General Discussion

Takket

(23,698 posts)

4. Why this would never fly with Washington

Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:46 PM

Jun 2014

Dividing the states up logically like that with major cities at the center would basically spell doom for gerrymandering which would likewise spell doom for the republicans in the House.

They would never let this happen. They would oppose along "patriotic lines" of not breaking up "the great state of whatever"! but it would be the gerrymandering they would be afraid of losing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Map With Only 38 States [View all] onehandle Jun 2014 OP

Ok - i get that they are named after geographical features - but Bitterroot? Superior? el_bryanto Jun 2014 #1

Most of the regions are historical names, Indian names, or geographical names. Igel Jun 2014 #14

"Superior" is the favored name for Michigan Upper Peninsula secessionists caraher Jun 2014 #20

Mohawk, really just one of the five nations! whistler162 Jun 2014 #35

Personally I think Biscayne stinks as a name csziggy Jun 2014 #37

Much simpler idea... DAMANgoldberg Jun 2014 #39

That map doesn't make a lot of sense pscot Jun 2014 #2

Not sure the current one makes sense either CreekDog Jun 2014 #29

Folding Wyoming, Idaho and Montana pscot Jun 2014 #31

*pats Dr Pearcy on head* Um, ok, no, but thanks for playing NightWatcher Jun 2014 #3

Why this would never fly with Washington Takket Jun 2014 #4

The names are going to frost those "english only" people. uppityperson Jun 2014 #5

Also... he has 3 territories that border Lake Erie, but the Erie territory does not. *facepalm* Takket Jun 2014 #6

That state would be known as "Buckeye Nation" anyway. So it doesn't matter. (nt) Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #25

K & R for an interesting idea Coventina Jun 2014 #7

Sounds like the poor sections of states would just get more poor Boom Sound 416 Jun 2014 #8

Exactly right. djean111 Jun 2014 #27

al franken would have to relearn how to draw the country! unblock Jun 2014 #9

Suck it up, Al! nt onehandle Jun 2014 #15

It is an interesting concept sarisataka Jun 2014 #10

Alaska is definitely a mess in this scheme caraher Jun 2014 #21

This is what comes from an academic. Jenoch Jun 2014 #11

right. more to the point, states *exists* for historical reasons. unblock Jun 2014 #18

I would not be in favor of 'federal legislative districts' Jenoch Jun 2014 #23

the idea of federal districts is that it would allow for regional differences unblock Jun 2014 #24

Well, it was a high cost, Jenoch Jun 2014 #34

it doesn't seem to reduce the number of large cities within states at all muriel_volestrangler Jun 2014 #12

i think the point was to reduce problems like chicago, which spills into indiana unblock Jun 2014 #16

I am totally into this. The_Commonist Jun 2014 #13

That was pre-Reagan. Taxes are now too local. ieoeja Jun 2014 #17

Reccing because I like weird maps A Little Weird Jun 2014 #19

This makes too much sense tabasco Jun 2014 #22

Why would you rename Hawaii? Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #26

Good question. And, as long as we're radically reconstructing the country, why not liberate them? Coventina Jun 2014 #38

Put this on the shelf for another 50ys until the climate change effects are better understood. CK_John Jun 2014 #28

Not a bad idea, but I dont like his selection of colors. Just sayin. nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #30

I guess I don't see the point or advantage fishwax Jun 2014 #32

The population of various parts of the country has shifted since 1973. surrealAmerican Jun 2014 #33

I can't imagine that getting many votes in The Senate. Motown_Johnny Jun 2014 #36

Actually we should double everywhere RobertEarl Jun 2014 #40

Four Senators from North and South Dakota is ludicrous. Split California into 10 States, with 20 Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #41