New England could be one state. It has a distinct culture, common to all six states. Combined, it would be the largest state east of the Mississippi River and just slightly smaller than Washington state. I think it would rank 5th in population behind CA, TX, FL, and NY.

But it would never happen. They'd lose 10 senators, etc.

Obviously it will never happen, but if I had the chance to reconfigure the state-lines, I'd use watersheds as the basis for the boundaries.

(03-23-2015 06:49 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 06:38 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I wouldn't mind if several states broke apart and formed new ones.

I would. The last thing we need is gerrymandered states. It's bad enough as it is that districts are gerrymandered. No thanks. Plus, the less senators we have, the better.

I don't really see this as an issue. While certainly if we have more states, we have more Senators, but that just means that more of the minority opinions are represented. In the California example, you'd have an ultra-liberal state in the Bay area... an ultra conservative one in the CV... a moderate/conservative in the south... a moderate/liberal in the central north and a liberal one in the central coast. Liberals would actually pick up votes in the national elections... but in the states themselves, each state would better represent its constituents. I suspect the liberals in SF hate that their votes are countered by conservatives in the CV and South... and I KNOW the CV hates that their votes don't seem to count at all.

The difference is that state lines are set and rarely if ever changed. While certainly there may be some 'shenanigans' right at first, people could easily move a few miles and be in the state that better represented their values. The gerrymandering concern is eliminated by the ability of people to move, but state lines not.