11 ms·

US 50 states redrawn as equal population (2012)

60 points by cryptozeus 7y ago

sgillen 7y ago
I feel like the bigger problem than the electoral college is the senate. I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island. It made sense at the time and we do have a house to nominally balance that out. But nowadays it just makes some people’s votes count for a lot more than others.
- smsm42 7y ago
  Why is it crazy? Do you know the UN? Is it weird that countries like Benin or Qatar or Moldova have same vote in the UN general assembly as China or India or USA?
  - tekkk 7y ago
    Yet in the EU parliament each country gets representatives proportionate to their size and the positions in the EU commission are filled basically how the larger countries decide? So your analogue doesn't really hold and frankly, just because UN (which gives their largest members veto-power), has one country one vote system, it's quite a stretch to extrapolate that to mean it would be a good fit for national governments too. Or how would you feel if some rural area in your home country got the same amount of votes than the whole capital? Would make perfect sense, right? But all in all, they are so different organizations serving very different purposes that comparing them isn't even that useful.
    - jpollock 7y ago
      The EU is more complex than that, there's the European Council, which is not proportional to population (made up of the heads of state, like the original US Senate). The Council is involved in foreign affairs, particularly trade agreements. This is why Belgium had a veto over the Canada/EU trade agreement. In particular, it was Wallonia's PM who held the veto because Belgium devolved that power. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/eu-trade-deal-with-canada-collapses-as-belgium-refuses-to-sign https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/eu-trade-deal-...
    - smsm42 7y ago
      > So your analogue doesn't really hold I think you miss the idea of how analogies work. If I say "the Moon is affected by Earth gravity just like an apple that falls down is" then if you way "but if I put an apple underwater then it'd flow up instead!" that doesn't mean my analogy didn't work. That means you are talking about different things that are outside of what analogy is about. The fact that EU didn't choose equal representation for member countries and as the result minor countries are powerless is exactly why minor states in the US do not want such arrangement. Just as with an example above about the apple, your counter-example does not disprove existence of gravity - or flaws in proportional representation between sovereign states - it in fact supports it, you just fail to see how. > Or how would you feel if some rural area in your home country got the same amount of votes than the whole capital? If that's the arrangement that is the condition of the union between the rural area and the capital - perfectly normal. I know Bill Gates has much more shares of Microsoft than I do and I don't feel bad about it. Why should I feel bad about those things?
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    Why choose the UN whose story is one of inefficacy and being propped up by US power and money? The UN’s relevance has faded and nobody is optimistic for its resurgence. From that context we speak of sensible organizational practices? The fact is the idea that somebody born somewhere else has way more power has a smell, and people are talking about that smell now and whether they like it.
    - smsm42 7y ago
      > UN whose story is one of inefficacy and being propped up by US power and money And yet, it exists and nobody is in a rush to disband it. Despite the fact that it's propped by US money but San Marino (population 33,344) has the same number of votes in UN GA as US. > The fact is the idea that somebody born somewhere else has way more power has a smell The only way all people can have exactly the same power if they all have no power at all. Otherwise there would always be somebody richer, smarter, more charismatic, more eloquent, born in better family with better education, etc. etc. which will give them more power. Absolute equality is possible only as equality in being destitute and powerless. Other aspect of it - I appreciate that somebody living in LA wants to have power over somebody living in rural Appalachia, because there's a lot of people in LA so obviously they should be ruling the whole country. But that's not how US as a country works, and I don't see why people in rural Appalachia would agree to such arrangement. So you have to either conquer them by force (and risk that they would conquer you by force instead) or come to a mutually agreeable arrangement, even if it deprives the LA people of their birthright powers of ruling Appalachia. That's the way it works.
- SeekingMeaning 7y ago
  Don’t forget about the house of representatives
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    They didn’t.
- jngreenlee 7y ago
  Remember as well that the Senate was intended as a sort of administrative body, with each states senators being selected by the state government...not via popular election. In my estimation, the removal of that aspect diluted the original concept to some degree.
  - ddebernardy 7y ago
    It could be done like in Germany without the spirit of the Senate being lost. Something like 2 representatives plus some number that depends on the population.
    - axaxs 7y ago
      Neat idea. Maybe we could give it a name depicting its function, like say, a house of representatives...
      - ddebernardy 7y ago
        It's not the same. The House of Representatives is intended to represent the people. The point of the upper house is to represent the States. There's no reason why there shouldn't be some weight thrown in based on some objective criteria like population. The way it works in Germany is every Lander has 3 seats; they then add up to 3 extra seats based on the population. This over-represents the smaller states too, but not to the point where small states can block the whole country like in the US Senate.
        axaxs 7y ago
        So, of course my comment was tongue in cheek, but not completely. In order to get states to agree to unify, they had to give them incentive in representation. Remember that Germany is the size of a US state. It would be more akin to trying to unify all of west Europe as a country. Would Denmark join if they knew they'd get zero representation based of population?
        7y ago
- bayareabadboy 7y ago
  You should look up the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan
- billfruit 7y ago
  I feel the entire opposite, this distribution ensures that all states are dealt in a equal manner by the federal government. India the seats in the upper legislature are distributed unequally between the States, causing smaller states to be marginalized, which could also cause issues. Bigger states could align together and push measures that are detrimental to the intesests of the smaller states.
  - Iv 7y ago
    Which is another way to say that smaller state want a way to undemocratically leech out things from more populous areas. Bigger states aligning and pushing measures that are in their interests rather than in smaller states interests is called democracy. The opposite is called privilege based on state of residence.
    - billfruit 7y ago
      Will it be acceptable to the member states of the EU, any configuration that makes some members more equal than others? Also in countries like India, this could offer a perverse incentive for states to refrain from population control policies. Also some states having larger populations than others is a historical accident.
      - Iv 7y ago
        There are 500 million members to the EU. I am in favor of all of them being equal, yes. We still have to quelch local nationalisms so there are some compromises being made to give state some kind of sovereignty, like the US used to need 200 years ago, but once the reasons for these are removed, remove these privileges. India: You assume states work against each other and populations automatically favor their states over the federation they belong to. If that's the case, you have a cultural problem to solve first. I doubt this is the case in the US right now. And yes, there are various reasons for some state to be populous. It is irrelevant with the question on whether all the peoples' vote should have equal weight.
    - billfruit 7y ago
- kortilla 7y ago
  How did it make sense at the time but not now? The entire point of the senate is to treat each state as an equal entity regardless of population. What changed?
  - Redoubts 7y ago
    slavery. It affected literally every design decision of this nation between founding and the civil war.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      Most states in the west didn’t have slaves and still joined under the notion of being a state with rights. “Slavery” is used an excuse to not think critically about things from before the civil war that you don’t like.
- evil-olive 7y ago
  > I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island. A statistic that has stuck in my head is the prediction [0] that in 2040, 70% of the US population will be represented by 30 Senators, while 30% of the population will be represented by 70 Senators. 0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/b...
  - anfilt 7y ago
    The senate is for the states. If we changed it, some states will have less say. It's also a problem since for example in the west the vast majority of the land is federally owned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands#/media/File:Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands#/media/File:Map_... How do you think Nevada would react if nuclear testing was being conducted again. How do think Montana or Idaho would react if the federal government gave logging rights to companies outside of local communities. If you reduce the states power and say over federal polices that effect them the most why even have states. Why even have tiered levels governance. Local governments exist for a reason. Federal laws and polices can effect certain areas more or exclusively. Ignoring those people who reside in that area because the majority outside the area wish to do something is just tyranny by the majority. Therefore areas which people reside also need to voice their concerns. What we currently have is a blend. The senate and house have to agree on things to get bills passed. The house is already based off population. Having the two houses ensures that states and peoples concerns are voiced through their representatives. States with a larger population already get more say in the house. The senate ensures that each states government is represented equally. It's also sad that less people vote in state and local elections than federal ones since local government a lot times is much more important.
    - jrs235 7y ago
      I think it would be even better if in order for bills to pass, a majority of the House must pass and a majority of States, via both Senators from a given State, must pass the bill too. We shouldn't talk about Senator John For voted for or against bill Y, but rather California voted for or against bill Y. The individuals ought not matter except to their State's governments/legislatures.
- masonic 7y ago
  I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island When CA was admitted to the Union, it had a lower population than RI. CA had the third-lowest population of all US states, yet nobody was saying CA didn't "deserve" two Senate seats because of that. (Source: 1850 Census)
  - xref 7y ago
    Actually, people did say that. Even the founding fathers disagreed on the composition of Congress. It’s been argued for/against since day 0.
Gaelan 7y ago
I'm curious how Rainier's capitol ended up as Tacoma, instead of Olympia (current capitol of Washington) or Seattle (largest city)
- yesenadam 7y ago
  It didn't. State capitals are underlined, the capital's still Olympia.
  - Gaelan 7y ago
    Ah. The key's a bit confusing.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
purplezooey 7y ago
This is neato. I wonder where the name Firelands comes from. Is it from Lake Erie catching fire in the 70s...
- jmartinpetersen 7y ago
  There's links for most of the names at the bottom. Firelands are much older than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firelands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firelands
- mxcrossb 7y ago
  The names are definitely my favorite part. They really express America’s mythic quality
ReptileMan 7y ago
>The fundamental problem of the electoral college is that the states of the United States are too disparate in size and influence. No, that is the problem that the electoral college solves. In any federation you must curb the power of the most powerful and boost the weakest for it to work. Instead of blaming with the institutions that are working as intended, start the dialog to convert the US from federation to something else.
- adamnemecek 7y ago
  > In any federation you must curb the power of the most powerful and boost the weakest for it to work. This is a very Americocentric view. There is in fact no such requirement in general. The US in particular has a problem of being pulled by some small, fringe groups.
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    That statement is a corollary to “A federation must make some attempt to treat its members as equals.” While not necessarily true, deviating too far from it starts to stretch the definition of a federation.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    > This is a very Americocentric view. Well it’s how the European Union works as well. Think of each US state as an individual State in the EU of that helps you understand it.
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    Do you have any examples of federations that don't work that way, i.e., that have purely proportional representation of all the constituent entities?
    - satori99 7y ago
      Australia uses a highly proportional electoral process for its lower house. The constitution requires that electorates be apportioned among the states in proportion to their respective populations; provided that each original state has at least 5 members in the House of Representatives. Districts are decided and managed by a politically independent federal commission (ie: not by politicians). The Australian senate is still a state house modelled in the US fashion. And is therefore not proportional to the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_Australian_House_of_Representatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_Australian_Ho...
ekianjo 7y ago
> Ends the over-representation of small states and under-representation of large states in presidential voting and in the US Senate by eliminating small and large states. States are not regions of a larger nation. In Federalism they have a different history and different statuses, and the US has never been built as a direct democratic system. It's a Republic. Not sure what this list of bullet points is all about: changing everything about US politics?
- woah 7y ago
  > Keep in mind that this is an art project, not a serious proposal, so take it easy with the emails about the sacred soil of Texas.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    The whole point of the Electoral College is that it gives smaller states an advantage over larger ones. Imagining other scenarios is great fun, but the point needs to be stated - the Electoral College isn't failing when someone loses the popular vote and wins the election. That outcome is the sole purpose of having an electoral college. "Preserves the historic structure and function of the Electoral College." is almost precisely wrong. Equal-population states is a very fundamental change to the system. The advantages and disadvantages columns aren't engaging with the actual issues surrounding the electoral college.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      >The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/... I don't think the statement above means the electoral college was about giving smaller states an advantage over larger ones. For one, the electoral college was developed during a time when communication was very difficult, and education and literacy was not as widespread. Conditions have changed, and it is possible the system is now too far skewed in one direction such that it no longer represents the people's wishes.
zhyder 7y ago
The problem with the electoral college isn't unequal size of states, it's that deeply blue or red states get hardly any attention from presidential candidates, and any individual's vote in such states doesn't matter much. Btw check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... for an interesting hack: not likely to happen, but still 100x more likely than redrawing all state lines
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  The problem is the very existence of the electoral college. If the president was elected by totaling all the votes 1 per person in the nation, then there would be no red state and blue state issues.
  - guelo 7y ago
    But in that case the real national divide, rural vs cities, would be won in favor of the blues.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      It would be won in favor of whoever wins the people's votes.
- anfilt 7y ago
  This compact is a bad idea for implementing said goal. First an amending the constitution requires 3/4ths of states to agree to an amendment. This would make a fundamental change with less than half of the states. Secondly, it also possibly unconstitutional. Third, it's unenforceable a state can join and if they fail to follow the agreement other members can't do anything. Fourth, due to the questions of constitutionality when this takes effect it's going to leave the result of an election in legal limbo for possibly years. This is a big problem since the president is inaugurated only a few months after the election. Fifth, it easy for other states who are not a member to make it useless. For instances lets say Idaho decides only to publish their their electoral votes, and keep the actually number of votes secret for six months. It is no longer possible to determine who won the popular vote (in a timely manner).
radagaisus 7y ago
As an outsider, the easiest hack to me seems to break down states in your team’s colors to multiple states. Fight fire with fire.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Well states don’t have the power to do that. So not a very “easy hack”.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  This idea is about as realistic as breaking up Germany into its constituent Länder so they'd get more EU commissioners.
- yyyk 7y ago
  Illegal without 100% consent which renders the idea moot - except just maybe in the case of Texas, which had a special clause during accession to allow division into up to 5 states. It's not entirely clear though whether the clause still allows that (or did it apply only for that particular congress).
Svip 7y ago
It's kind of a shame that it doesn't include the US territories, since it does say 'the United States', and not just 'the states of the United States' as the headline. Also, can we get (2012) added to the end of the headline?
shadykiller 7y ago
Love the state names. Far more varied and vivid than current state names.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  The current state names are pretty diverse, tbh. My home state's name's etymolygy (probably) comes from Basque!
umanwizard 7y ago
The idea of getting people from Tucson to accept living in a state called "Phoenix" is hilarious to me.
forthwall 7y ago
I think this person is mistaken on Orange. Orange County in New York is named after Orange in the Netherlands. Orange County in California is named after Oranges to sound tropical.
ngcc_hk 7y ago
Not American just a student of its politics. As you are free to move, the argument some get more influence due to geographical distribution of vote seems a weak argument. And the original intent is really to let the small state to come in as they would not come (or fight against it). The 17th amendment is too complicated to talk here.
dang 7y ago
A thread from 2013: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5220171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5220171 A bit more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5217434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5217434
anfilt 7y ago
I am sorry every state changing their border every census would be insane as proposed in the bullet points. States are more than voting bodies. They have their own laws and locally governed territory with shared jurisdiction on some things with the federal government. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with electoral college it's working as intended. It's like a lot people forget we have states for reason. For instance a lot of the small states with a low population contain the vast majority of federal land. So any federal policy regarding that land effects them more than anyone else. How do think Nevada would react if the federal government decided to start nuclear testing again and their say in politics is reduced even more. A lot of this I think boils down how you view the US. Are you citizen/resident of your state which is a member of the united states or are you are citizen of the unites states that happens to reside in a state? (A better/clearer way to phrase this would be appreciated)
- Aeolun 7y ago
  Seeing things from outside, US citizens generally refer to themselves as coming from a city/state combination much more often than the country.
  - anfilt 7y ago
    I mean when they think of how US is the politically structured. Sadly, less Americans vote in local elections than federal.
jquery 7y ago
Pretty cool art project. I love the names given to the new states, lots of care went into this.
- jimmux 7y ago
  It's a fun thought exercise. I often wonder why Americans seem so set on having 50 states, so this was a useful basis to mock up a what-if scenario of fewer states. E.g. if there were 10: https://imgur.com/a/gNvP9mC https://imgur.com/a/gNvP9mC
Balgair 7y ago
I like how this map shows the density of different areas, specifically SoCal, as compared to state lines of today. However, the map seems (possibly intentionally) to ignore geographical boundaries that are super important. Like the Mississippi River. I know you can modify Voronoi diagrams in multiple dimensions to account for population and geography. Does anyone know of a map that has done so?
gremlinsinc 7y ago
Wouldn't it be more fair, possibly if we divided each state into 6 roughly equal districts by population and made each district have it's own senator? This would still give each state equal representation but it would diversify the voices by making each senator cover a smaller area, and each would have less constituents to answer to, and presumably could listen to those in their area more and deliver on what they value as priorities.

60 points by cryptozeus 7y ago

I feel like the bigger problem than the electoral college is the senate. I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island. It made sense at the time and we do have a house to nominally balance that out. But nowadays it just makes some people’s votes count for a lot more than others.

smsm42 7y ago
Why is it crazy? Do you know the UN? Is it weird that countries like Benin or Qatar or Moldova have same vote in the UN general assembly as China or India or USA?
- tekkk 7y ago
  Yet in the EU parliament each country gets representatives proportionate to their size and the positions in the EU commission are filled basically how the larger countries decide? So your analogue doesn't really hold and frankly, just because UN (which gives their largest members veto-power), has one country one vote system, it's quite a stretch to extrapolate that to mean it would be a good fit for national governments too. Or how would you feel if some rural area in your home country got the same amount of votes than the whole capital? Would make perfect sense, right? But all in all, they are so different organizations serving very different purposes that comparing them isn't even that useful.
  - jpollock 7y ago
    The EU is more complex than that, there's the European Council, which is not proportional to population (made up of the heads of state, like the original US Senate). The Council is involved in foreign affairs, particularly trade agreements. This is why Belgium had a veto over the Canada/EU trade agreement. In particular, it was Wallonia's PM who held the veto because Belgium devolved that power. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/eu-trade-deal-with-canada-collapses-as-belgium-refuses-to-sign https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/eu-trade-deal-...
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > So your analogue doesn't really hold I think you miss the idea of how analogies work. If I say "the Moon is affected by Earth gravity just like an apple that falls down is" then if you way "but if I put an apple underwater then it'd flow up instead!" that doesn't mean my analogy didn't work. That means you are talking about different things that are outside of what analogy is about. The fact that EU didn't choose equal representation for member countries and as the result minor countries are powerless is exactly why minor states in the US do not want such arrangement. Just as with an example above about the apple, your counter-example does not disprove existence of gravity - or flaws in proportional representation between sovereign states - it in fact supports it, you just fail to see how. > Or how would you feel if some rural area in your home country got the same amount of votes than the whole capital? If that's the arrangement that is the condition of the union between the rural area and the capital - perfectly normal. I know Bill Gates has much more shares of Microsoft than I do and I don't feel bad about it. Why should I feel bad about those things?
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Why choose the UN whose story is one of inefficacy and being propped up by US power and money? The UN’s relevance has faded and nobody is optimistic for its resurgence. From that context we speak of sensible organizational practices? The fact is the idea that somebody born somewhere else has way more power has a smell, and people are talking about that smell now and whether they like it.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > UN whose story is one of inefficacy and being propped up by US power and money And yet, it exists and nobody is in a rush to disband it. Despite the fact that it's propped by US money but San Marino (population 33,344) has the same number of votes in UN GA as US. > The fact is the idea that somebody born somewhere else has way more power has a smell The only way all people can have exactly the same power if they all have no power at all. Otherwise there would always be somebody richer, smarter, more charismatic, more eloquent, born in better family with better education, etc. etc. which will give them more power. Absolute equality is possible only as equality in being destitute and powerless. Other aspect of it - I appreciate that somebody living in LA wants to have power over somebody living in rural Appalachia, because there's a lot of people in LA so obviously they should be ruling the whole country. But that's not how US as a country works, and I don't see why people in rural Appalachia would agree to such arrangement. So you have to either conquer them by force (and risk that they would conquer you by force instead) or come to a mutually agreeable arrangement, even if it deprives the LA people of their birthright powers of ruling Appalachia. That's the way it works.
SeekingMeaning 7y ago
Don’t forget about the house of representatives
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  They didn’t.
jngreenlee 7y ago
Remember as well that the Senate was intended as a sort of administrative body, with each states senators being selected by the state government...not via popular election. In my estimation, the removal of that aspect diluted the original concept to some degree.
- ddebernardy 7y ago
  It could be done like in Germany without the spirit of the Senate being lost. Something like 2 representatives plus some number that depends on the population.
  - axaxs 7y ago
    Neat idea. Maybe we could give it a name depicting its function, like say, a house of representatives...
    - ddebernardy 7y ago
      It's not the same. The House of Representatives is intended to represent the people. The point of the upper house is to represent the States. There's no reason why there shouldn't be some weight thrown in based on some objective criteria like population. The way it works in Germany is every Lander has 3 seats; they then add up to 3 extra seats based on the population. This over-represents the smaller states too, but not to the point where small states can block the whole country like in the US Senate.
      - axaxs 7y ago
        So, of course my comment was tongue in cheek, but not completely. In order to get states to agree to unify, they had to give them incentive in representation. Remember that Germany is the size of a US state. It would be more akin to trying to unify all of west Europe as a country. Would Denmark join if they knew they'd get zero representation based of population?
        7y ago
bayareabadboy 7y ago
You should look up the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan
billfruit 7y ago
I feel the entire opposite, this distribution ensures that all states are dealt in a equal manner by the federal government. India the seats in the upper legislature are distributed unequally between the States, causing smaller states to be marginalized, which could also cause issues. Bigger states could align together and push measures that are detrimental to the intesests of the smaller states.
- Iv 7y ago
  Which is another way to say that smaller state want a way to undemocratically leech out things from more populous areas. Bigger states aligning and pushing measures that are in their interests rather than in smaller states interests is called democracy. The opposite is called privilege based on state of residence.
  - billfruit 7y ago
    Will it be acceptable to the member states of the EU, any configuration that makes some members more equal than others? Also in countries like India, this could offer a perverse incentive for states to refrain from population control policies. Also some states having larger populations than others is a historical accident.
    - Iv 7y ago
      There are 500 million members to the EU. I am in favor of all of them being equal, yes. We still have to quelch local nationalisms so there are some compromises being made to give state some kind of sovereignty, like the US used to need 200 years ago, but once the reasons for these are removed, remove these privileges. India: You assume states work against each other and populations automatically favor their states over the federation they belong to. If that's the case, you have a cultural problem to solve first. I doubt this is the case in the US right now. And yes, there are various reasons for some state to be populous. It is irrelevant with the question on whether all the peoples' vote should have equal weight.
  - billfruit 7y ago
kortilla 7y ago
How did it make sense at the time but not now? The entire point of the senate is to treat each state as an equal entity regardless of population. What changed?
- Redoubts 7y ago
  slavery. It affected literally every design decision of this nation between founding and the civil war.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Most states in the west didn’t have slaves and still joined under the notion of being a state with rights. “Slavery” is used an excuse to not think critically about things from before the civil war that you don’t like.
evil-olive 7y ago
> I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island. A statistic that has stuck in my head is the prediction [0] that in 2040, 70% of the US population will be represented by 30 Senators, while 30% of the population will be represented by 70 Senators. 0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/b...
- anfilt 7y ago
  The senate is for the states. If we changed it, some states will have less say. It's also a problem since for example in the west the vast majority of the land is federally owned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands#/media/File:Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands#/media/File:Map_... How do you think Nevada would react if nuclear testing was being conducted again. How do think Montana or Idaho would react if the federal government gave logging rights to companies outside of local communities. If you reduce the states power and say over federal polices that effect them the most why even have states. Why even have tiered levels governance. Local governments exist for a reason. Federal laws and polices can effect certain areas more or exclusively. Ignoring those people who reside in that area because the majority outside the area wish to do something is just tyranny by the majority. Therefore areas which people reside also need to voice their concerns. What we currently have is a blend. The senate and house have to agree on things to get bills passed. The house is already based off population. Having the two houses ensures that states and peoples concerns are voiced through their representatives. States with a larger population already get more say in the house. The senate ensures that each states government is represented equally. It's also sad that less people vote in state and local elections than federal ones since local government a lot times is much more important.
  - jrs235 7y ago
    I think it would be even better if in order for bills to pass, a majority of the House must pass and a majority of States, via both Senators from a given State, must pass the bill too. We shouldn't talk about Senator John For voted for or against bill Y, but rather California voted for or against bill Y. The individuals ought not matter except to their State's governments/legislatures.
masonic 7y ago
I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island When CA was admitted to the Union, it had a lower population than RI. CA had the third-lowest population of all US states, yet nobody was saying CA didn't "deserve" two Senate seats because of that. (Source: 1850 Census)
- xref 7y ago
  Actually, people did say that. Even the founding fathers disagreed on the composition of Congress. It’s been argued for/against since day 0.

Gaelan 7y ago

I'm curious how Rainier's capitol ended up as Tacoma, instead of Olympia (current capitol of Washington) or Seattle (largest city)

yesenadam 7y ago
It didn't. State capitals are underlined, the capital's still Olympia.
- Gaelan 7y ago
  Ah. The key's a bit confusing.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

purplezooey 7y ago

This is neato. I wonder where the name Firelands comes from. Is it from Lake Erie catching fire in the 70s...

jmartinpetersen 7y ago
There's links for most of the names at the bottom. Firelands are much older than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firelands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firelands
mxcrossb 7y ago
The names are definitely my favorite part. They really express America’s mythic quality

ReptileMan 7y ago

>The fundamental problem of the electoral college is that the states of the United States are too disparate in size and influence. No, that is the problem that the electoral college solves. In any federation you must curb the power of the most powerful and boost the weakest for it to work. Instead of blaming with the institutions that are working as intended, start the dialog to convert the US from federation to something else.

adamnemecek 7y ago
> In any federation you must curb the power of the most powerful and boost the weakest for it to work. This is a very Americocentric view. There is in fact no such requirement in general. The US in particular has a problem of being pulled by some small, fringe groups.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  That statement is a corollary to “A federation must make some attempt to treat its members as equals.” While not necessarily true, deviating too far from it starts to stretch the definition of a federation.
- kortilla 7y ago
  > This is a very Americocentric view. Well it’s how the European Union works as well. Think of each US state as an individual State in the EU of that helps you understand it.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  Do you have any examples of federations that don't work that way, i.e., that have purely proportional representation of all the constituent entities?
  - satori99 7y ago
    Australia uses a highly proportional electoral process for its lower house. The constitution requires that electorates be apportioned among the states in proportion to their respective populations; provided that each original state has at least 5 members in the House of Representatives. Districts are decided and managed by a politically independent federal commission (ie: not by politicians). The Australian senate is still a state house modelled in the US fashion. And is therefore not proportional to the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_Australian_House_of_Representatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_Australian_Ho...

ekianjo 7y ago

> Ends the over-representation of small states and under-representation of large states in presidential voting and in the US Senate by eliminating small and large states. States are not regions of a larger nation. In Federalism they have a different history and different statuses, and the US has never been built as a direct democratic system. It's a Republic. Not sure what this list of bullet points is all about: changing everything about US politics?

woah 7y ago
> Keep in mind that this is an art project, not a serious proposal, so take it easy with the emails about the sacred soil of Texas.
- roenxi 7y ago
  The whole point of the Electoral College is that it gives smaller states an advantage over larger ones. Imagining other scenarios is great fun, but the point needs to be stated - the Electoral College isn't failing when someone loses the popular vote and wins the election. That outcome is the sole purpose of having an electoral college. "Preserves the historic structure and function of the Electoral College." is almost precisely wrong. Equal-population states is a very fundamental change to the system. The advantages and disadvantages columns aren't engaging with the actual issues surrounding the electoral college.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    >The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/... I don't think the statement above means the electoral college was about giving smaller states an advantage over larger ones. For one, the electoral college was developed during a time when communication was very difficult, and education and literacy was not as widespread. Conditions have changed, and it is possible the system is now too far skewed in one direction such that it no longer represents the people's wishes.

zhyder 7y ago

The problem with the electoral college isn't unequal size of states, it's that deeply blue or red states get hardly any attention from presidential candidates, and any individual's vote in such states doesn't matter much. Btw check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... for an interesting hack: not likely to happen, but still 100x more likely than redrawing all state lines

lotsofpulp 7y ago
The problem is the very existence of the electoral college. If the president was elected by totaling all the votes 1 per person in the nation, then there would be no red state and blue state issues.
- guelo 7y ago
  But in that case the real national divide, rural vs cities, would be won in favor of the blues.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    It would be won in favor of whoever wins the people's votes.
anfilt 7y ago
This compact is a bad idea for implementing said goal. First an amending the constitution requires 3/4ths of states to agree to an amendment. This would make a fundamental change with less than half of the states. Secondly, it also possibly unconstitutional. Third, it's unenforceable a state can join and if they fail to follow the agreement other members can't do anything. Fourth, due to the questions of constitutionality when this takes effect it's going to leave the result of an election in legal limbo for possibly years. This is a big problem since the president is inaugurated only a few months after the election. Fifth, it easy for other states who are not a member to make it useless. For instances lets say Idaho decides only to publish their their electoral votes, and keep the actually number of votes secret for six months. It is no longer possible to determine who won the popular vote (in a timely manner).

radagaisus 7y ago

As an outsider, the easiest hack to me seems to break down states in your team’s colors to multiple states. Fight fire with fire.

kortilla 7y ago
Well states don’t have the power to do that. So not a very “easy hack”.
umanwizard 7y ago
This idea is about as realistic as breaking up Germany into its constituent Länder so they'd get more EU commissioners.
yyyk 7y ago
Illegal without 100% consent which renders the idea moot - except just maybe in the case of Texas, which had a special clause during accession to allow division into up to 5 states. It's not entirely clear though whether the clause still allows that (or did it apply only for that particular congress).

Svip 7y ago

It's kind of a shame that it doesn't include the US territories, since it does say 'the United States', and not just 'the states of the United States' as the headline. Also, can we get (2012) added to the end of the headline?

shadykiller 7y ago

Love the state names. Far more varied and vivid than current state names.

umanwizard 7y ago
The current state names are pretty diverse, tbh. My home state's name's etymolygy (probably) comes from Basque!

umanwizard 7y ago

The idea of getting people from Tucson to accept living in a state called "Phoenix" is hilarious to me.

forthwall 7y ago

I think this person is mistaken on Orange. Orange County in New York is named after Orange in the Netherlands. Orange County in California is named after Oranges to sound tropical.

ngcc_hk 7y ago

Not American just a student of its politics. As you are free to move, the argument some get more influence due to geographical distribution of vote seems a weak argument. And the original intent is really to let the small state to come in as they would not come (or fight against it). The 17th amendment is too complicated to talk here.

dang 7y ago

A thread from 2013: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5220171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5220171 A bit more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5217434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5217434

anfilt 7y ago

I am sorry every state changing their border every census would be insane as proposed in the bullet points. States are more than voting bodies. They have their own laws and locally governed territory with shared jurisdiction on some things with the federal government. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with electoral college it's working as intended. It's like a lot people forget we have states for reason. For instance a lot of the small states with a low population contain the vast majority of federal land. So any federal policy regarding that land effects them more than anyone else. How do think Nevada would react if the federal government decided to start nuclear testing again and their say in politics is reduced even more. A lot of this I think boils down how you view the US. Are you citizen/resident of your state which is a member of the united states or are you are citizen of the unites states that happens to reside in a state? (A better/clearer way to phrase this would be appreciated)

Aeolun 7y ago
Seeing things from outside, US citizens generally refer to themselves as coming from a city/state combination much more often than the country.
- anfilt 7y ago
  I mean when they think of how US is the politically structured. Sadly, less Americans vote in local elections than federal.

jquery 7y ago

Pretty cool art project. I love the names given to the new states, lots of care went into this.

jimmux 7y ago
It's a fun thought exercise. I often wonder why Americans seem so set on having 50 states, so this was a useful basis to mock up a what-if scenario of fewer states. E.g. if there were 10: https://imgur.com/a/gNvP9mC https://imgur.com/a/gNvP9mC

Balgair 7y ago

I like how this map shows the density of different areas, specifically SoCal, as compared to state lines of today. However, the map seems (possibly intentionally) to ignore geographical boundaries that are super important. Like the Mississippi River. I know you can modify Voronoi diagrams in multiple dimensions to account for population and geography. Does anyone know of a map that has done so?

gremlinsinc 7y ago

Wouldn't it be more fair, possibly if we divided each state into 6 roughly equal districts by population and made each district have it's own senator? This would still give each state equal representation but it would diversify the voices by making each senator cover a smaller area, and each would have less constituents to answer to, and presumably could listen to those in their area more and deliver on what they value as priorities.