Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unblock

(56,182 posts)
18. right. more to the point, states *exists* for historical reasons.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:25 PM
Jun 2014

if we were designing the country from scratch, without our historical baggage, we'd probably go for federal administrative districts instead of states.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Map With Only 38 Stat...»Reply #18