Redraw State Lines ala Redistricting

[Wakie77]

I know that it would never pass through Congress, but would everyone be theoretically in favor of redrawing state lines every 100 years similar to how districts within states are redrawn whenever the state legislatures feel like it?

It would seem to me to make sense.  You could create an America and a Senate that is far more representative of the people than what exists today.  Merge the Dakota's into 1 state, split up North & South California.  Turn Pennsylvania into 3 states (Western PA, Philadelphia, & Pennsyltucky).

Thoughts?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This would be extremely stupid.
- That's totally not the purpose of having states.
- There would be massive inequal representation anyways in the second half of the century. I mean, said thing in 1920 would have created a megastate of Florida + Southern Georgia, and a state covering not even all of Manhattan. How does that turn out?

[Stuart98]

If you're going this route you might as well abolish federalism altogether. Not gonna fly in this country for the foreseeable future.

[Alcibiades]

The far better solution to the problem of small states wielding disproportionate power is to either:
a) Give states representation equal to their population in the Senate
b) Make the Senate the less powerful house of Congress
This is what most federal states have, despite having states/regions which prioritise local and historical character over equal population.

[Wakie77]

This would be extremely stupid.
- That's totally not the purpose of having states.
- There would be massive inequal representation anyways in the second half of the century. I mean, said thing in 1920 would have created a megastate of Florida + Southern Georgia, and a state covering not even all of Manhattan. How does that turn out?

Let's compare the Dakotas & California.

The Dakota's get 4 Senators, California gets 2.
The Dakota's have 1.6 Million people, California has 39.5 Million.
The Dakota's cover 147,000 square miles, California 163,000 square miles.
The Dakota's total economy is $111 billion, California has a $3.2 trillion economy.
The Dakota's are roughly 85% white, California is 39% Latino/37% white/15% Asian American/etc.
The Dakotas provide 4.4% of America's food, California provides 13.5% of America's food.


So …. someone please explain to me why it makes sense for the Dakota's to have a greater voice in the Senate than California?  Because in 1880 South Dakotans thought they were better than North Dakotans?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This would be extremely stupid.
- That's totally not the purpose of having states.
- There would be massive inequal representation anyways in the second half of the century. I mean, said thing in 1920 would have created a megastate of Florida + Southern Georgia, and a state covering not even all of Manhattan. How does that turn out?

Let's compare the Dakotas & California.

The Dakota's get 4 Senators, California gets 2.
The Dakota's have 1.6 Million people, California has 39.5 Million.
The Dakota's cover 147,000 square miles, California 163,000 square miles.
The Dakota's total economy is $111 billion, California has a $3.2 trillion economy.
The Dakota's are roughly 85% white, California is 39% Latino/37% white/15% Asian American/etc.

So …. someone please explain to me why it makes sense for the Dakota's to have a greater voice in the Senate than California?  Because in 1880 South Dakotans thought they were better than North Dakotans?

The Dakotas have a greater voice in the Senate than California because Republican operatives in the 1880's found it advantageous to split the Dakota territory into two before admitting it into the Union.

But in any case, your post is a total strawman that doesn't address the fact that redrawing states every 100 years 1. is pretty absurd because the main purpose of states, by far, is not to serve as electoral districts 2. is useless because huge population differences will arise anyways - and last a lot; one century is freaking long.

If you have a problem with the U.S. Senate, you should instead propose to give larger states representation more proportional to their population, to make the Senate a secondary body, or to abolish the Senate altogether.

Also guess why you used the Dakotas and not Vermont and Maine...

[Del Tachi]

Let's compare the Dakotas & California.

The Dakota's get 4 Senators, California gets 2.
The Dakota's have 1.6 Million people, California has 39.5 Million.
The Dakota's cover 147,000 square miles, California 163,000 square miles.
The Dakota's total economy is $111 billion, California has a $3.2 trillion economy.
The Dakota's are roughly 85% white, California is 39% Latino/37% white/15% Asian American/etc.
The Dakotas provide 4.4% of America's food, California provides 13.5% of America's food.


So …. someone please explain to me why it makes sense for the Dakota's to have a greater voice in the Senate than California?  Because in 1880 South Dakotans thought they were better than North Dakotans?

All of these things are rewards in their own right.  The outsized influence California has due to it's population/economy allows it to routinely dictate national political priorities.  California environmental/product safety laws are de facto national standards (because no private business is going to forgo a market of 40M Americans).  National candidates (both Republicans and Democrats) raise more money from California than any other state.  The state holds a preeminent position in our culture/media, and has more billionaires per capita than all but only 3 other states. 

The fact that one-half of one branch of our Federal government doesn't directly reflect this level dominance is corrective, not a deficiency.   

[Former President tack50]

Never happening, but for fun I decided to look at how the US would look like if it switched to 50 states of (roughly) equal population using this tool

https://dyslabs.github.io/mapster/

Here is the map I came up with. You can probably do a lot better but this takes a ton of time to make so not doing it again (I have it saved so I may do some changes if people want and this saved fine)



I will include as well my personal expected Senate division (2D, 2R or split) but as always depends on how the Senate classes divide

Los Ángeles: Obama+40, Clinton+48
San Diego: Romney+2, Clinton+13
Mojave (San Bernardino, Riverside & Las Vegas): Obama+7, Clinton+8
Arizona: Romney+10, Trump+4
Pacifica (Seattle area+HI+AK): Obama+30, Clinton+32
Cascadia (rest of WA plus northern OR): Obama+7, Clinton+6
California: Romney+1, Clinton+5
San Francisco: Obama+51, Clinton+58
North California: Obama+11, Clinton+11
Deseret (centered on UT): Romney+31, Trump+21
New Mexico (green along the Mexican border): Romney+12, Trump+10
Central Texas: Romney+12, Trump+5
Houston: Romney+10, Clinton+1
East Texas (includes western LA, southern AR and a bit of OK): Romney+29, Trump+34
Dallas: Romney+13, Trump+4
Dakota (the big state including the Dakotas): Romney+15, Trump+23
Colorado: Obama+2, Clinton+0
Kansas (includes most of OK): Romney+27, Trump+28
Missouri (northern AR and southern MO): Romney+12, Trump+21
Minnesota (most of MN and western WI): Obama+9, Clinton+2
Iowa: Romney+1, Trump+14
Wisconsin: Obama+6, Clinton+2
Chicago: Obama+41, Clinton+46
Illinois (includes western IN): Romney+6, Trump+14
Michigan: Romney+5, Trump+15
Detroit: Obama+17, Clinton+7
Indiana: Romney+13, Trump+19
Mississippi: Romney+12, Trump+17
West Tennessee: Romney+18, Trump+26
South Florida: Obama+24, Clinton+25
East Florida: Romney+5, Trump+63
West Florida: Romney+7, Trump+13
Alabama (includes southwest Georgia & the FL panhandle): Romney+20, Trump+26
Atlanta: Romney+6, Trump+1
South Carolina: Romney+11, Trump+14
South Appalachia (western VA and NC, Eastern TN, northeast KY): Romney+24, Trump+29
New England (includes ME, VT, NH and parts of NY and MA): Obama+15, Clinton+6
Boston: Obama+23, Clinton+26
Long Island (includes Queens): Obama+23, Clinton+17
New York City (rest of NYC): Obama+64, Clinton+63
Connecticut (west CT and NYC suburbs): Obama+24, Clinton+23
Upstate New York (includes northern PA): Obama+8, Trump+4
Ohio: Obama+9, Trump+1
North Carolina: Romney+4, Trump+6
Tidewater (eastern NC and southeast VA): Obama+4, Clinton+3
North Appalachia (western VA, WV, the MD panhandle, parts of OH and PA): Romney+13, Trump+22
Columbia (centered on DC): Obama+32, Clinton+40
Delmarva (centered on Delaware): Obama+29, Clinton+27
Pennsylvania: Romney+10, Trump+20
New Jersey: Obama+11, Clinton+6


Fun fact: while better for Dems, even this map would not be a level playing field.

Romney wins 27/50 states while Obama only wins 23 states.
Perhaps more interestingly, Clinton actually does better than Obama, losing to Trump 26-24

And for fun:

Obama/Trump states: Upstate NY, Ohio

Romney/Clinton states: San Diego, California, Houston

[Wakie77]

These should be the states:

Source

Just as good as the system we have today.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

These should be the states:

Source

I'm broadly supportive of using watersheds as political lines, but this takes it way too far.

[KaiserDave]

Not remotely supportive

[Storr]

These should be the states:

Source

I'm broadly supportive of using watersheds as political lines, but this takes it way too far.

I prefer using bodies of water (usually rivers, of course). And yes, that map is nuts.