What state's borders should be changed?

[muon2]

LOLno... I'd be living in Florida now if it kept its 1810 borders.

Shouldn't this be under Political Geography and Demographics?

Well this seems somewhat off topic...right?

Well, you're still talking about political geography though.

In fact there's a related thread going on now at that board. If a mod here wants to move it, I have no objection.

[muon2]

Darn that ever changing Mississippi River.

You can add Carter Lake, IA to your list. It's a suburb of Omaha entirely west of the river.



Similarly, the original state capital of IL, Kaskaskia, is entirely on the MO side of the river.

[muon2]

Since posts are listing lengthy lists of changes, I thought it was worth going for broke. Some years ago I redivided the US into 50 states based on Garreau's Nine Nations of North America. I've decided to update the maps using a few criteria. The states must be whole counties and stay within Garreau's nations except to maintain current metropolitan areas. My goal is also to keep the state's population in a range such that the largest is no more than 4 times the smallest. I've taken the liberty of naming these states after native tribes from the area (hi, Lewis ).

My first nation is Ecotopia (with principal city) and population in millions:
Duwamish (Seattle) 4.7
Chinook (Portland) 3.6
Shasta (Sacramento) 3.6
Ohlone (San Francisco) 9.5

[muon2]

Since posts are listing lengthy lists of changes, I thought it was worth going for broke. Some years ago I redivided the US into 50 states based on Garreau's Nine Nations of North America. I've decided to update the maps using a few criteria. The states must be whole counties and stay within Garreau's nations except to maintain current metropolitan areas. My goal is also to keep the state's population in a range such that the largest is no more than 4 times the smallest. I've taken the liberty of naming these states after native tribes from the area (hi, Lewis ).

My first nation is Ecotopia (with principal city) and population in millions:
Duwamish (Seattle) 4.7
Chinook (Portland) 3.6
Shasta (Sacramento) 3.6
Ohlone (San Francisco) 9.5

Ecotopia? I prefer the name "Cascadia".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29

Even though I wouldn't actually support an independence movement, I think the name is amazing.

Ecotopia is the name from Joel Garreau's 1981 book Nine Nations of North America. Since the boundaries are based on that work, I'll stick with his names. Garreau cites a 1975 novel as the basis for the name.

[muon2]

The next of the Nine Nations to tackle is Empty Quarter. I took the national boundary from Garreau's book and made adjustments to keep whole counties and metro areas together. The division into states is designed to keep them between 3 and 12 million in population with an average of 6.2 million (1/50 of the US).

In principle Empty Quarter is very close to 3 states worth of population, but the Mormon-dominated state of Ute is pretty well defined in the center of Empty Quarter. Any division of the rest into two states is very awkward. My three state division sets up Arapaho east of the Continental Divide. Paiute has three principal cities of nearly equal size that lie along an axis defined by US 95. Navajo places Clark county back with northern AZ where it originally was and links it to western CO. It's the least attractive of the four states, but the population constraints force some loop around the southern edge of Ute.

States (and principal city) with 2010 populations in millions are:

Paiute (Reno, Boise, Spokane) 4.8
Ute (Salt Lake City) 3.5
Navajo (Las Vegas) 3.4
Arapaho (Denver) 5.2

[muon2]

The next of the Nine Nations is Breadbasket. I took the national boundary from Garreau's book and made adjustments to keep whole counties and metro areas together. The most significant deviation occurred putting Columbia, MO in Dixie which naturally led to excising all of MO's Little Dixie from Breadbasket. The division into states is designed to keep them between 3.1 and 12.4 million in population with an average of 6.2 million (1/50 of the US).

Breadbasket is between 6 and 7 states inpopulation, but the open unpopulated expanses work better with 7 states. The Dakota-Kansa line follows the state line since that marks the southern end of heavy corn production in the plains. Ojibwe covers the lake region of the upper Midwest. The Sauk-Illini line follows the North-Midland dialect line except for the St Louis Corridor. Wichita links the Metroplex to Austin, and leaves Comanche as a land of cattle and oil.

States (and principal city) with 2010 populations in millions are:

Dakota (Omaha) 4.2
Ojibwe (Minneapolis) 5.5
Sauk (Madison, Des Moines) 5.1
Illini (St Louis) 5.8
Kansa (Kansas City) 4.3
Comanche (Oklahoma City) 5.3
Wichita (Dallas) 9.6

[muon2]

The next of the Nine Nations is MexAmerica. I took the national boundary from Garreau's book and made adjustments to keep whole counties and metro areas together. Tonkawa which represents the Houston metro area is a border city in the book and could equally well go in Dixie. The trend over the 30 years since publication seems to to place it better in MexAmerica.

The division into states is designed to keep them between 3.1 and 12.4 million in population with an average of 6.2 million (1/50 of the US). That causes a problem for the Los Angeles metro area which has 12.8 million in the metro statistical area and 18.2 million in the greater metro area. This has to be split into at least two states, so Chumash takes LA county with Ventura and Santa Barbara. The rest links up with San Diego to form Cahuilla.  Apache has the opposite problem with barely the minimum population, defined on the east end by the edge of the San Antonio metro area, and the west side by the continental divide.

States (and principal city) with 2010 populations in millions are:

Yokuts (Fresno) 4.1
Chumash (Los Angeles) 11.1
Cahuilla (San Diego) 10.5
O'odham (Phoenix) 5.7
Apache (El Paso) 3.2
Xarame (San Antonio) 4.3
Tonkawa (Houston) 5.9

[muon2]

After a couple weeks hiatus to work on erosity and apportionment regions, it's time to return to the remaining 4 "nations". Next up is New England, in which Garreau includes the six New England states minus SW CT. Fairfield is unmistably not in New England, but New Haven and Litchfield are on the border and could be left out as they are part of the NYC CSA. I left them in this nation to give southern New England a more reasonable population. I also added the counties of the northern Adirondacks of NY here as well to fit with northern New England.

New England has the population for 2.2 states, but there's no natural way to divide it into two other than the Boston metro and everything else, but that would link Hartford, Burlington and most of Maine. It's tempting to put it all in one state, but I decided to go with the traditional north, south, and Boston split.

States (and principal city) with 2010 populations in millions are:

Abenaki (Manchester) 3.8
Wampanoag (Boston) 4.9
Pequot (Providence) 5.1

[muon2]

The largest of the "nations" is the Foundry. There is enough population for 14.7 states, but the combination of some large population centers here and the need for some smaller states in other regions drop the number of states here to 13.

Most of the big cities anchor states that generally match the corresponding metro area, and when they are smaller they combine with other areas. Combining Milwaukee with Chicago would be too large, so Milwaukee becomes part of a state the wraps around the lake to Michigan. The greater New York area is so large that it becomes three states. The Baltimore-Washington area is large enough for two states, but this region stays combined until there is another state to eliminate elsewhere.

States (and principal city) with 2010 populations in millions are:

Winnebago (Milwaukee) 4.2
Meskwaki (Chicago) 9.7
Potawatomi (Fort Wayne, Grand Rapids) 4.5
Ottawa (Detroit) 5.7
Erie (Cleveland) 4.3
Miami (Indianapolis, Columbus) 8.9
Mingo (Pittsburgh) 8.7
Iroquois (Buffalo) 5.1
Susquehannock (Washington, Baltimore) 10.8
Lenape (Philadelphia) 7.0
Raritan (Newark) 5.5
Munsee (New York) 8.4
Montauk (Brooklyn) 7.6

[muon2]

The last of my reworked states using the Nine Nations of North America are those in Dixie and the Islands. South Florida was part of the Caribbean-based Islands and not in Dixie, and I followed the division from the book. However, in the 30 years since publication one could make the case for central FL to go there, too. Even the Cajun area of south LA could move to the Islands, with a culture unlike most of Dixie as Garreau noted in the book.

Over all there is enough population for 13 states, but the need for some smaller states in other regions drop the number of states in these two nations to 12. Within Dixie the states follow the geography of the Appalachians and Coastal Plain. If there were an additional state it would likely be one that linked Charleston to Jacksonville, leaving central FL and the deep South.

States (and principal city) with 2010 populations in millions are:

Dixie
Chitimacha (New Orleans) 3.7
Caddo (Shreveport) 3.3
Osage (Little Rock) 4.7
Tunica (Memphis) 4.3
Chickasaw (Atlanta) 9.3
Shawnee (Nashville, Louisville) 6.8
Cherokee (Knoxville) 8.8
Powhatan (Virginia Beach) 7.5
Catawba (Charlotte) 7.0
Muskogee (Montgomery, Augusta) 9.1
Seminole (Jacksonville) 9.8

Islands
Colusa (Miami) 7.1

[muon2]

I think you paid a bit too much attention to geography there, especially with your atrocious border between Catawba and Powhatan.   Go ahead and give central Virgina to Powhatan in exchange for the Pee Dee and southeast North Carolina going to Catawba.

I appreciate the local input. Where would you place the line in NC? If I look at a dialect map it looks like Raleigh-Durham sits right near that line that separates the Richmond/Tidewater dialect from most of the Carolinas. Is that a useful division?

[muon2]

I think you paid a bit too much attention to geography there, especially with your atrocious border between Catawba and Powhatan.   Go ahead and give central Virgina to Powhatan in exchange for the Pee Dee and southeast North Carolina going to Catawba.

I appreciate the local input. Where would you place the line in NC? If I look at a dialect map it looks like Raleigh-Durham sits right near that line that separates the Richmond/Tidewater dialect from most of the Carolinas. Is that a useful division?

Yup.  I can't say where exactly the diving line should be, but northeast North Carolina really is part of Virginia.  It was even settled from there even before the Carolina colony was legally established.

Closer to home, I'd put Orangeburg County into the Black Belt state of Muskogee.  Culturally Saluda County, SC could go in any of the three, but economically, it's part of the Aiken-Augusta CSRA that you have in Muskogee.  If it works to help balance the populations, you could move the Charleston Tricounty area from Muskogee to Catawba, tho that ain't essential.  It's more a case of Charleston being its own little world, but to small to be a state of its own.

So, with your advice I've modified my Dixie map above. I originally placed Orangeburg where I did since it shows up as part of the Columbia CSA, but since it is its own micropolitan area I have no problem moving it. Saluda is in the Columbia MSA, so I felt like it made the most sense to leave it there.

[muon2]

Here is another idea: combining states.

This is a plan for 8 "Californias" letting CA stand alone and then combining other states along cultural lines until there are only 8 states in total with between 50-60 CDs worth of population each.  The downside is that a COI nightmare Louisiana Purchase state from the Mississippi to the Pacific NW is basically unavoidable:

New States:

Adams (NJ+NY+New England): 60 CDs, 62 EV, Safe D
Jefferson (NC+VA+DC+MD+PA+DE): 52 CDs, 54 EV, Lean D?
Pinckney (FL+GA+SC): 48 CDs, 50 EV, Likely R
Jackson (AR+LA+MS+AL+TN+KY+WV+OH): 55 CDs, 57 EV, Safe R
Lincoln (MN+WI+IL+IN+MI): 57 CDs, 59 EV, Likely D
Houston (TX+NM+AZ+OK): 51 CDs, 53 EV, Safe R (isn't this still Hispanic plurality?)
Sacagawea (AK+HI+WA+OR+ID+NV+UT+MT+WY+CO+ND+SD+NE+KS+MO+IA): 59 CDs, 61 EV, lean R?
Fremont (CA): 53 CDs, 55 EV, Safe D

Northern OH and Western PA probably hate me right now...

I think a mountain west/plains split makes more sense here. (60, 57, 52, 59, 55, 51, 49, 53)

[muon2]

Here is another idea: combining states.

This is a plan for 8 "Californias" letting CA stand alone and then combining other states along cultural lines until there are only 8 states in total with between 50-60 CDs worth of population each.  The downside is that a COI nightmare Louisiana Purchase state from the Mississippi to the Pacific NW is basically unavoidable:

New States:

Adams (NJ+NY+New England): 60 CDs, 62 EV, Safe D
Jefferson (NC+VA+DC+MD+PA+DE): 52 CDs, 54 EV, Lean D?
Pinckney (FL+GA+SC): 48 CDs, 50 EV, Likely R
Jackson (AR+LA+MS+AL+TN+KY+WV+OH): 55 CDs, 57 EV, Safe R
Lincoln (MN+WI+IL+IN+MI): 57 CDs, 59 EV, Likely D
Houston (TX+NM+AZ+OK): 51 CDs, 53 EV, Safe R (isn't this still Hispanic plurality?)
Sacagawea (AK+HI+WA+OR+ID+NV+UT+MT+WY+CO+ND+SD+NE+KS+MO+IA): 59 CDs, 61 EV, lean R?
Fremont (CA): 53 CDs, 55 EV, Safe D

Northern OH and Western PA probably hate me right now...

I think a mountain west/plains split makes more sense here. (60, 57, 52, 59, 55, 51, 49, 53)

Your's is visually more attractive and probably has more swing states.  The northern plains and South Florida officially hate you now, though.  The only truly uncontroversial parts are CA and the Northeast because you are forced to draw an NY+New England state to maintain contiguity.  South Florida really can't win in any permutation, but your map gives them absolutely no hope.  I also like that I've managed to preserve 2 pretty rural states (Jackson and Sacagawea) given that 20ish% of the population is still rural.  Yours looks like:

NE state: Safe D
Rust Belt state: Toss Up
DC Area + Appalachian state: Toss Up? (will be D in the near future if not now)
Florida+Deep South: Safe R
TX+OK+LA+AR: Even Safer R (Is this state majority-minority?)
IL+WI+Northern Plains: Is it still Lean D?
Mountain West: Lean D? I think the small hard right states are swamped by the bigger D states?
CA: Safe D

Interestingly, it seems really hard to do this without 5 of the 8 states favoring Democrats.  It's the opposite effect that we see when we divide states and the Republicans gain a bigger and bigger EC advantage.  Could this be because each large state basically has to take in a huge city somewhere?

In 2012 Romney just carries the Mountain West so it's R+2. The Northern Plains goes almost exactly the same as Obama's winning national margin so call it D+0, a tossup. The Rust Belt also goes at less than a half percent above Obama's winning margin so that's also a D+0 tossup. And in the Cumberland Gap states Romney wins by 2,769 votes, so it would be R+2.

Over all the map is 2R, 2r, 2e, 2D and it actually leans R. If these states were the EC, Obama squeaks by 233 to 219.