6 New Blue Senators

[Wakie77]

Here is the call for splitting California into Norther & South California and statehood for Puerto Rico and DC.

Per the Republicans … if you can do it, you should.

[VBM]

If Dakota can be divided into 2 states for no reason, then why not California?

[Where's the Epstein Client List?]

If Dakota can be divided into 2 states for no reason, then why not California?

I would prefer a rule that a state has to have at least 1 million people in it (excepting the 13 original colonies, because without them, none of the other states would exist at all—so Delaware and Rhode Island would be exempt, for instance).

Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota would have to go.

Wyoming could be split up among Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Idaho and Montana.

Vermont could merge with New Hampshire or New York.

Alaska could become part of Washington State.

The two Dakotas could merge into a single State of Dakota.

[Del Tachi]

If Californians want to be divided into two new states, they can be.  Let's ask them...oh, wait...they don't want their public education, Medicaid and public retirement plans arbitrarily cut in half

[GP270watch]

People need to chill.

[7,052,770]

Terrible idea and terrible way to pitch the idea of adding DC and PR.

All Americans deserve representation in Congress. (Unless they explicitly don't want it.) Adding DC and PR is the right thing to do. It's not part of a grand bargain or a nuclear option or a revenge. For far too long these two specific parts of America have been denied their rightful representation, and it's time to fix that. Not for political reasons, but because it's objectively the right thing to do. After all, it's far from guaranteed that PR would send 2 Democrats to the Senate next year, and would certainly elect a Republican at some point over the next few decades.

[KaiserDave]

Splitting up states for political purposes is insanity and I'm disappointed to see fellow red avatars advocating for it.

[Alben Barkley]

Splitting up states for political purposes is insanity and I'm disappointed to see fellow red avatars advocating for it.

Fine. Don't split California up, but combine the Dakotas. And maybe throw Wyoming in with them for good measure. In fact, if it were up to me, there would be a LOT more consolidation. 50 states is too many and unnecessary in this day and age. I honestly think you could easily cut the country down into 10 regions as follows:

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Our beautiful Bison of Fargo refuse to share a state with the annual losers of the Battle for the Dakota Marker. Good luck making that happen. It's painful enough splitting funding with the losers of Grand Forks Community College, and we'd sooner split our state to get away from them.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

500 Oklahomas.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Splitting up states for political purposes is insanity and I'm disappointed to see fellow red avatars advocating for it.

Fine. Don't split California up, but combine the Dakotas. And maybe throw Wyoming in with them for good measure. In fact, if it were up to me, there would be a LOT more consolidation. 50 states is too many and unnecessary in this day and age. I honestly think you could easily cut the country down into 10 regions as follows:

This is kind of fun.  What would the values be?

Pacific (78) -- safe D
New england (33) -- safe D
Mid-atlantic (79) -- safe D
Southwest (37) -- likely D
Great lakes (85) -- lean D
Upper south (42) -- lean R
Deep south (69) -- safe R
South central (59) -- safe R
Heartland (27) -- safe R
Mountain west (16) -- safe R

Total:
227 solid/likely D
127 swing states
171 safe R

but the upper south isn't enough for Dems to win the election -- it only gets them to 269.

So the entire election would be fought in... duh duh duh... the great lakes region.  The only states that would matter are MN, WI, MI, IL, IN, OH.

[lfromnj]

Splitting up states for political purposes is insanity and I'm disappointed to see fellow red avatars advocating for it.

Fine. Don't split California up, but combine the Dakotas. And maybe throw Wyoming in with them for good measure. In fact, if it were up to me, there would be a LOT more consolidation. 50 states is too many and unnecessary in this day and age. I honestly think you could easily cut the country down into 10 regions as follows:

This is kind of fun.  What would the values be?

Pacific (78) -- safe D
New england (33) -- safe D
Mid-atlantic (79) -- safe D
Southwest (37) -- likely D
Great lakes (85) -- lean D
Upper south (42) -- lean R
Deep south (69) -- safe R
South central (59) -- safe R
Heartland (27) -- safe R
Mountain west (16) -- safe R

Total:
227 solid/likely D
127 swing states
171 safe R

but the upper south isn't enough for Dems to win the election -- it only gets them to 269.

So the entire election would be fought in... duh duh duh... the great lakes region.  The only states that would matter are MN, WI, MI, IL, IN, OH.

The upper south is safe or likely r. Va and NC cancel each other and the other 3 are deep red.

[Trends Are Fake]

Splitting up states for political purposes is insanity and I'm disappointed to see fellow red avatars advocating for it.

Fine. Don't split California up, but combine the Dakotas. And maybe throw Wyoming in with them for good measure. In fact, if it were up to me, there would be a LOT more consolidation. 50 states is too many and unnecessary in this day and age. I honestly think you could easily cut the country down into 10 regions as follows:

This is kind of fun.  What would the values be?

Pacific (78) -- safe D
New england (33) -- safe D
Mid-atlantic (79) -- safe D
Southwest (37) -- likely D
Great lakes (85) -- lean D
Upper south (42) -- lean R
Deep south (69) -- safe R
South central (59) -- safe R
Heartland (27) -- safe R
Mountain west (16) -- safe R

Total:
227 solid/likely D
127 swing states
171 safe R

but the upper south isn't enough for Dems to win the election -- it only gets them to 269.

So the entire election would be fought in... duh duh duh... the great lakes region.  The only states that would matter are MN, WI, MI, IL, IN, OH.

The Southwest voted for Trump in 2016 and I believe (but haven't verified) that it voted for Romney in 2012. It's rapidly trending D though.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Splitting up states for political purposes is insanity and I'm disappointed to see fellow red avatars advocating for it.

Fine. Don't split California up, but combine the Dakotas. And maybe throw Wyoming in with them for good measure. In fact, if it were up to me, there would be a LOT more consolidation. 50 states is too many and unnecessary in this day and age. I honestly think you could easily cut the country down into 10 regions as follows:

The EC/PV divide could get really nasty with fewer states.

[Alben Barkley]

Splitting up states for political purposes is insanity and I'm disappointed to see fellow red avatars advocating for it.

Fine. Don't split California up, but combine the Dakotas. And maybe throw Wyoming in with them for good measure. In fact, if it were up to me, there would be a LOT more consolidation. 50 states is too many and unnecessary in this day and age. I honestly think you could easily cut the country down into 10 regions as follows:

The EC/PV divide could get really nasty with fewer states.

Well I'd get rid of the EC entirely. This would be for what I think would be more efficient administration. It may have made sense to have states the size of Vermont or Wyoming back in the day, when it took a long time for people to communicate across often rough terrain. But in the freaking internet age, we just don't need so damn many sparsely populated states. It's not even about politics to me, I just don't think it's the optimal way to split up the country.

Even this I don't think necessarily would be, by the way. Some states would likely be split up entirely and put into different regions where they may fit more logically. (e.g. Missouri is dissolved, with the Southern "Missourah" part of it going to the South Central region, St. Louis going to the Great Lakes region, etc.) But this is just roughly where I think each state fits best with the others based on their current borders.

[KaiserDave]

Splitting up states for political purposes is insanity and I'm disappointed to see fellow red avatars advocating for it.

Fine. Don't split California up, but combine the Dakotas. And maybe throw Wyoming in with them for good measure. In fact, if it were up to me, there would be a LOT more consolidation. 50 states is too many and unnecessary in this day and age. I honestly think you could easily cut the country down into 10 regions as follows:

(Assuming you mean this seriously and not as a map interest)

No. Just no. We can not slaughter our constituent states, which have been uniquely molded by generations of hard working people for blatant political benefit.

Can we add to our Union? Yes, Puerto Rico is a must, the District of Columbia as well (though I'm not opposed to having Maryland annexing it).

But dismembering it? No, this is gerrymandering.

[Trends Are Fake]

Splitting up states for political purposes is insanity and I'm disappointed to see fellow red avatars advocating for it.

Fine. Don't split California up, but combine the Dakotas. And maybe throw Wyoming in with them for good measure. In fact, if it were up to me, there would be a LOT more consolidation. 50 states is too many and unnecessary in this day and age. I honestly think you could easily cut the country down into 10 regions as follows:

(Assuming you mean this seriously and not as a map interest)

No. Just no. We can not slaughter our constituent states, which have been uniquely molded by generations of hard working people for blatant political benefit.

Can we add to our Union? Yes, Puerto Rico is a must, the District of Columbia as well (though I'm not opposed to having Maryland annexing it).

But dismembering it? No, this is gerrymandering.

Barkley's reorganization is reorganization, not gerrymandering.

This, for the record, would be gerrymandering:

[KaiserDave]

Splitting up states for political purposes is insanity and I'm disappointed to see fellow red avatars advocating for it.

Fine. Don't split California up, but combine the Dakotas. And maybe throw Wyoming in with them for good measure. In fact, if it were up to me, there would be a LOT more consolidation. 50 states is too many and unnecessary in this day and age. I honestly think you could easily cut the country down into 10 regions as follows:

(Assuming you mean this seriously and not as a map interest)

No. Just no. We can not slaughter our constituent states, which have been uniquely molded by generations of hard working people for blatant political benefit.

Can we add to our Union? Yes, Puerto Rico is a must, the District of Columbia as well (though I'm not opposed to having Maryland annexing it).

But dismembering it? No, this is gerrymandering.

Barkley's reorganization is reorganization, not gerrymandering.

This, for the record, would be gerrymandering:

Fair. But the intention and function is the same. Political benefit for one side.