[krispos42]

42. I've stated before...

...that I think it would be a good idea to have limit states to 12 representatives, and forcing states that hit that mark to divide themselves into smaller pieces to meet that meet that limit.

It would continuously expand the number of states, and thus the opportunities for "fresh starts", including new states with new constitutions that have the latest and best ideas in governance through the democratic process. With new states and new constitutions, ideas such as instant-runoff voting, a parliamentary system, and universal single-payer health care on a state level could be a fundamental part of the state instead of a later compromised idea.



At minimum, it would give more senators to populous states, reducing the "Wyoming is equal to California" disparity



California would become 5 states; Texas, New York, and Florida 3 states each; Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, and Michigan 2 states each. We'd go from 50 states to 65. That's 15 more chances to update our governments on the state level, perhaps leading to the other states and the federal level as well!

[Skidmore]

43. So this nation has several billion dollars just laying around

to effect such a change? And do you really think people would agree to this, particularly since some still have not accepted tne end of the Civil War or the Soviet Union.