State Population Minimums

kernals12

Banned
Pretty sure Idaho has a clearly distinct identity from the coastal parts of Washington and Oregon, and you think it is a good idea to combine the three states? Making such huge states is an issue especially back in the day because of travel times to the state capital, issues in statewide campaigns (elections for governor, and later senator assuming the 17th amendment), and other communication problems.
Lots of states have cultural fault lines. Illinois is very different outside of Cook County. Atlanta has little in common with the rural counties to its north. People in rural California complain endlessly about being dominated by Los Angeles and the Bay Area. And the introduction of telephones and railroads makes communication and transportation completely tolerable.
 
Lots of states have cultural fault lines. Illinois is very different outside of Cook County. Atlanta has little in common with the rural counties to its north. People in rural California complain endlessly about being dominated by Los Angeles and the Bay Area. And the introduction of telephones and railroads makes communication and transportation completely tolerable.

It’s probably a shorter list of states that don’t have these “fault lines” and most of them seem to center around urban vs rural. And until probably the last 50-60 years or so, centering states around urban areas and leaving the rest of the state intact would be completely unworkable rather than mostly unworkable and quite possibly silly.
 

kernals12

Banned
It’s probably a shorter list of states that don’t have these “fault lines” and most of them seem to center around urban vs rural. And until probably the last 50-60 years or so, centering states around urban areas and leaving the rest of the state intact would be completely unworkable rather than mostly unworkable and quite possibly silly.
But a majority of our population probably lives in states with these types of fault lines.
 
But a majority of our population probably lives in states with these types of fault lines.

No shit. When the Constitution was written, it was much less of a concern since the elite were plantation owners and agricultural giants. The Industrial Revolution changed all that and now the elites are in banking, industry and real estate. Now increasingly that includes technology. And that means cities. And being in a city nowadays makes a lot of difference. Immigrants flock to cities. People looking for a fresh start flock to cities. Young people flock to cities. Cities are totally different from rural areas in that they may as well be a different universe.

But people in Atlanta and people in Macon vote for the same statehouse. People in Philadelphia and people in State College have the same candidates for governor on the ballot. People in San Francisco and Hinckley both went through the recall in 2003. People in Columbus and Mount Gilead are affected when the Ohio Supreme Court makes a ruling. People in Miami and Sanford both adhere to the same state constitution. People in Salt Lake City and Provo send the same two people to the Senate. People in Las Vegas and Primm both salute the same state flag, to the extent that one salutes a state flag.

My point? People in Kansas City and Belgrade have next to nothing in common except the two-letter postal abbreviation after the comma in their town’s name. The Founders never thought of this nor should they have. But are we really benefiting anyone by not redoing States so they actually kinda-sorta represent people’s needs? I mean, a person in Boston doesn’t have the same needs as a person from Springfield. Why should everyone be represented by the exact same elected officials? People in Houston don’t have the same values as a governor elected by people in Lubbock. Yet they’re all Texans and beholden to everything that goes with it. It kind of stopped making sense a while ago.
 
1890: This is when the effect of the rule is at its highest. The Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming do not meet the threshold. They are merged into one state.
dang, that is one big spread out state. Luckily, there are a lot of railroads around at the time, so people who have to go to the state capitol can do so...
also, if this POD was in effect, how would Presidential elections go with fewer Electoral votes out there.... I imagine that there would be some different results...
 
There is a discussion on the effects of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and this is a knock off effect. There were plans to consolidate many of the micro-colonies in the works under James II that were halted during the period of benign neglect during the Whig Ascendancy. Except for the consolidation of the two New Jerseys. Did you know that there used to be two New Jerseys? Then the decision was made in 1787 to pander to the Delawares and Rhode Islands instead of just forming the federation without them, and in the case of Rhode Island the latter could have been done easily given that they didn't join the union until after Washington took office. This set a precedent.

Then there was the decision that Congress could form new states from territories at will, but to consolidate states you need the approval from all concerned, so politically expedient states and consolidation is effectively impossible. And no need for approval from the existing states to dilute their shares. To be fair, other federal unions have the exact same problem and get lots of micro-states until effectively there is a revolution and everything can be reset.

Starting with the Civil War you get West Virginia and several low population density states out West that were really only created to help secure the re-election of the Republican prez at the time. The admissions between 1796 and 1860 were all perfectly reasonable.
 

kernals12

Banned
dang, that is one big spread out state. Luckily, there are a lot of railroads around at the time, so people who have to go to the state capitol can do so...
also, if this POD was in effect, how would Presidential elections go with fewer Electoral votes out there.... I imagine that there would be some different results...

I can only find 2 that would change.

In 1876, Tilden would've won. Rutherford only got 1 more electoral vote and gets screwed without Oregon, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas.

In 2000, I believe Gore would've won with Bush losing 2 electoral votes in each of the states that get merged out west.

It's important to remember that electoral college results are rarely close thanks to winner take all rules.

The much bigger impact would be in the senate.
 
Last edited:
State borders were arbitrarily drawn centuries ago to match either lines of longitude and latitude or geographical features such as rivers.
That is indeed the science of surveying, the method those people culturally used to determine their communal boundaries.

They do not match any sort of group identity.
I disagree with your conception of early American history.

Pretty sure Idaho has a clearly distinct identity from the coastal parts of Washington and Oregon, and you think it is a good idea to combine the three states? Making such huge states is an issue especially back in the day because of travel times to the state capital, issues in statewide campaigns (elections for governor, and later senator assuming the 17th amendment), and other communication problems.
This is a great example. There are parts along the Columbia River, immediately east of the Cascade Mountains which at the time of Oregon's admission found it beneficial to be included with the portions of Oregon west of the Cascades. As time has moved on, these regions developed different cultures, partly due to their climate - now the eastern two thirds of Oregon has more in common with Idaho than with western Oregon. Likewise the southwestern third of Oregon has more in common with Northern California than it does with the rest of western Oregon. Western Washington now has a lot in common with western Oregon, but for a time it was beneficial for the communities north of the Columbia River to be their own state.

Though eastern Washington and Oregon have more in common with Idaho than their more settled western regions, there is also a split in Idaho. The Idaho panhandle, and far west Montana have experienced a decline in their relative importance in their own states, and now they would be a good fit to join together.

Or you could just go with Great Idaho and have it gobble up a slice of Wyoming, far western Montana, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and northern California. Or be even more funner and combine all that with British Columbia, and Alaska as Great Cascadia.:love:
 

kernals12

Banned
That is indeed the science of surveying, the method those people culturally used to determine their communal boundaries.

I disagree with your conception of early American history.

This is a great example. There are parts along the Columbia River, immediately east of the Cascade Mountains which at the time of Oregon's admission found it beneficial to be included with the portions of Oregon west of the Cascades. As time has moved on, these regions developed different cultures, partly due to their climate - now the eastern two thirds of Oregon has more in common with Idaho than with western Oregon. Likewise the southwestern third of Oregon has more in common with Northern California than it does with the rest of western Oregon. Western Washington now has a lot in common with western Oregon, but for a time it was beneficial for the communities north of the Columbia River to be their own state.

Though eastern Washington and Oregon have more in common with Idaho than their more settled western regions, there is also a split in Idaho. The Idaho panhandle, and far west Montana have experienced a decline in their relative importance in their own states, and now they would be a good fit to join together.

Or you could just go with Great Idaho and have it gobble up a slice of Wyoming, far western Montana, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and northern California. Or be even more funner and combine all that with British Columbia, and Alaska as Great Cascadia.:love:
You can find cultural barriers wherever you want. South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana are all very similar and it could be argued that they should be combined into just one giant state, Dixie. New York City has more in common with New Jersey than the rest of New York State. Also, cultures change over time. Florida and Texas were once considered part of the deep south.
 

kernals12

Banned
If you base the Senate on population, there is no need for bicameralism



The people writing the Constitution thought that, separate from the people, the states required representation in the federal legislature, too.



No, I'm explicitly stating that I agree with the founders that states should have separate representation in the federal legislature. If we hadn't jacked up the system with direct election of senators, we'd likely see fewer unfounded mandates imposed by the congress on the states. I believe that the law should be neutral and equal- no one should get special protection or special privileges.



So imperfect execution invalidates the form of the system? By the way, all of your examples except the first half of the 90 years come after the direct election of senators was instituted by the 17th Amendment in 1913.
I can live with seperate representation for the states, I can't live with the body representing states having more power than the body representing people. I think the power to vote on presidential nominees and ratify treaties should be transfered to the house. I also think the senate should not be allowed to draft any laws or allocate money, only being allowed to vote up or down on whatever the house passes.
 
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana are all very similar and it could be argued that they should be combined into just one giant state, Dixie.
Arguably South Carolina took over Georgia, and the southern two thirds of Alabama and Mississippi are South Carolinian colonies.
 
Top