3 ms·

We need at least a dozen more states.

by fundad 4y ago

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
I think the number is closer to 20. Look at the economic "gravity wells" of major cities and groups of cities. State borders should probably roughly align with those so you don't have people in places like Buffalo and Pittsburgh getting the shaft because the people who call the shots in NYC and Philly live in a totally different economic reality. If you did it right you could keep the red/blue balance of power intact enough. It will never happen because spinning up new state governments would represent a huge power (and then wealth) transfer away from the existing political class and professional managerial class who support them.
olliej 4y ago
The problem isn’t the count, the problem is you have multiple states with populations of around 500k, that get two senators, and states like CA that have 40 million, that get two senators. More states does nothing to resolve the issue of the tiny states with no understanding of actual scale having a vastly outsized amount of control of the government.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Break up California.
  - olliej 4y ago
    To match the dakotas California would need to be split into something like 50 states. What's most frustrating is it's all these asses claiming that US politics is controlled by cities and the coastal states, when the reality is that half the senate is made up almost entirely out of those tiny near-failed central states, giving those states 25-50x the control of the senate of anyone living in the big states. Disguising that is why those states insist on coloring entire states red or blue rather than showing the actual population counts - coloring them entirely blue or red is also needed to have the idea "this whole state votes team blue".
    - fundad 4y ago
      Yes friend, it's propaganda to deny rural areas have more political power than anywhere else. Their propaganda is well funded and has had great impact. I am ok with breaking California into 50 states, many of them would vote red.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > I am ok with breaking California into 50 states, many of them would vote red. If you assume 50 ex-California states would vote in similar proportions to California’s existing 58 counties, and base it on the 2020 Presidential election, the split would be roughly 31-19. With no other changes, that would take the current Senate from 51-49 to 111-87. The House is trickier to do, since you need the actual population of each state; Rs probably gain most because they'd get a bunch of new states benefitting from “you can’t get less than one House seat”, but a lot of that would be at the expense of non-California states rather than the ex-California blue states, who I think would also gain in the House. Net, I think Rs gain a little structural ground in the House, Dems gain a lot in the Senate (affecting appointments and treaties, as well as legislation), Electoral College, resolution of contested Presidential elections (voting on which in the House is by State), and passing (or blocking) Constitutional amendments .

We need at least a dozen more states.

by fundad 4y ago

We need at least a dozen more states.

I think the number is closer to 20. Look at the economic "gravity wells" of major cities and groups of cities. State borders should probably roughly align with those so you don't have people in places like Buffalo and Pittsburgh getting the shaft because the people who call the shots in NYC and Philly live in a totally different economic reality. If you did it right you could keep the red/blue balance of power intact enough. It will never happen because spinning up new state governments would represent a huge power (and then wealth) transfer away from the existing political class and professional managerial class who support them.

olliej 4y ago

The problem isn’t the count, the problem is you have multiple states with populations of around 500k, that get two senators, and states like CA that have 40 million, that get two senators. More states does nothing to resolve the issue of the tiny states with no understanding of actual scale having a vastly outsized amount of control of the government.

willcipriano 4y ago
Break up California.
- olliej 4y ago
  To match the dakotas California would need to be split into something like 50 states. What's most frustrating is it's all these asses claiming that US politics is controlled by cities and the coastal states, when the reality is that half the senate is made up almost entirely out of those tiny near-failed central states, giving those states 25-50x the control of the senate of anyone living in the big states. Disguising that is why those states insist on coloring entire states red or blue rather than showing the actual population counts - coloring them entirely blue or red is also needed to have the idea "this whole state votes team blue".
  - fundad 4y ago
    Yes friend, it's propaganda to deny rural areas have more political power than anywhere else. Their propaganda is well funded and has had great impact. I am ok with breaking California into 50 states, many of them would vote red.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > I am ok with breaking California into 50 states, many of them would vote red. If you assume 50 ex-California states would vote in similar proportions to California’s existing 58 counties, and base it on the 2020 Presidential election, the split would be roughly 31-19. With no other changes, that would take the current Senate from 51-49 to 111-87. The House is trickier to do, since you need the actual population of each state; Rs probably gain most because they'd get a bunch of new states benefitting from “you can’t get less than one House seat”, but a lot of that would be at the expense of non-California states rather than the ex-California blue states, who I think would also gain in the House. Net, I think Rs gain a little structural ground in the House, Dems gain a lot in the Senate (affecting appointments and treaties, as well as legislation), Electoral College, resolution of contested Presidential elections (voting on which in the House is by State), and passing (or blocking) Constitutional amendments .