States that should be split in half

[Bucky]

Several of our US states are just too dang big and don't make sense economically or politically. Ignore, for the moment the constitutional injustice of the US Senate's apportionment of seats. There are a number of states that are essentially split in half sociologically and therefor don't represent a single "interest" to be represented in Congress.

Then, when we talk about size, consider how California is underrepresented. In terms of one man-one vote, one Californian is worth about one-fiftieth of a Wyomingan. An Arkansan is worth about seven New Yorkers when it comes to ratifying treaties, confirming federal judges, and overriding presidential vetoes (no wonder New Yorkers imported an Arkansan to manage one of their Senate seats!). The exporting mountain states are vastly overrepresented, which is why NAFTA passed w/out adequate provisions for laborers' rights built in. Little states can outvote big states, which is one reason why big states tend to pay more taxes than they take in and little states tend to take in more federal revenues than they pay out.

But let's look at the individual states that ought to be split up in order to fix this imbalance. Despite the fact that I'm a Texan, the first state to come to mind is Florida. It really has two state cultures that only fused together by virtue of historical accidents. Before air conditioning, south Florida wasn't much to live in, so they had few people. But in post-Don Johnson America, the south is where most of action is, from Gainesville to the Keys. West Florida should be sheared off into its own Jeb-lovin' redness.

Pennsylvania is also a bisectable entity. It's sometimes described as Cleveland on the left, Boston on the right, and Alabama right up the middle. As a Democrat I'd like to see that Alabama section split in half so that the two urban centers could dominate, rather than compete with each other. But maybe justice suggests a more shoehorn-shaped urban state could be ripped out from the bottom (call it Pittsylsiblia) and leave the rural, small town, and 'burb oriented Republican portions on their own.

Texas, contrary to what you've read, can not be turned into five states at a whim anymore. That right existed only at the time of admission in 1845--and even if it did continue as a right after admission, certainly that right was forfeited in 1867 with readmission. But Texas today is really two states--the Houston-Dallas-SanAntonio urban behemoth and the rural/small town area covering west Texas and the Rio Grande Valley. This would fuse the most Democratic and most Republican portions of the state into one state and the urban/suburban interest into a second, bigger state.

California ought to be three states centered at San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Fresno. Fresno? yes, Fresno.

New York, I'm undecided about. It's pretty big, but it strikes me, like Ohio, as being culturally unified and thus only deserving of one pair of senators. But I only pretend to know stuff. Can yall think of other states that ought to be split up?

[adriennel]

1. New York, Like MI

is not culturally unified. You have a large urban population in the southern portion of the state while upstate tends to remain more rural. Sometimes there are clashes between the diverging interests. For example, most of MI's population lives in metro Detroit, but there is much more to the state of MI than Detroit. I see no benefit from splitting up states like these.

[pnb]

20. Sometimes?

NYC by population pretty much dominates the entire state, though it is politically different from the rest of the entire state, Long Island included.

Heck, based on that, NYC should be its own state!!

[smirkymonkey]

28. I've been saying that for years!

Actually, it should probably be it's own country. :)

[markses]

31. Best line on Sex and the City this weekend

Carrie arrives at a hotel in Paris. When she admits to the Frenchman behind ythe desk that she cannot parlayvufronsay, as it were, he says:

"American?" making a face indicating mild distaste.

"New Yorker," she replies, and the man smiles an "aaaah" with a look of relief.

Having grown up in New York City, I found nothing so shocking as visiting America during my first trip across country. Another country, indeed! ;-)

[Bill McBlueState]

2. Ohio is culturally unified?

What do you think of when you hear Ohio? I'm curious. Living there for 21 years, I thought there were a number of distinct cultural regions: the old industrial towns of Youngstown, Cleveland, and Toledo, the Appalachian regions along the river, the plains in the west, and whatever you want to say about Cincinnati.

The Cleveland area elected DK to Congress, but it was two other Ohio congressmen who were responsible for freedom fries.

[Bucky]

37. I plead ignantz, y'honor. My intent isn't to carve up each big state.

I'll confess I don't know Ohio too well. My direct experience consists of having driven thru it. My knowledge is based on work as a research director for a market research firm and my 20+ yrs as a politics & news junkie. I'm honestly not aware of any geographically-based cultural or socio-economic cleavages in Ohio more significant than, say, the differences between Kansas and Nebraska, or between Alabama and Mississippi, or between New Hampshire and Vermont. I was looking for more stark contrasts.

I suppose you could make the case that mostly Anglo San Diego and multiculti, minority-majority Los Angeles ought to be separate by virtue of size and demographic diversity--arguably more diverse than the variations found between, say, rustbelt Youngstown and "north Kentuckyish" parts near Cincinnati. And yet for convenience's sake I didn't propose splitting up San Diego and LA into different states. As a Texan I can tell you I had to really think hard before stuffing the hard working blue collar towns east of Houston into the same "state" with the high-brow poser wannabes of Dallas.

But again, my purpose was to hear suggestions about places I don't know too well. Thanks for your thoughts.

[demnan]

3. Virginia

Northern Virginia, Maryland and DC should be one big Democratic liberal state. That way people in DC could get equal rights to vote and in Virginia we could get our roads built without fighting a goddamned civil war with the southern part of the state every time we want to unchoke one of our packed highways. So there rest of Virginia - fuck ya'll!!!! (present company excepted)

End the state at the Occoquan!

By the way, I think you'll find you're wrong about New York State. There is upstate and NYC and never the twain shall meet. I think they have the same problems as Virginia with Albany is to Richmond (state capital unsympathetic with the city folks in NYC (N. VA))and Buffalo is to Norfolk (so daggon different from NYC (N. VA) it might as well be a different world).

[bhunt70]

44. Occoquan? I'd stop at Springfield :)

[Deb-Ter]

4. Ref. States being split up

"Several of our US states are just too dang big and don't make sense economically or politically. Ignore, for the moment the constitutional injustice of the US Senate's apportionment of seats. There are a number of states that are essentially split in half sociologically and therefor don't represent a single "interest" to be represented in Congress."

That is why we have 2 houses in congress. One is based on population and the other is a fixed number to equally represent each state in the union. How is one vote in California worth less than one vote in Wyoming?

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning that they should be split up. Even in elections, each state is given a certain number of electorial college votes based upon population in that state at the time of the last census.

I don't know how the federal money is split up and who receives what so I can't really talk about that part.

If we split up states, why stop there, why not split up the country into Democrat/Republican states.... We could run ours the way that we want to and they could run theirs the way that they want to..... Hey, now that's an idea.....

[Bill McBlueState]

10. electoral votes

One problem with electoral votes is that each state is guaranteed a minimum of three.

Wyoming has about 500,000 residents and 3 electoral votes: each electoral vote represents about 170,000 people.

Massachusetts has about 6,400,000 residents and 12 electoral votes: each electoral vote represents about 530,000 people.

So the vote of a person in Wyoming is worth about 3.2 times the vote of a person in Massachusetts. Not really fair if one person supposedly gets one vote. :shrug:

[apsuman]

18. one person one vote

"So the vote of a person in Wyoming is worth about 3.2 times the vote of a person in Massachusetts. Not really fair if one person supposedly gets one vote. :shrug:"

But you are making an assumption that one man one vote is the (federal) law. It is not. When this country was founded, only white land owning males could vote. Every change to that was a real fight. Land ownership. Women. Indians. Former slaves. People of Color. Poll taxes.

At the federal level we hae never had "One man one vote" and if you start your assumption there you will never be happy because you are starting at a flase place. Representative were closest to the people and were elected one (white land owning) man one vote, Senators were chosen by state legislatures and the President was chosen by the electoral college basically a split between the two.

[MrSandman]

49. CONUS was designed to deny one person one vote.

A compromise to assure the smaller states they would not be dominated by larger states. One of the famous compromises. I can't remember which one.

[newyawker99]

32. Hi Deb-Ter!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Bucky]

38. My people tried that split up thing in 1861...

It didn't turn out that good. Of course Republicans were a LOT better back then...

[Indiana Democrat]

5. We have the House and we have the Senate.

Both of which serve a purpose.

You seem to want two Houses?

[Deb-Ter]

6. We have the House and we have the Senate.

Ok, wrong word but you know what I meant... :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Indiana Democrat]

7. What??

[Screaming Lord Byron]

8. I'd split BC three ways.

Vancouver Island
Lower Mainland-Fraser Valley
Interior

[Mountainman]

9. There has been talk of CA becoming 3 states

Nothern California, Central California and Southern California.

[mitchtv]

11. Californians in the north want it divided from the bay area

Too, so make that 4.(upper California)

[stevedeshazer]

12. That would be nuts

You are advocating creating more Republican states with this logic.

California, for example. Splitting it into three would create three Republican states.

Los Angeles State presumably would include San Diego, Orange County, and San Bernardino County. This would be solidly Republican or mixed at best.

The State of Fresno (shudder) and the rest of the centrl part of California is FreeRepublicland.

Even the Bay Area State, if you include ALL of northern California it, would be marginally Democratic at best.

So we add four new Republican senators. This helps how?

[ronnykmarshall]

15. Hands off my state!

I don't want to be "South California", I born in "California" and I'll die in "California".

Long Live The Golden State!!

[Bucky]

39. How do you carve up Democratic California and get 3 GOP states?

The logic eludes me.

[stevedeshazer]

43. Might be 2-1 Republican

As I said in my post.

[Loonman]

13. Did you hear they're going to split Maine into two states?

Dumb and Dumber.


:evilgrin:



--Mass. resident

[yorgatron]

we need to COSOLIDATE some states IMHO

do we really need N. and S. carolinas? or N. and S. dakota? or W. and E. virginia (i know it's not east virginia but it SHOULD be)? we'd have to do that before we could split up any states,because as everyone knows the number of stars has to remain at 50.

[VOX]

65. Consolidation of the Dakotas has been discussed...

Don't know if it will ever fly, but it has been brought up as a possibility.

[skippysmom]

14. Ship Fairfield County to NY

They couldn't give a crap about the rest of CT -- plus they're mostly rich Repukes down there. They give the rest of the state a bad name.

Here in MA, there are people on Cape Cod who make noises about seceding once in a while.

[midnight armadillo]

59. Martha's Vineyard

1977 - they voted to secede from Massachusetts.
http://flagspot.net/flags/us-ma-mv.html

[kaitykaity]

16. Oregon is split by geography.

The NW corner of the state, Portland, Eugene, Corvallis, are heavily liberal. The rest of the state is rural, agricultural, etc., mostly white and overwhelmingly conservative. We have the numbers, and they really get mad because we keep electing Democrats to statewide offices.

I'd love to see the conservocreeps have their own little Republican no-tax, no services, FBI-PATRIOTACT luvin' state. Then see how many of them illegally-immigrate to our side.

[stevedeshazer]

19. Very bad idea

Make them live with the rest of us. Same with Washington.

I've heard these crazy ideas before, and no one seems to think it through.

Would you like Eastern Oregon to have their own two Senators?

[kaitykaity]

21. I don't want to live with these people anymore.

I'm sick and tired of them spewing their lies and their hate, and then blaming us when things go wrong. They need to live in a state that adops their policies with no liberal buffer to act as a brake. Then maybe they'd realize how bankrupt and awful they really are.

Why is it bad for Eastern Oregon to have it's own two senators if Cascadia had our own two senators?

The original post asked which states. Maybe that person had not heard of this 'crazy' idea, so I answered the question. Geez.

[Aidoneus]

29. splitting them off isn't the answer

the local Democratic party is useless--the views of assholes like Lars & Mannix, and the business elites that back them, must be confronted and demonstrably smashed. A new and strong entity is needed for this, as the existing Democratic party and "liberal" machines seem unwilling or unable to do so. The economic situation alone warrants a new movement out here.

If anything, the state should be expanded and the whole region of the western states should be given more autonomy from the fed, not split them apart. Besides, I like visiting Bend & La Grande areas and I'm not going to cross any new border to do so.

[stevedeshazer]

30. No insult intended

Sorry if that's what the result was. I just disagree, that's all. I used your example because it is where I live.

By Cascadia, I presume you mean Oregon and Washington, divided by the Cascades east and west. Taken together, we've got two Democratic governors, three of four Senators are Democrats, and of sixteen congressional districts the Dems hold twelve. That's already a pretty good advantage, so why give it up?

They'd also have their own governor and legislature.

They'd drill Steens Mountain full of holes so fast, it's make your head spin.

They'd restart Hanford.

The Republicans would pour in federal assistance for mining, agricultural, and every other resource-extractive thing you might imagine.

There are a lot of non-right wingers who live there, too. Many nutcase righties live in Western Oregon as well.

I understand your sentiment, and shared it long ago. As I've met people on both sides (literaly, mountains and politics) I think sticking together is a better idea. Just my opinion.

As to whether this is a good idea here or in other states, we fought a war in the 1860s about this very thing. The Confederate States of America was formed...states and parts of states lining up on one side or the other. The results were disastrous.

Seriously, I didn't intend to offend you by my post.

[kaitykaity]

47. None taken.

You were a bit short, but no longer. :evilgrin:

You make my point for me--restarting Hanford, drilling the Steens, etc. Let them. Let them destroy their environment. Let them close their public schools. Let them starve their state government. Let them endanger public health.

That's the consequence of their policies and the dumbasses at the bottom who are blinded by the cultural wars into supporting policies agains their own interests should finally have to pay the price for that stupidity.

See???

[stevedeshazer]

51. LOL...Redneck Apartheid!

If I didn't live downriver from Hanford, I might feel the same way as you. Shit flows downhill. So does radioactive waste.

I've been to those places, and I want them cleaned up and protected. And I want all NW kids to have a chance at a decent education so they don't screw up things even more. I don't want a Cascade Wall.

The thing is, whether we like it or not, we're all connected. The original people who lived here had it right in the first place. They had the connectedness thing all figured out.

You are certainly right about the culture war, but I don't believe in the "redneck apartheid" you advocate. The Radical Right needs to come to terms with us rather than the other way around. The Radical Right is just that...Radical. They happen to be in charge right now, but it won't last.

And jeez, I violated my own personal rule by even mentioning my favorite place on Earth in a public forum. :evilgrin:

I don't want them to be enabled by their own volition that they may destroy these places for short-sighted gain. I won't give them up just to teach a lesson in stupidity. Future generations will suffer.

Good discussion, and I see your point. I don't agree, but probably a lot more westsiders in the NW agree with you than with me.

Peace. :-)

[kaitykaity]

53. And I don't really want them to suffer either.

I'm just so damn frustrated with the blindness on the right, of the rank and file conservative voter, to the just plain evil that is the corporate 'ethic' of their leadership. They vote based on emotional wedge issues that have ZERO bearing on quality of life.

That blindness is costing all of us, and dammit maybe a split of Oregon into two parts, to where they can destroy to their hearts content, would be what it would take to break the hold the GOP Radicals have on these essentially good people.

(My favorite place on earth is a little west of you, hidden in the Mt. Hood National Forest. Okay, now we're even.)

[roguevalley]

63. Oregonian sweeties, don't you remember? The state of Jefferson?

I remember a real proposal to bring southern oregon off
and put it with northern california and form the state of
Jefferson.

Since my rednecked Uncle Vern lives in Eastern Oregon,
they can stay with the north of form the independent
sovereign republic of DumbAss-onia.

[philosophie_en_rose]

35. How about Eastern Idawashegon?

Combine Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon, with Idaho.

Western Washington should be its own state. Ecotopia. :)

[stevedeshazer]

45. You're the breakaway territory.

Hell, let's return to the original Oregon Territory. :-)



I don't want to give up all the good land we killed the native tribes for. :-(

[Aidoneus]

48. that's a great idea!

Except, I'd add in the rest of the Goose Lake area and a bit of maritime North California.

[stevedeshazer]

52. Yeah, down to about Eureka

Not to mention including my friends in Missoula!

The B.C. folks might not like it, though. They're better off without us at this point. And I can't blame them for feeling that way.

[roguevalley]

64. BWAHAHA! Goose Lake. Uncle Vern! They're coming fer ya!

[Taeger]

17. Won't happen ...

States would never be broken up. This would change the inherent assumptions in the constitution. In order for it to happen, they would effectively have to ratify the entry of EACH new state. If you've ever looked at US expansionist politics, it's a fucking nightmare. Once those deals are hammered out, it's nightmare to change them.

You will have to get the 2/3 of the other states to agree to breaking up California. Effectively, all that population is bottled up in 2 Senators. Splitting California into three parts would INCREASE the level of represenation among Californians in the Senate. But you'd be hard pressed to get 33 states to agree to that.

I don't believe that small and lightly populated states having 2 Senators is unfair. This was the most REMARKABLE part of the constitution that ensured small states wouldn't get pushed around by large ones.

I DO agree that the issue with the House of Representative is unfair. This has fundamentally changed the nature of the constitution. The Senate Represents an equal vote for each state. The House is SUPPOSED to represent an equal vote for each PERSON!!!!!

This also effects presidential elections since a state votes based on it's number of Congressman. It is fundamentally unfair for an individual in Alaska to cast 4 or 5 votes for president when a Californian only casts 1.

I would like to see another lawsuit to challenge the current number of representatives. We have seen issues get batted down by courts and then considered again at a later date and accepted (Separate but Equal).

The last time was in the 1920s. I would argue that restricting the number of representatives ALSO restricts the level of minority representation in the house. Think about it. If there were a couple hundred MORE congressman, Jerrymandering would be more difficult. The higher granularity in districts would FORCE more minority representation since more minority districts would be virtually unavoidable in heavily populated areas where most minorities live.

The equal protection clause (which seems to be used for EVERYTHING these days) may carry the issue over the top. It could also eliminate the need to create special "minority districts" since their inclusion would be unavoidable. In fact, if one man one vote were held true, I think you would see an effort of state legislators to keep white voters OUT of minority districts so their voices wouldn't be overwhelmed.

I think that MORE representation is better for the country. It INCREASES the level of Democracy. It gets representatives CLOSER to the people. They would be less reliant on mass media and MORE reliant on handshakes and town meetings. The reason??? Well, in VERY highly populated centers, you would have A LOT of Congressman running each term. The airwaves would be overwhelmed and MOST of the message would be wasted on individuals who ARE NOT residents of the target district. Mini-media and personal appearences would be much more cost efficient than mass media.

Furthermore, the presence of MORE representatives makes it fundamentally harder for lobbyists to buy them off. They would have to expend a MUCH larger amount of money to buy off more Congressman. It would be HARDER to control them since a concentrated community movement could EASILY topple a Congressman in geographically smaller districts.


What if court challenges fail????

Even though smaller states retain a disproportinate influence. The relative balance of power keep shifting from rural and western states to high population states. Furthermore, more stratifications of states are being created. There is a large group of semi-rural states that would GAIN from a greater number of Congressman even though it would benefit the Mega states like New York, Florida, Texas and California disproportianately.

Here the key is getting semi-rural states like Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Kentucky, Arizona, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Iowa, Arkansas (States losing seats)

To turn against VERY LOW population states like:
Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Idaho, Utah, Montana, New Mexico, etc...

The semi-rural states would pick up a relative amount of representation against the low population states. This would get such a measure through the congress and through 33 states for ratification. Basically, the House should ALWAYS have enough membership to assure the one man, one vote principle.

As a last resort, a deal may be necessary to help the low pop states. Large tracts of those states cannot be settled because they mostly uninhabitable due to little or no water resources. But they also have large tracts of federally owned land that cannot be settled. Thus, their population numbers can NEVER go up.

The compromise would entail transferring large amounts of western federal lands to state control. In this way, they get something in return for the deal.


Other constitutional issues:
I would like to see THREE Senators from each state. Lobbyists would need MORE money to chase more Senators. A state would elect a Senator EACH election period. This makes it harder for lobbyists to control Senators. Plus, it would alleviate the problem with Senators serving on multiple committees due to their limited numbers.

Oh yeah, and I think that DC should get a single Senator and representatives proportional to it's population. (but not statehood).

[Deb-Ter]

22. Help me understand this...

"This also effects presidential elections since a state votes based on it's number of Congressman. It is fundamentally unfair for an individual in Alaska to cast 4 or 5 votes for president when a Californian only casts 1."

I'm not sure that I understand this. If the house is based on population, then the heavily populated states have more representatives and more electorial college votes than the less populated states. How does this give individuals in Alaska 4 or 5 votes?

[Taeger]

26. Read this

I wish I could find a better link but ... here you go.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:jsMj835lmRQJ:supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/word-perfect/91-860.ZO+persons+per+US+congressman+apportionment&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The constitutional guarantee of a minimum of one Representative for each State inexorably compels a significant departure from the ideal. In Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming, where the statewide districts are less populous than the ideal district, every vote is more valuable than the national average.


As Disparity in population goes up, voters in "one vote" states get a larger vote. The method of apportionment also favors distributing "fractional numbers" to states with less representatives. The affect is that the higher the states population, the more they are cheated of votes.

If the number of representatives went up, those one votes states would STILL likely get just ONE vote. But the overall votes in the rest of the country would go up. So they would loose their diproportionately large voice.

Likewise, other small population states that benefit from the formula would likely not loose their relative vote in comparison to high population states like California, Texas, New York and Florida.

So raising the number of Representatives (by a couple hundred or so) would change the balance of power in the House since low population would no longer get the benefit of disparately high PER-PERSON representation.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. If Anything We Need Fewer

Combine the Dakotas and Carolinas. Combine NH and VT. No reason why Iowa and Nebraska need to be two states. Add Kansas for all i care.

Why aren't IL and IN the same state. What separates them other than an arbitrary north/south line? I live 30 miles from the state line and when i get to that line nothing changes except the license plates.

There is already no logic to the state lines. Adding more would only add to the illogic.
The Professor

[Bridget Burke]

24. There are too many borders, already.

We don't need any more.

Nor do we need 4 Republican senators from Texas!

[atre]

25. I did a spreadsheet after the 2000 elections to show the impact of the EC

particularly on race.

One of the most interesting things was that states with lower voter turnout were handsomely rewarded (their voters' votes counted more). Voters in high-turnout states were punished by having their vote diluted. IIRC, Minnesota (and not California) was the biggest victim of the Electoral College in the 2000 election cycle because of its turnout.

I don't have web space, but I would be willing to mail the excel file to someone that does.

[DeaconBlues]

27. This thread points out the fundamental undemocratic nature

of our "democracy." Why should a small state like Wyoming have the same representation in the Senate as a state like California which has a 100 times more citizens. Federalism should not be an excuse for this kind of disenfranchisement. It is a big a problem, in my opinion, as the electoral college.

Looks like we still need a few more admendments to the constitution.

[stevedeshazer]

33. That's why there IS a Senate

Wyoming House Representatives: 1

California House Representatives: 52

The US Constitution was drafted with this in mind. There were many arguments about proportional representation.

Think it through. Really.

[DeaconBlues]

60. And Wyoming, with a population of 500,000

doesn't deserve the same representation as California, which has a population of 50 million, whether its in the House or in the Senate.
That's just undemocratic, and a holdover from when lightly populated (by whites) southern states blackmailed the rest of the union with the threat of secession. Just because the slave-owning founding fathers added things like this and the electoral college to the constitution to maintain their power doesn't mean we should keep them in the constitution now.

Think that through. Really.

[Gadave]

66. Pure Democracy is one of the worst forms of government

Your idea of making the Senate proportional like the house does several things, which are really bad.

1. It makes the Senate unnecessary since the House is already a proportional body.

2. It makes the share of power in washington more monolithic. Many hands (meaning many interests) controlling the ship of state is what we want, not fewer. The Senate is a counter-balance to the House, as congress as a whole is a counter-balance to the president and the supreme court. This interaction is sacred, and its why our country has last as long as it has.

3. Democracy means that any majority at any time can make any law it please. THIS IS BAD ! No matter how benevolent your fellow citizens may seem at one moment, does not mean that they won't be malevolent the next. How would you like a fully democratic society vote on our future on Sept 12, 2002?

The constitution is not a tinker toy, and should be left alone as much as possible, because believe me, what probably would replace it would be awful. It was an incredible stroke of luck that it was as good as it was.

[Terran]

34. Missouri

Not that I really agree with this whole idea, but Missouri could well be split four or five ways and subsumed into the surrounding states, with a sixth section left in the middle. Southeast MO to Arkansas, southwest to Oklahoma, west to Kansas, north to Iowa, and St. Louis/northeast to Illinois. Culturally speaking, it would work perfectly. Only central Missouri seems like an independent entity to me--call it Centralia or something equally Midwestern sounding.

[Pikku]

36. WRT Texas

El Pasoans have been saying for years that El Paso doesn't look like the rest of Texas, doesn't vote like it... doesn't even talk like it.
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=886

Most suggestions seem to involve becoming part of New Mexico.

[Mike Niendorff]

40. Washington

We really should split it North-South along the Cascades, and then probably merge Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho.


MDN

[Gildor Inglorion]

41. Georgia

Really is three separate entities that have very little in common: The Metro Atlanta region, the Appalachian northern region, and south Georgia.

[JaySherman]

54. Same with New Jersey

North/Central Jersey and South Jersey are two completely different worlds.

[SinkingInTheRain]

42. Why?

What would be the gain?

[Sugarbleus]

46. Definately California. Been wanting it for years. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

56. California split = less electoral votes for democrats...

So bad idea.

[Sugarbleus]

62. Lets get rid of Electoral College then. :o)

[Gadave]

67. Then say goodbye to campaigning in the small states

No EC means candidates cherry pick voter rich areas like Miami, LA, NY, Chicago and tell the rest of the country to get lost. Voting would just amount to getting out the vote in a few cities where your base lives. As it stands now, a candidate needs a presence in at least 20 states to win.

Just because we were screwed this time, doesn't mean it might protect us the next. If you remember the talk before Nov 2000 was what would happen if Bush won the pop vote and Gore won the EC, since the vote was so close.

I have lived on i-75 my entire life (save the few years in Saudi Arabia and California) and without the EC, I would never have a chance to see a Presidential candidate.

[Snow]

50. Speaking as a Californian, what about just leaving?

World's fifth largest economy, scenery, culture, import/export, and Arnold as governor? Who needs the US? All they do is let Enron rip us off and get away with it anyway! TO heck with 'em, we should strike out on our own - or maybe join Mexico (that should be rejoin, eh?) - that would rattle the world, wouldn't it....

[Hippo_Tron]

55. I prefer the worthless states that should be eliminated game... n/t

[jsw_81]

57. Yes, and several small states should be joined together

Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Idaho should be joined together; there's no reason why a handful of senators from sparsely populated "red" states should be able to stall the progressive agenda (e.g. national health care) that tens of millions of Americans want to see enacted.

And to be fair, tiny progressive states like Vermont and Delaware should probably be absorbed by larger states, too. This insane 18th century tyranny of the minority needs to end.

[SmileyBoy]

58. Um, four democratic senators come from North and South Dakota alone.

Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad, Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson.

[jsw_81]

61. Yeah, but half the time they vote like Republicans

Because they don't want to offend their conservative constituents. Tom Daschle is a good example.