NationStates Jolt Archive

This is for Americans, or non-Americans who know all fifty states. (If you are one of the latter, you are probably a more qualified citizen than most of the people already here.)
Which state is the more gratuitous? I know fifty is a nice number, but do we really need that many? If we had forty-nine, we would also have a nice square number, which would allow...many things, just trust me, it's better that way.

So, which state can go? We don't necessarily have to sell the land, but probably just merge it into another state nearby.

I would like to recommend either Washington or Oregon. I'm pretty sure Washigon or Orington would be just as good.

north and south dakota have no business being 2 different states.

New Mexico. Stick it onto the side of Texas, For Great Justice!

Everything south of the Mason Dixon line, and between the Appalachians and the Rockys can go form some mega communal farm for all I care.

Puerto Rico should become a state though, as well as Baja California.

Kansas.

Just of course till they stop putting ID and religious bull crap in their science textbooks.

Sell Alaska back to the Russians.

If we're talking about merging states, Maine with Mass., since they were originally one state anyway and only seperated for the sake of keeping the number of slave and free states even prior to the Civil War.

If we're talking about totally useless states that should be blown up, New Jersey. Cuz Jersey pretty much sucks.

Much of the NE could be a state if you're looking at size, Texas or California are both bigger then New England (or pretty close).

If you want to do it by population, you could probably combine Wyoming and Montana, or maybe the Dakotas. Perhaps Idaho with Montana, but no one really knows anything about Idaho. Except for those Boisians of course.

North Dakota/South Dakota.
North Carolina/South Carolina.
West Virginia/Virginia..wait... those can stay separate, since WV was the only state formed directly as a result of the Civil War, and there is some John Denver song that mentions it...

Alaska and Hawaii merging.. would be interesting.

Edit: Isn't California supposed to float off the continent soon anyhow?

Sell Alaska back to the Russians.

No! I have a friend who is an Alaskan. Also, all the oil.

Much of the NE could be a state if you're looking at size, Texas or California are both bigger then New England (or pretty close).

If you want to do it by population, you could probably combine Wyoming and Montana, or maybe the Dakotas. Perhaps Idaho with Montana, but no one really knows anything about Idaho. Except for those Boisians of course.

I am NOT going to be in the same state as those Massholes or Rhode Hicks!

But Vermont's alright, and New Hampshire and Maine are pretty sweet. It'd be quite a difficult gerrymander, so I suggest New England stays the same, as long as Connecticut gets Long Island (east of queens), Fishers Island, Block Island, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and Cape Cod.

Canada or maybe merge Texas, Kansas and Florida and see what happens

So let's split up New Jersey

New York can have the north, and PA can have the south

or just blow it up and get PA a(n) [atlantic] beach


Or let's jut merge the Dakotas or even better yet keep the status quo

The whole midwest should be consolidated into one state with two senators, two representatives, and two electoral votes.

Delaware. It's like the Andorra of Europe.

California should go because of SF and LA, the leading producers of smug in all of North America. I am sick of their smug not only drifting elsewhere but actually being exported to other states and around the world. And they actually seem proud of it too, which just leads to even more smug. If this keeps up we may even have another storm of self-satisfaction. I just hope that the smug from Cali wipes out the whole state before that happens.

The whole midwest should be consolidated into one state with two senators, two representatives, and two electoral votes.

Commence dictatorship.

This is for Americans, or non-Americans who know all fifty states. (If you are one of the latter, you are probably a more qualified citizen than most of the people already here.)
Which state is the more gratuitous? I know fifty is a nice number, but do we really need that many? If we had forty-nine, we would also have a nice square number, which would allow...many things, just trust me, it's better that way.

So, which state can go? We don't necessarily have to sell the land, but probably just merge it into another state nearby.

I would like to recommend either Washington or Oregon. I'm pretty sure Washigon or Orington would be just as good.

North Florida (the Bible Belt half) + Georgia = 1 state
____________________________+ Alabama = 1 state
South Florida (the Hispanic half + Orlando and Disney) = Florida

Fuse North Carolina and South Carolina to make Carolina and rename North Dakota so South Dakota can just be Dakota.

Commence dictatorship.

The name of the big new state would be 'Flyover'

The whole midwest should be consolidated into one state with two senators, two representatives, and two electoral votes.

Never! Ohio will remain it's own state, or else!

The name of the big new state would be 'Flyover'

Can we depopulate too? I'm tired of not being surrounded by woods.

Ohio. Their drivers are the worst, and it has the mistake by the lake (Cleveland).

Or California. We would be a lot better off without San Fransicko.

Ohio. Their drivers are the worst, and it has the mistake by the lake (Cleveland).



I find ye to be offensive in nature, slandering both my home state and city. a duel is in order, Pistols at ten paces.

Why don't we just get rid of the whole concept of fifty countries in one...

I find ye to be offensive in nature, slandering both my home state and city. a duel is in order, Pistols at ten paces.

Can I be your second?

Why don't we just get rid of the whole concept of fifty countries in one...

Because something that huge would be nigh impossible to govern efficiently?

California should go because of SF and LA, the leading producers of smug in all of North America. I am sick of their smug not only drifting elsewhere but actually being exported to other states and around the world. And they actually seem proud of it too, which just leads to even more smug. If this keeps up we may even have another storm of self-satisfaction. I just hope that the smug from Cali wipes out the whole state before that happens.

Clever. ;)

Can I be your second?


yep

yep

Bueno.

I suggest flintlocks at 20 paces, sir.

Why don't we just get rid of the whole concept of fifty countries in one...

We got rid of that concept with a little thing -you may not have heard of it - called the Civil War.

California. Let them be.

While not really a state....Key West should go.


Let them form their fagolicious conch republic...and let's see how long it lasts, propped up economically only by European and American gay sex tourists.:rolleyes:

Bueno.

I suggest flintlocks at 20 paces, sir.

yes, yes, flintlocks are a given of course, but twenty paces is too far, it puts us about 120 feet apart, about half that is good with pistols.

yes, yes, flintlocks are a given of course, but twenty paces is too far, it puts us about 120 feet apart, about half that is good with pistols.

You must have some HUGE legs, Sir.

You must have some HUGE legs, Sir.

Not really. "20 paces" means EACH PERSON takes twenty paces, so they're a total of forty steps apart, or about 120 feet if we assume a 3-foot step (which isn't terribly large).

Not really. "20 paces" means EACH PERSON takes twenty paces, so they're a total of forty steps apart, or about 120 feet if we assume a 3-foot step (which isn't terribly large).

When I said 20 paces, I ment 20 paces apart from eachother.

Give me a break, I'm new to this whole dueling business.

If we're talking about totally useless states that should be blown up, New Jersey. Cuz Jersey pretty much sucks.

:(

The whole midwest should be consolidated into one state with two senators, two representatives, and two electoral votes.

Why would that make sense?

When I said 20 paces, I ment 20 paces apart from eachother.

Give me a break, I'm new to this whole dueling business.

Ah, well then, tis settled. Now all I need is for lame bums to post and name his second.

Top nominies for states that should go or merge....

New Jersey: Its just a lead up to the Big Apple, basicly a flyby, and blowing it up to make Penslavania have a beach actualy is a good idea. :cool:

The Dakotas: Hello, big rip off and they stole the title of North and South Carolina as being the only states that had north and south in their names.

California: Its going to form its own island someday due to the continental shelf, plus its already inhabited by millions of illegals.

Louisiana: Sinking........thats all I have to say

New England: Too many states in such a small space, also too many names of capitals to remember on American History Test. :headbang:

Ah, well then, tis settled. Now all I need is for lame bums to post and name his second.

Maybe I should be his second.
Just in case your bullet doesn't get him.

How about instead of getting rid of states, we add more, by annexing Canada?
:D

Vermont and New Hampshire should just be merged into one. It's not like anyone can tell which one's which anyway.

Let's merge or get rid of the tiny east coast states.

Merge the Virginas, the Dakotas and the Carolinas. Let's get rid of Florida and Lousiana. The only people who live in Flordia are old people any way. Of course Dinsey World would probably be gone. And Lousiana, They'll be screwed over again anyway if another Hurricane like Katrina hits them again. Once we get off Oil, (if ever) get rid of Alaska.

I can't believe that everyone has forgotten Delaware.

Wait, yes I can.

I say leave New Jersey be. I think that either Delaware, Vermont or combining West Virginia and Virginia would work.

If we're talking about merging states, Maine with Mass., since they were originally one state anyway and only seperated for the sake of keeping the number of slave and free states even prior to the Civil War.

Bzzzt - ammm, excuse me? Can I get some clarification here?

Maine and Mass. were split to even the field between slave and non-slave states?

Is this like some high school game?

Who was the fat kid?

Bzzzt - ammm, excuse me? Can I get some clarification here?

Maine and Mass. were split to even the field between slave and non-slave states?

Is this like some high school game?

Who was the fat kid?

each state gets 2 senators, so when a new slave state was added(i can't remember what is was) a free stated was created to keep senate #'s equal

Bzzzt - ammm, excuse me? Can I get some clarification here?

Maine and Mass. were split to even the field between slave and non-slave states?

Is this like some high school game?

Who was the fat kid?

Virginia.

Virginia.

:)

I just went and checked it out - it's true!

Virginia is the fat kid.

Actually, I'd never heard of the Maine/Massachusetts split - learn something every day.

each state gets 2 senators, so when a new slave state was added(i can't remember what is was) a free stated was created to keep senate #'s equal

The Missouri Compromise apparently, which I know of yet never knew the actual details.

This is for Americans, or non-Americans who know all fifty states. (If you are one of the latter, you are probably a more qualified citizen than most of the people already here.)
Which state is the more gratuitous? I know fifty is a nice number, but do we really need that many? If we had forty-nine, we would also have a nice square number, which would allow...many things, just trust me, it's better that way.

So, which state can go? We don't necessarily have to sell the land, but probably just merge it into another state nearby.

I would like to recommend either Washington or Oregon. I'm pretty sure Washigon or Orington would be just as good.

New York should just annex New Jersey and the whole northeast already and then we can work on claiming the rest of this continent.

Perhaps Idaho with Montana, but no one really knows anything about Idaho*.

nah, that wouldn't work. really you'd need to break idaho up before merging it with places. northern idaho could plausibly be tacked on to washington - all their towns with more than 9 people in them are on the border and have washington counterparts anyways. the south, well, its full of mormons (especially on the east side), so utah can have them i guess. unless boise wants to join oregon or something. then they could do a threeway split.


*at least two people on this very forum have lived in idaho, actually.

If we're talking about merging states, Maine with Mass., since they were originally one state anyway and only seperated for the sake of keeping the number of slave and free states even prior to the Civil War.

frankly, most of the states are stupid and ought to be redrawn at the very least. why the fuck are we stuck for all time with borders drawn to appease slaver scum or because some old monarch was handing out vague charters to corporations or because people got lazy about dividing up their imperial conquests?

FS, are you really living in EL now?

frankly, most of the states are stupid and ought to be redrawn at the very least. why the fuck are we stuck for all time with borders drawn to appease slaver scum or because some old monarch was handing out vague charters to corporations or because people got lazy about dividing up their imperial conquests?

So we can have threads like this.

If we're talking about merging states, Maine with Mass., since they were originally one state anyway and only seperated for the sake of keeping the number of slave and free states even prior to the Civil War.

If we're talking about totally useless states that should be blown up, New Jersey. Cuz Jersey pretty much sucks.

No, we'd rather join Canada than Mass.

FS, are you really living in EL now?

yep. just off of grand river.

yep. just off of grand river.

You renting a house or living in one of the oh so numerous student apartment complexes?

My lord. Does this mean you're going to MSU now?

Kansas. Preferably by being launched into space.

You renting a house or living in one of the oh so numerous student apartment complexes?

My lord. Does this mean you're going to MSU now?

actually, living in a newly gutted and redone condo. not mine, but way nicer than renting from college town slum lords. and yup.

actually, living in a newly gutted and redone condo. not mine, but way nicer than renting from college town slum lords. and yup.

Egads. Well, I guess I'll be seeing you around campus. Even though I won't know it. :D

Why don't we just get rid of the whole concept of fifty countries in one...

I too question the necessity of having a Federal government.

frankly, most of the states are stupid and ought to be redrawn at the very least. why the fuck are we stuck for all time with borders drawn to appease slaver scum or because some old monarch was handing out vague charters to corporations or because people got lazy about dividing up their imperial conquests?

True. If things were done as they should most states would be split up into at least two. Southern Illinois and Chicagoland for one. Lower Michigan and the UP (Superior the name Yoopers always propose) for another.

True. If things were done as they should most states would be split up into at least two. Southern Illinois and Chicagoland for one. Lower Michigan and the UP (Superior the name Yoopers always propose) for another.

Agreed. I never really liked the Trolls.

Agreed. I never really liked the Trolls.

I felt like I was merely tolerated when I lived in the Soo. And that was the Soo, which is much more Troll-like than places west of, say, the Seney Stretch. Although, of course, one could probably draw the line as far west as Newberry or Trout Lake.

I always thought that the UP wanted to join Canada... :confused:

This is for Americans, or non-Americans who know all fifty states. (If you are one of the latter, you are probably a more qualified citizen than most of the people already here.)
Which state is the more gratuitous? I know fifty is a nice number, but do we really need that many? If we had forty-nine, we would also have a nice square number, which would allow...many things, just trust me, it's better that way.

So, which state can go? We don't necessarily have to sell the land, but probably just merge it into another state nearby.

I would like to recommend either Washington or Oregon. I'm pretty sure Washigon or Orington would be just as good.

I was at first going to shout at you for being a horrible person wanting to get rid of states.

Then I see you don't want to get rid of the people and the territory...you just want to combine one with another.

North Carolina and South Carolina are the states I'd combine.

I felt like I was merely tolerated when I lived in the Soo. And that was the Soo, which is much more Troll-like than places west of, say, the Seney Stretch. Although, of course, one could probably draw the line as far west as Newberry or Trout Lake.

If forgot, are you an LPer?

If forgot, are you an LPer?

Yep, I was born and raised near Mt. Pleasant, where I currently happen to live again. I did live in the Soo (Dafter actually) for a year while going to LSSU.

I always thought that the UP wanted to join Canada... :confused:

Nope, there's always been a weak movement to split the UP off into a state called "Superior".

True. If things were done as they should most states would be split up into at least two. Southern Illinois and Chicagoland for one. Lower Michigan and the UP (Superior the name Yoopers always propose) for another.
Agreed. I never really liked the Trolls.
I felt like I was merely tolerated when I lived in the Soo. And that was the Soo, which is much more Troll-like than places west of, say, the Seney Stretch. Although, of course, one could probably draw the line as far west as Newberry or Trout Lake.
If forgot, are you an LPer?

damn michiganders, speak english!

damn michiganders, speak english!

This'll help you translate.

http://www.michigannative.com/ma_home.shtml

I always thought Tasmania, Chiapas and Acre were wildly unnecessary.

Well, who said we only had to get rid of US states?

damn michiganders, speak english!

You're going to have to learn the culture soon, lest you be stared at for your strange foreign ways.

Yep, I was born and raised near Mt. Pleasant, where I currently happen to live again. I did live in the Soo (Dafter actually) for a year while going to LSSU.


*sigh*

I suppose we can make you an Honorary Yooper. It's a very rare and honorable title. Reserved for he likes of Jerry Ford and Jeff Daniels. Wear it with pride.

Iowa.
'Nuff said.
I would suggest Ohio but having lived there I've grown fond of the place and shudder to think of West Virginia annexing its lovely country side =P

Ohio. Their drivers are the worst, and it has the mistake by the lake (Cleveland).

Or California. We would be a lot better off without San Fransicko.

Ohio and California are both quite important to the country. California produces a large amount of produce and is the centre of our information technology industry, as well as the centre of the entertainment industry, and economically it's like a freaking country all of its own...probably the only state that could be truly self-sustaining if it lost the rest of the country.

Oh, and Ohio produces a lot of grain, and I'm sure there's other things Ohio does that's useful.

Really, people, our nation is the way it is due to the union of all of our states. Each one contributes in some important way to the whole...if we actually lost any one of them, we'd lose a portion of what makes the United States the United States, not only in terms of economic and military power, but culturally as well.
While not really a state....Key West should go.


Let them form their fagolicious conch republic...and let's see how long it lasts, propped up economically only by European and American gay sex tourists.:rolleyes:

Congratulations on reaching new levels of idiocy and offensiveness. Want to make any other hateful statements towards homosexuals while you're at it?

Ohio and California are both quite important to the country. California produces a large amount of produce and is the centre of our information technology industry, as well as the centre of the entertainment industry, and economically it's like a freaking country all of its own...probably the only state that could be truly self-sustaining if it lost the rest of the country.

Oh, and Ohio produces a lot of grain, and I'm sure there's other things Ohio does that's useful.

Really, people, our nation is the way it is due to the union of all of our states. Each one contributes in some important way to the whole...if we actually lost any one of them, we'd lose a portion of what makes the United States the United States, not only in terms of economic and military power, but culturally as well.


Congratulations on reaching new levels of idiocy and offensiveness. Want to make any other hateful statements towards homosexuals while you're at it?

Wow, your realy taking out your anger on something that likely will never happen. Besides, its which state could, not should go.

I agree that Virginia and West Virginia should be combined. I mean, West Virginia looks so ugly as it is today, why not just merge the Virginias? I'm sure it'd look a lot less ugly.

As for a state that I think should be merged with another... I think Mississippi and Alabama. The two look almost like they're two halves of the same coin. So why do they have to be two states?

And then Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming are all up there together, and from what I know I think they all have relatively small populations, so why not merge them? They'd gain seats in the house and electoral votes, and I'm sure it'd help economically. Of course, then the 'no speed limit' laws of Montana would have to go for the entire state.. I guess that might work out.

I'd really be fine with any state mergings, just as long as they left Oklahoma to itself. I like my state just the way it is, thank you. ;)

*sigh*

I suppose we can make you an Honorary Yooper. It's a very rare and honorable title. Reserved for he likes of Jerry Ford and Jeff Daniels. Wear it with pride.

Yay *drinks a Leinie's*

Speaking of Jeff Daniels, the local theatre is doing a production of Escanaba in Da Moonlight. I'm possibly taking a French friend of mine (who happens to be going to school in GR this semester) to it this weekend.

probably the only state that could be truly self-sustaining if it lost the rest of the country.

Nope, California wouldn't be self sustaining. But then again, no single country on earth is self sustaining.

Wow, your realy taking out your anger on something that likely will never happen. Besides, its which state could, not should go.

Which state could? I just told you: none of them. Even merging states would reverberate negatively everywhere in the U.S., because it would be a bureaucratic nightmare combining the two governments, restructuring Congress, changing information in textbooks across the country, and so on and so forth...I think you see my point.

Nouvelle Wallonochie: Lies. Many countries are self-sustaining, actually, such as Tuvalu.

But yes, California probably couldn't be fully self-sustaining...where, for instance, would they get the oil they need? They are by far the closest state to self-sustaining, though.

Speaking of Jeff Daniels, the local theatre is doing a production of Escanaba in Da Moonlight. I'm possibly taking a French friend of mine (who happens to be going to school in GR this semester) to it this weekend.

you know, i found a live production of that funnier than the film. good stuff either way.

Nouvelle Wallonochie: Lies. Many countries are self-sustaining, actually, such as Tuvalu.

Not according to the Wikipedia.

Tuvalu has almost no natural resources, and its main form of income consists of foreign aid. Virtually the only jobs in the islands that pay a steady wage or salary are with the government. Subsistence farming and fishing remain the primary economic activities, particularly off the capital island of Funafuti. Government revenues largely come from the sale of stamps and coins, fishing licenses and worker remittances.

And either way, I should clarify that I meant any modern, industrialized country.

But yes, California probably couldn't be fully self-sustaining...where, for instance, would they get the oil they need? They are by far the closest state to self-sustaining, though.

The same place they get it now, through international trade.

Yay *drinks a Leinie's*

Speaking of Jeff Daniels, the local theatre is doing a production of Escanaba in Da Moonlight. I'm possibly taking a French friend of mine (who happens to be going to school in GR this semester) to it this weekend.


I own the movie (gift from an LPer friend). Naturally, it takes all the troll stereotypes of yoopers to the max, but I still found it funny. But really, it's not that far from the truth. We really talk like that (especially in copper country), we love our pastys (NOT Paste-ies, dammit!), and we love hunting. At least where I'm from.

Chicago or Michigans Upper Peninsula.........its weird in the UP...

O ya dare eh?

you know, i found a live production of that funnier than the film. good stuff either way.

Good to hear. I'm looking forward to it.

I own the movie (gift from an LPer friend). Naturally, it takes all the troll stereotypes of yoopers to the max, but I still found it funny. But really, it's not that far from the truth. We really talk like that (especially in copper country), we love our pastys (NOT Paste-ies, dammit!), and we love hunting. At least where I'm from.

I thought it was rather funny, although when I showed it to my friends in the Army and in France (anglophones in France) I had to do a fair bit of translating and explaining.

Not according to the Wikipedia.



And either way, I should clarify that I meant any modern, industrialized country.

Oh. Whoopsies. My mistake.


The same place they get it now, through international trade.
I meant the funding. They can only afford the oil they use up due to the economy of the rest of the country...on their own they couldn't afford enough oil to keep things going, and California's economy would grind to a halt.

Oh. Whoopsies. My mistake.


I meant the funding. They can only afford the oil they use up due to the economy of the rest of the country...on their own they couldn't afford enough oil to keep things going, and California's economy would grind to a halt.

What do you mean? The tax money Uncle Sam gets comes from the people in the states. That tax money would probably switch from going to Washington to going to Sacremento. In fact, this chart (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/347.html) says that in 2004 California only got $0.79 back from Washington for every dollar it put in. Of course, that doesn't include military spending (except for the California Guard) but would an independent California really want or need an expeditionary military? Probably not.

If the Union were to dissolve some states (notably New Mexico, who receives $2.00 for every dollar they put in) would do worse, but many would do better. Also, they probably wouldn't spend half a trillion a year combined on huge, bloated militaries they wouldn't need.

I thought it was rather funny, although when I showed it to my friends in the Army and in France (anglophones in France) I had to do a fair bit of translating and explaining.

I'm betting you would have to do the same for just about anyone who doesn't live in Michigan (and the midwest, to a lesser extent).

Explain why 49 is better than 50 when 50 guarantees more representation for the underepresented?

how about Rhode Island...would you miss it really...come on now...

Explain why 49 is better than 50 when 50 guarantees more representation for the underepresented?

Do you think DC should get a spot in the senate and house also?

Based on the fact that this nation is a Republic and that it is partially based in the principle of No Taxation Without Representation, I don't really see why the DC should not get representation. It has the population, and this population has the right to representation in the government in both houses. Granted, perhaps the DC wasn't originally founded as a place to house residents, but that is the way it is today and because of this, the DC should get more than just non-voting representation.

http://web.knoxnews.com/silence/archives/jesusland.jpg

Need I say more?

I believe you left Nevada and Arizona on there...you should fix that...and no one wants to be Canadian from the USA...come on now...except for AWOL cowards of course....take out the Canada part...and I might be in..

Hawaii. Sooner or later it's going to be volcanically devastated, tsunamied and/or swamped by rising sea levels. Ditch it now. *nod*

I knew I wouldn't have to really search in a thread like this for some Caliphobia...
I'm hopping Cali falls off into the ocean first...
Good luck without us...

Hawaii. Sooner or later it's going to be volcanically devastated, tsunamied and/or swamped by rising sea levels. Ditch it now. *nod*

I'm hopping Cali falls off into the ocean first...

Seriously, not meaning to be the slightest bit arrogant, but California is a highly important part of the nation. Without it, sure the nation just might get along, but not without crisis. Plus, we get to hang with Hawaii and Alaska ^^

Frankly, we here in California should just secede. We'd be far better off without the rest of the U.S.

Frankly, we here in California should just secede. We'd be far better off without the rest of the U.S.

Yes..with your power outages...earthquakes...Arnie as your governor......filling the media with hollywoods antics...yea we'd miss you a lot...:rolleyes:

Just a quick clarification...this is all just joking around friendly banter...just wanted to let people know since for some reason on NSG people get a stick or some other object up their ass about the smallest of things...

I'm hopping Cali falls off into the ocean first...

That's never going to happen. The idea was a joking suggestion by one scientist at one point and yet--much like the jokingly showed incorrectly lit picture of the Martian "face"--it was taken so seriously by the public that it persisted long after it was debunked.

No earthquake this planet could generate on its own is powerful enough to make the California landmass separate from the rest of the continent.

Um did you not read the last part of my last post...I know Cali can't actually fall into the ocean....

Notice to Mexico: You can have Texas back.

Notice to Mexico: You can have Texas back.

They're slowly taking over all that we won from them...only now we're exploiting them for cheap labor...

:(

But I :fluffle: you!

But really, why would you want to reduce the current number of provinces in the Republic of USA? :confused: :p

hawaii could be returned to indipendent nationhood, which i highly recomend. alaska could be given to canada which it is contiguous with, instead of the former u.s. which it is not.

the u.s. itself could be regeonalized. on the west coast northern california, along with washington and oregon (which are very different states, or were, politicly when i lived in each of them) and possibly british columbia (in trade for alaska?). parts of what is now idaho and and northern nevada might be adopted as parts of it. this could be called something like pacific states. southern california, along with the southern tip of nevada, plus new mexico and arazona could be returned to mexico. texas could be cut loose as an entity in and of itself. and so on. the mississippi drainage another. and then the north and south east, each becoming countries in their own right.

i don't think we need larger political devisions but smaller ones, to de-superpower governments, such as the u.s. particularly, which have gotten waay too big for their britches. there would then no longer be a u.s. as a single overpowered overbearing bullying entity. and people would once again be able to live and build according to the environment and the land where they are, instead all this procustian idiological fanatacism, which dictates to people living in widely diffiering environmental situation to build and live in nearly identical sorts of houses, eminently unsuited to any of them.

=^^=
.../\...

Give Alaska to us Canadians, we're always open to more arboreal paradises. :>

how about Rhode Island...would you miss it really...come on now...

I'd advocate not annoying a state with large numbers of Destroyers.

Texas.

Texas.

agreed.

This is for Americans, or non-Americans who know all fifty states. (If you are one of the latter, you are probably a more qualified citizen than most of the people already here.)
Which state is the more gratuitous? I know fifty is a nice number, but do we really need that many? If we had forty-nine, we would also have a nice square number, which would allow...many things, just trust me, it's better that way.

So, which state can go? We don't necessarily have to sell the land, but probably just merge it into another state nearby.

I would like to recommend either Washington or Oregon. I'm pretty sure Washigon or Orington would be just as good.

WA and OR are pretty cool states I would miss either if they went, especially OR.....but ESPECIALLY WA. I think Wyoming is the least populated state and if it fell off into the void we would have a pretty large land mass where we could throw all the nations garbage. I dunno... why stop at one?

Separate California into North California and South California. The divide to be just south of Fresno. Merge North California with Washington and Oregon - to be called Washcaligon - watch the fireworks. Merge South California with Arizona - to be called Calizona - see above.

Give Michigan to Canada.

Delaware. Because honestly, who gives a shit?

I do.

Rhode Island. I mean seriously, wtf? Just add it to Connecticut and it's still too small.

That's crazy talk, miiros -- merge Wyoming with something else insetad, as it's half the size of Rhode Island!

Delaware. Because honestly, who gives a shit?

That's crazy talk, miiros -- merge Wyoming with something else insetad, as it's half the size of Rhode Island!

I'm assuming you mean in terms of population; in area it's much bigger. I could agree with that. Actually, as the only distinctive thing in Wyoming (besides Dick Cheney) is Yellowstone, I think that should be consolidated into its own territory. Some other states would lose land, but they would get more than their fair share when Wyoming is divided among them.

When global warming murders us all, Yellowstone would be where the post-apocalypticians could live.

Canada or maybe merge Texas, Kansas and Florida and see what happens

Wasn't Canada offered a special deal on statehood? It may have expired after it became a dominion, but I seem to remember hearing that the Founding Fathers told Canada it could become a state if it wanted.

Texas.

agreed.

A Texan might find that insulting. But considering the authors of the posts are in New Jersey and Oklahoma, respectively, we'll just laugh ourselves unconscious.:p

Wasn't Canada offered a special deal on statehood? It may have expired after it became a dominion, but I seem to remember hearing that the Founding Fathers told Canada it could become a state if it wanted.

yeah, it was written into the articles of confederation during the revolution. they didn't even need approval, they could just start showing up to meetings and parties.

A Texan might find that insulting. But considering the authors of the posts are in New Jersey and Oklahoma, respectively, we'll just laugh ourselves unconscious.:p

I assume you heard what happens to Texans in Oklahoma (ala Henry Hudsons...ouch!)

Give Hawaii independence :D

As a Canadian, I volunteer to adopt Hawaii. Don't worry, we'll happily help get the number of states down to 49 just so you can proudly state that your country has 7^2 states because we're just such friendly neighbours always looking to help. :)

Iowa.
'Nuff said.
I would suggest Ohio but having lived there I've grown fond of the place and shudder to think of West Virginia annexing its lovely country side =P

No danger of that happening. We wouldn't want to. No offense to Ohio, we just don't want to have to change our nickname. ;)

If we're talking about merging states, Maine with Mass., since they were originally one state anyway and only seperated for the sake of keeping the number of slave and free states even prior to the Civil War.

If we're talking about totally useless states that should be blown up, New Jersey. Cuz Jersey pretty much sucks.

Yeah, and Mainers on crack jokes would become Upper Mass. people on crack jokes. :p (Nothing against Mainers, but I have heard people talking about Mainers who acted like they were stoned)

I assume you heard what happens to Texans in Oklahoma (ala Henry Hudsons...ouch!)But not having that particuliar piece of equipment, I'm not too worried. Though since I frequented several of the Henry Hudsons in OKC and Edmond, I suppose I might have had the opportunity to find out.


And I could be a truly obnoxious Longhorn fan in my youth,so maybe I lucked out. I'm probably cuter than the Texan in question.:D

Iowa.
As much as I despise and fear Iowa (otherwise know as "Hell with corn"), I have a much greater fear of what we might find were we to remove Iowa. Who knows what hellish void and/or underworld we would uncover were we to remove the state.
Instead, I suggest drowning Michigan and turning the five Great Lakes into one Ultimate Lake and the Other Lake That's Just Kind of "Meh." Not only will this save millions of brain cells across the US from being devoted to remembering that stupid "HOMES"-thing, but it will give me yet another way to mock Ontario (that is, by frequently refering to them as being "That place in Canada with inferior lake.")

As much as I despise and fear Iowa (otherwise know as "Hell with corn"), I have a much greater fear of what we might find were we to remove Iowa. Who knows what hellish void and/or underworld we would uncover were we to remove the state.
Instead, I suggest drowning Michigan and turning the five Great Lakes into one Ultimate Lake and the Other Lake That's Just Kind of "Meh." Not only will this save millions of brain cells across the US from being devoted to remembering that stupid "HOMES"-thing, but it will give me yet another way to mock Ontario (that is, by frequently refering to them as being "That place in Canada with inferior lake.")

though, in honor of their noble sacrifice, the ultimate lake will be named lake michigan. no, wait, that's already taken. how about lake chicago? yeah, that sounds good.

Just make it into seperate counties. The socialist republic of new england, The conservitive States of America, and The Peoples communist republic of Orecaliashington.

Anyone mention Idaho?
Idaho anyone?
Honestly would any one miss Idaho if we just made the entire state a national forest?

Also, South Dakota frightens me as of late, why not make it into a giant square lake. We can call it "the great square lake."

Oregon's economy sucks... I'm not sure merging it would solve it's problems.

I like the merger idea between the new england states, and just have the state of New England.

Texas is actually the only state allowed to split into 5 or 4 smaller states.

Anyone mention Idaho?
Idaho anyone?
Honestly would any one miss Idaho if we just made the entire state a national forest?
But without the Strategic Potato Reserve, what will the Boy Scouts of America (otherwise known as America's 73rd line of defense) use as ammunition for their Potato-Gun regiments?

Texas is actually the only state allowed to split into 5 or 4 smaller states.

Actually, any state can with the permission of Congress. All Texas did was get preapproved.

Also, to head these off at the path, Texas does not have any other special permissions. Being allowed to secede wasn't in their admission documents (as they believed they could anyway at the time) and they don't have any special permissions regarding the position of their flag in relationship to the US flag. None.

As a Canadian, I volunteer to adopt Hawaii. Don't worry, we'll happily help get the number of states down to 49 just so you can proudly state that your country has 7^2 states because we're just such friendly neighbours always looking to help. :)

And average Canadian weather would be much warmer.

Kansas. Make them the Independent Republic of Jesusland. Please.

And average Canadian weather would be much warmer.
More importantly we'd be picking up some sweet telescopes.

Merge California with Texas, and let us see what happens.:p

I think that the two senators and two congressmen that the new state of Flyover (formerly the midwestern states) should get ought actually to be picked half by New York and half by California voters.

North Dakota, who the hell would want to live there anyway

This is for Americans, or non-Americans who know all fifty states. (If you are one of the latter, you are probably a more qualified citizen than most of the people already here.)
Which state is the more gratuitous? I know fifty is a nice number, but do we really need that many? If we had forty-nine, we would also have a nice square number, which would allow...many things, just trust me, it's better that way.

So, which state can go? We don't necessarily have to sell the land, but probably just merge it into another state nearby.

I would like to recommend either Washington or Oregon. I'm pretty sure Washigon or Orington would be just as good.

What have you got against two of the most beautiful and topographically diverse states in the nation?

What I would do with Washington and Oregon is re-draw the boundary, swapping one natural line (the Columbia River) for another (the Cascade Range). It is well known in the Pacific Northwest that the eastern halves of those two states are at political, economic and cultural odds with the western halves. So re-draw the line to a north-south running line along the summit of the Cascades. And fuck naming either one "Washington" -- DC has that already and I'm tired of correcting those who confuse them (though I do get a kick out of annoying DCders by saying "the one that's actually a state").

That way, western WA and OR can share their largely liberal bent, largely urban/suburban, largely forestry/dairy/berry, largely wet identity -- and eastern WA and OR can share their largely conservative bent, largely town/rural, largely crops/ranch/orchard, largely dry identity. West half we'll call Cascadia (capital: Portland, as it's in the middle), the east half can keep Oregon or call it Columbia (capital: Walla Walla, again, in the middle), after the very important river...which, if we all gave up gasoline, could charge a shitload of electric cars...on the west side.

Northern California is large enough to be its own state, called Sequoia, and mountainous along its breadth so as to defy further division (capital: Redding).

Central California becomes a smaller California (capital: Sacramento), and everything south of, say, Bakersfield along a line west to Half Moon Bay gets it's own state called Los Diegas (capital: San Bernardino...what else is goin' on there?) -- because that new state will annex Clark County, NV.

Southern Idaho (south of, say, Twin Falls) combines with the rest of Nevada and adds itself to Utah (they've already got it in a religio-cultural sense anyway -- captial stays Salt Lake City...so that those in the south of the former Utah can stop bitching about being so far away from the capital). Let's make these borders make some damn geographic SENSE!

Western Montana sucks up the rest of Idaho and chomps on Yellowstone & northwestern Wyoming (through to about Cody or Thermopolis), but STOPS at Billings. You call yourself Montana and admit to that whole eastern third that's about as mountainous as a Mariel Hemingway-Debra Messing nude photo shoot? Not on MY watch. Eastern Montana, the flat parts of northeastern Wyoming, South Dakota and the plains of western Minnesota are all collectively Dakota (capital: Aberdeen...again, as central as I can think of without looking at a map).

Arizona merges with New Mexico (new state = Arizona, capital: Gallup), but NM gives up the southeastern desert to Texas. Texas? You're not kidding anyone -- you're at least three states. The west gets called West Texas (captial: Midland/Odessa). The hill country and Houston are still Texas (capital: Beaumont). The south is South Texas (Draw the line a the last city with a German sounding name -- Pflugerville? New Braunfels? Take the line to just north of Galveston), capital: San Antonio.

The non-plains Minnesota merges with Wisconsin and all the Yoopers in N. Mich. to form Minwisyoop (Fuckingcoldia lost in a heated run-off), captial: Wausau.

What's left of Louisiana, after everything north of Baton Rouge is ceded to Arkansas, becomes Acadiana (capital: New Iberia), and annexes Gulfport and Biloxi. Mississippi and Alabama merge (captial: Natchez) to become Alasippi.

Georgia takes northern Florida (to about Gainesville or Jacksonville, but not to Orlando -- don't know where to move the capital there). North & South Carolina come together (captial = Asheville or Fayetteville). Virginia and W. Virginia are left alone, and Tennessee and Kentucky are merged (capital = somewhere central I can't think of without a map).

Southern Illinois and southern Indiana merge with Iowa. Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska are fine as they are. Northern Illinois and Indiana merge with Ohio -- EXCEPT for the greater Chicago-Milwaukee area and relevant suburbs, which become a giant city-state like thing called Chicagoland...which it kinda already is, isn't it? Lower Michigan is still Michigan. Pennsylvania spllits in two, with the west annexing the western, pointy end of New York and the east taking the north (pineless) part of New Jersey. Maryland eats Delaware and the southern half of New Jersey because it should -- it's skinny and needs to gain some weight.

Hawaii and Alaska are just fine. We need outposts.

Maine stays Maine. Massachusetts swallows Vermont and New Hampshire and loses it's name to New England (capital = Burlington).

I can't tell people from Connecticut and Rhode Island apare without license plates. Merge them (capital = New London) into Mashanpequot.

That's all.

*sigh*

I suppose we can make you an Honorary Yooper. It's a very rare and honorable title. Reserved for he likes of Jerry Ford and Jeff Daniels. Wear it with pride.

I am a Yooper by birth and relocation. My uncle and some cousins live in Marquette.

I believe you left Nevada and Arizona on there...you should fix that...and no one wants to be Canadian from the USA...come on now...except for AWOL cowards of course....take out the Canada part...and I might be in..

Yes..with your power outages...earthquakes...Arnie as your governor......filling the media with hollywoods antics...yea we'd miss you a lot...:rolleyes:

Just a quick clarification...this is all just joking around friendly banter...just wanted to let people know since for some reason on NSG people get a stick or some other object up their ass about the smallest of things...

The problem, Gatsy, is that nobody can tell because you appear so sincere in your intent. Perhaps a wink smilie might help -- either that or kid about something other than jokes found in neocon talking points -- y'know, for variety.

A Texan might find that insulting. But considering the authors of the posts are in New Jersey and Oklahoma, respectively, we'll just laugh ourselves unconscious.:p

Now that's what I'd expect from a woman from the state that gave us Molly Ivins. Hook 'em 'horns!

North Dakota, who the hell would want to live there anyway

I would, you great pillock. It's a great place to live. Cold as FUCK for about four solid months, but great people, peace and quiet, good hunting & fishing, and the Badlands to hike through.

You've never been here, or if you have, you didn't stay long. Don't blame my new home for your shortsightedness.

But I :fluffle: you!

But I live in NJ.

"Jersey Girls aren't trash (trash gets picked up)."

But not having that particuliar piece of equipment, I'm not too worried. Though since I frequented several of the Henry Hudsons in OKC and Edmond, I suppose I might have had the opportunity to find out.
I just got back from Henry Hudson's....:D lovely nachos....


And I could be a truly obnoxious Longhorn fan in my youth,so maybe I lucked out. I'm probably cuter than the Texan in question.:D
I have a picture of myself at 3 months old wearing an OU onsie with the upside down long horns hand gesture, I was indoctrinated early.

Rhode Island should be combined with either Massachusetts or Connecticut (after all, Rhode Island isn't much bigger than a small town :p ).

A benefit of combining it with Massachusetts is all the bad drivers of New England would be in one state.

A benefit of combining it with CT is all of New England's gambling would be in one state (not counting state lottery).

http://www.3rdgen.org/bb/images/smilies/jeremy.gif

Massachusetts: their socialist rhetoric is hazardous to economic health and fundamental freedoms. They can become a colony of France for all I care.

What I would do ... All well and good, but you left out Oklahoma. ... Oh wait.... :D

The non-plains Minnesota merges with Wisconsin and all the Yoopers in N. Mich. to form Minwisyoop (Fuckingcoldia lost in a heated run-off), captial: Wausau.Or Beertopia. Well donchaknow, we could make everyone happy and make that the new state's motto. But Wausau? Eh? (Granted there's dog-all nothing else, but still, eh.)

Massachusetts: their socialist rhetoric is hazardous to economic health and fundamental freedoms. They can become a colony of France for all I care.

That's completely against what I'd have thought you'd post.

What have you got against two of the most beautiful and topographically diverse states in the nation?

What I would do with Washington and Oregon is re-draw the boundary, swapping one natural line (the Columbia River) for another (the Cascade Range). It is well known in the Pacific Northwest that the eastern halves of those two states are at political, economic and cultural odds with the western halves. So re-draw the line to a north-south running line along the summit of the Cascades. And fuck naming either one "Washington" -- DC has that already and I'm tired of correcting those who confuse them (though I do get a kick out of annoying DCders by saying "the one that's actually a state").

That way, western WA and OR can share their largely liberal bent, largely urban/suburban, largely forestry/dairy/berry, largely wet identity -- and eastern WA and OR can share their largely conservative bent, largely town/rural, largely crops/ranch/orchard, largely dry identity. West half we'll call Cascadia (capital: Portland, as it's in the middle), the east half can keep Oregon or call it Columbia (capital: Walla Walla, again, in the middle), after the very important river...which, if we all gave up gasoline, could charge a shitload of electric cars...on the west side.

Northern California is large enough to be its own state, called Sequoia, and mountainous along its breadth so as to defy further division (capital: Redding).

Central California becomes a smaller California (capital: Sacramento), and everything south of, say, Bakersfield along a line west to Half Moon Bay gets it's own state called Los Diegas (capital: San Bernardino...what else is goin' on there?) -- because that new state will annex Clark County, NV.

Southern Idaho (south of, say, Twin Falls) combines with the rest of Nevada and adds itself to Utah (they've already got it in a religio-cultural sense anyway -- captial stays Salt Lake City...so that those in the south of the former Utah can stop bitching about being so far away from the capital). Let's make these borders make some damn geographic SENSE!

Western Montana sucks up the rest of Idaho and chomps on Yellowstone & northwestern Wyoming (through to about Cody or Thermopolis), but STOPS at Billings. You call yourself Montana and admit to that whole eastern third that's about as mountainous as a Mariel Hemingway-Debra Messing nude photo shoot? Not on MY watch. Eastern Montana, the flat parts of northeastern Wyoming, South Dakota and the plains of western Minnesota are all collectively Dakota (capital: Aberdeen...again, as central as I can think of without looking at a map).

Arizona merges with New Mexico (new state = Arizona, capital: Gallup), but NM gives up the southeastern desert to Texas. Texas? You're not kidding anyone -- you're at least three states. The west gets called West Texas (captial: Midland/Odessa). The hill country and Houston are still Texas (capital: Beaumont). The south is South Texas (Draw the line a the last city with a German sounding name -- Pflugerville? New Braunfels? Take the line to just north of Galveston), capital: San Antonio.

The non-plains Minnesota merges with Wisconsin and all the Yoopers in N. Mich. to form Minwisyoop (Fuckingcoldia lost in a heated run-off), captial: Wausau.

What's left of Louisiana, after everything north of Baton Rouge is ceded to Arkansas, becomes Acadiana (capital: New Iberia), and annexes Gulfport and Biloxi. Mississippi and Alabama merge (captial: Natchez) to become Alasippi.

Georgia takes northern Florida (to about Gainesville or Jacksonville, but not to Orlando -- don't know where to move the capital there). North & South Carolina come together (captial = Asheville or Fayetteville). Virginia and W. Virginia are left alone, and Tennessee and Kentucky are merged (capital = somewhere central I can't think of without a map).

Southern Illinois and southern Indiana merge with Iowa. Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska are fine as they are. Northern Illinois and Indiana merge with Ohio -- EXCEPT for the greater Chicago-Milwaukee area and relevant suburbs, which become a giant city-state like thing called Chicagoland...which it kinda already is, isn't it? Lower Michigan is still Michigan. Pennsylvania spllits in two, with the west annexing the western, pointy end of New York and the east taking the north (pineless) part of New Jersey. Maryland eats Delaware and the southern half of New Jersey because it should -- it's skinny and needs to gain some weight.

Hawaii and Alaska are just fine. We need outposts.

Maine stays Maine. Massachusetts swallows Vermont and New Hampshire and loses it's name to New England (capital = Burlington).

I can't tell people from Connecticut and Rhode Island apare without license plates. Merge them (capital = New London) into Mashanpequot.

That's all.

Somebody draw this!

The United States of America does not need less states: it needs more.

The country has over three hundred million (300,000,000) people in it, so dividing that populous by only fifty means each senator is representative for approximately three million people.

One senator speaking on behalf of three million constituents. More actually. And I am well aware it's not *exactly* like that. It's even more confused in The House. However with Senators you can break it down like this and generally speaking it's relatively accurate.

Of course some states' populations differ from others, so some congressmen are technically representing more people and others less, but they're all given relatively equal weight in day to day affairs, so it's safe to say that whoever your congressperson is, if you're in the States, that guy is not representing YOU.

One very small fraction of him is standing there representing all of you.

That's not even his whole pancreas. If you're real lucky maybe you're represented by a part of his kidney, or cells inside the pinky of the hand he gestures with occasionally, but more probably, your slice of him is represented by like, a mole on the back of his neck or something. Most people just get some random piece of flesh that holds no bearing on anything whatsoever.

Who gets his eyes? His lungs? His heart? The parts of his body that actually matter to him? Follow the money, and you'll find that out.

Less states? That'd be less representation. We need more of that; not less.

This is for Americans, or non-Americans who know all fifty states. (If you are one of the latter, you are probably a more qualified citizen than most of the people already here.)
Which state is the more gratuitous? I know fifty is a nice number, but do we really need that many? If we had forty-nine, we would also have a nice square number, which would allow...many things, just trust me, it's better that way.

So, which state can go? We don't necessarily have to sell the land, but probably just merge it into another state nearby.

I would like to recommend either Washington or Oregon. I'm pretty sure Washigon or Orington would be just as good.

How about just a part of a state?

Miami metro area, into the Hispanic Republic of Miami with a Cuban Majority of course, lol, President Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Vice President Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

It could include all of Miami metro, all or parts of Broward County, and or all of Monroe county - Cayo Hueso - Key West Florida, lol.

Central California becomes a smaller California (capital: Sacramento), and everything south of, say, Bakersfield along a line west to Half Moon Bay gets it's own state called Los Diegas (capital: San Bernardino...what else is goin' on there?) -- because that new state will annex Clark County, NV.
What is it with people wanting Las Vegas to become a part of California? I know all the Californians are moving there for some reason, but it's still very much Nevada.

Southern Idaho (south of, say, Twin Falls) combines with the rest of Nevada and adds itself to Utah (they've already got it in a religio-cultural sense anyway -- captial stays Salt Lake City...so that those in the south of the former Utah can stop bitching about being so far away from the capital). Let's make these borders make some damn geographic SENSE!
Oh HELL NO! EASTERN Nevada (Say, Elko, Ely, and the Wendovers) would probably LOVE to be a part of Utah, but the rest of Nevada has very little in common with Utah or Idaho. We're what people in those states warn children about. ;)

Consolidate Montana and Idaho.

I call it: "Modaho"

Isn't Colorado economically unviable anyway or is that a myth?

Silly answer: Britain

Western Montana sucks up the rest of Idaho

i still think northern idaho should merge westward rather than eastward. there's these great huge mountains between any of the populations there and in montana, while the three urbanized places of any size at all are on the washington border and all have a counterpart there. lewiston/clarkston, moscow/pullman, coeur d'alene/spokane.

The non-plains Minnesota merges with Wisconsin and all the Yoopers in N. Mich. to form Minwisyoop (Fuckingcoldia lost in a heated run-off), captial: Wausau.

haha, that would piss off pretty much everybody. somehow i don't see madison surrendering it's capital-ness to wausau. not until they improve their mall, at the very least.

All well and good, but you left out Oklahoma. ... Oh wait.... :D

Or Beertopia. Well donchaknow, we could make everyone happy and make that the new state's motto. But Wausau? Eh? (Granted there's dog-all nothing else, but still, eh.)

When choosing capitals, I tried to think of cities in the middle of new states and which had either name recognition or a need for the economic boost a capital brings (without the capital, Bismarck wouldn't be half the size it is, for example). Oklahoma is fine how it is, but I night take suggestions on where to put that ridiculous panhandle.

What is it with people wanting Las Vegas to become a part of California? I know all the Californians are moving there for some reason, but it's still very much Nevada.


Oh HELL NO! EASTERN Nevada (Say, Elko, Ely, and the Wendovers) would probably LOVE to be a part of Utah, but the rest of Nevada has very little in common with Utah or Idaho. We're what people in those states warn children about. ;)

Okay, point taken on western Nevada. We'll divide it north and south and cede those parts to Sequoia (N. CA) and California (central CA), leaving the east to go off to Salt Lake. As far as Vegas goes, it just made sense that LA and Vegas were in the same state, thereby confining all the major loopiness to one jurisdiction...which would probably have the largest police force of any of ther remaining states.

I'd love to see someone get all cartographic on my idea -- or anyone else's ideas, for that matter. It just seems that natural boundaries make more sense than having a state that's shaped like a square. I mean, GPS means straight lines are no longer vastly easier to delineate on a map. Those early boundary drawers weren't lazy so much as they were looking for a way to get lines up fast to get states in the union fast and exploit resources fast.

i still think northern idaho should merge westward rather than eastward. there's these great huge mountains between any of the populations there, while the three urbanized places of any size at all are on the washington border and all have a counterpart there. lewiston/clarkston, moscow/pullman, coeur d'alene/spokane.



haha, that would piss off pretty much everybody. somehow i don't see madison surrendering it's capital-ness to wausau. not until they improve their mall, at the very least.

Very well, I'm nothing if not flexible.

N. Idaho reverts to the eastern OR + eastern WA state (Columbia). That might necessitate moving the capital a bit farther east than Walla Walla. Milton-Freewater?

Again, Wausau was chosen for it's name recognition and more central location. If Madison makes more sense, keep Madison. So long as it's no longer St. Paul -- too much goin' on there already. Since you seem to know the area, what would make a nice centrally-located capital of Minwisyoop?

Again, Wausau was chosen for it's name recognition and more central location. If Madison makes more sense, keep Madison. So long as it's no longer St. Paul -- too much goin' on there already. Since you seem to know the area, what would make a nice centrally-located capital of Minwisyoop?

wausau is probably fine for that conception - personally, i'd be more tempted to split up the north and south of your minwisyoop. create an up nort der state, possibly called superior, and a southerner one. for superior that doesn't include minnesota (which is how i always pictured a north split and merge), wausau would probably make a good choice. but if we're including the lakey parts of minnesota too, i might be tempted towards choosing duluth/superior. hmmm...

Oklahoma is fine how it is, but I night take suggestions on where to put that ridiculous panhandle.

Tell me something, can you imagine Oklahoma without its panhandle? Don't you think it'd look a little more ridiculous? And hey, plenty of states have those. For the life of me I could never figure out why Texas needed its...

The Dakotas can go for all I care. Let them join some god-loving abortion-hating nation.

Better yet lets just kick those people off that land and give it to indian tribes.

The Dakotas can go for all I care. Let them join some god-loving abortion-hating nation.

Better yet lets just kick those people off that land and give it to indian tribes.

Excuse me? My mother, grandmother and grandfather, aunts and uncle are all from South Dakota - Plankinton to be precise - the family has been there for almost 175 years - kick them off indeed.

This is for Americans, or non-Americans who know all fifty states. (If you are one of the latter, you are probably a more qualified citizen than most of the people already here.)
Which state is the more gratuitous? I know fifty is a nice number, but do we really need that many? If we had forty-nine, we would also have a nice square number, which would allow...many things, just trust me, it's better that way.

So, which state can go? We don't necessarily have to sell the land, but probably just merge it into another state nearby.

I would like to recommend either Washington or Oregon. I'm pretty sure Washigon or Orington would be just as good.


Personally,I really dont care. But if I had to choose a state to go, I would choose Maine. Merge it with a bigger state, which would make no change what so ever. Why would it benifit the United States as a whole anyway? It would be bad for the folks in Maine. Mainly because, state taxes would jump to unusual numbers, which would make New Hampshire a very expensive state to live in.

I say we make the whole nation...whole

Call it

The United State of America

One State

I like things simple. Makes me happy

Excuse me? My mother, grandmother and grandfather, aunts and uncle are all from South Dakota - Plankinton to be precise - the family has been there for almost 175 years - kick them off indeed.

And let the 'Do I care?' Vote begin!

I'd love to see someone get all cartographic on my idea No claims of great artistry, and I haven't starred the capitals, but....
http://pics.livejournal.com/rubinans/pic/0000h634

I think I fixed northern Idaho, though she looks a tad funny. And Dakota is one heckuva large state, but population-wise balances out. Too late for Oklahoma...western Oklahoma is more Texas than Texas and eastern Oklahoma is more Arkansas than Arkansas, so problem solved. Though Little Rock is now probably too far east to be the capital. Fort Smith might work.

Can't see splitting Minwisyoop north and south... the Madisonites are just going to have to own up to their Ole and Lena heritage like the rest of us. Thinking about it, Stevens Point would make a better capital than Wausau. It's more central, has a four-year university (snicker), a river, and a brewery. What else could you ask for? ;)

Well you could stand to merge the Dakotas and then get rid of them afterwards, and get rid of Iowa. You'd do yourselves a lot of favours if you got rid of Texas too - I'm sure they'd be happy to be given to Mexico, right?

And what's Wyoming ever done for you recently? They're like, far too square, maaan, get rid. Same with Colorado.

In fact, you only really need to keep California, Florida, New York, Michigan, Virginia (sounds... pure), Illinois and Wisconsin (that 70s Show was set there). You probably need Washington too I guess. I'm sure you all know that those are the best states, after all. Oh, and Tennessee, for the whiskey.

Texas.

Divide it into 5 states.

Then have 10 Texan Senators.

Laugh loudly.

Texas.

Divide it into 5 states.

Then have 10 Texan Senators.

Laugh loudly.
Sure. You could have Texas, North Austin, East Austin, South Austin and West Austin. Try gerrymandering that.

Sure. You could have Texas, North Austin, East Austin, South Austin and West Austin. Try gerrymandering that.


Texas, District 22 is the size of Massachusets. I like the idea of it being it's own state.

Thinking about it, Stevens Point would make a better capital than Wausau. It's more central, has a four-year university (snicker), a river, and a brewery. What else could you ask for? ;)

a best buy - but they got one of those in the past couple years too.

i assume that capitalizing point would require taking over the sentry insurance building. either that or tearing down the hilariously poorly designed mall and creating another lake to build an even bigger hill to put a capital building on.


also, chicagoland clearly already extends most of the rest of the way around the bottom of the lake, and will shortly encompass the benton harbor/st joe region of southwestern michigan as well.

Ok, you said you wanted a square number right? Instead of losing 1 state, why not gain 36? Take:
1)NSW
2)QLD
3)VIC
4)SA
5)WA
6)ACT
7)NT
8)England
9)Wales
10)Northern Ireland
11)Scotland
12)Ireland
13)Auckland
14)Bay of Plenty
15)Canterbury
16)Chatham Islands
17)Gisborne
18)Hawke's Bay
19)Manawatu-Wanganui
20)Marlborough
21)Nelson
22)Northland
23)Otago
24)Southland
25)Taranaki
26)Tasman
27)Waikato
28)Wellington
29)West Coast
30-36)Canadian provinces (rework them into six after you conquer them)

You already virtually own half of these as it is, and then we'd have a Anglo-bloc! Woot for monoracial imperialist powers!

Tell me something, can you imagine Oklahoma without its panhandle? Don't you think it'd look a little more ridiculous? And hey, plenty of states have those. For the life of me I could never figure out why Texas needed its...

EDIT: Had to run before replying to this post. Sorry if my second paragraph seemed aimed at you! You're right, of course. Oklahoma would look damned silly without it's panhandle. I just think it's the only state that should be allowed to CALL it that. Idaho? Even on it's side doesn't look anything like a pan, and neither does Florida, selfishly gobbling up all the northern Gulf Coast like that. Texas? That's not even CLOSE to a panhandle.

The Dakotas can go for all I care. Let them join some god-loving abortion-hating nation.

Better yet lets just kick those people off that land and give it to indian tribes.

Misconception, arrogance, ignorance and plain old stupidity. All four horsemen of the NSG Apocalypse. Congratulations. Let's keep the editorial regionalisms under our hats, shall we? Make your case without acting like a child.

No claims of great artistry, and I haven't starred the capitals, but....
http://pics.livejournal.com/rubinans/pic/0000h634

I think I fixed northern Idaho, though she looks a tad funny. And Dakota is one heckuva large state, but population-wise balances out. Too late for Oklahoma...western Oklahoma is more Texas than Texas and eastern Oklahoma is more Arkansas than Arkansas, so problem solved. Though Little Rock is now probably too far east to be the capital. Fort Smith might work.

Can't see splitting Minwisyoop north and south... the Madisonites are just going to have to own up to their Ole and Lena heritage like the rest of us. Thinking about it, Stevens Point would make a better capital than Wausau. It's more central, has a four-year university (snicker), a river, and a brewery. What else could you ask for? ;)

Outstanding work! You have my gratitude and admiration.

No claims of great artistry, and I haven't starred the capitals, but....
http://pics.livejournal.com/rubinans/pic/0000h634

I think I fixed northern Idaho, though she looks a tad funny. And Dakota is one heckuva large state, but population-wise balances out. Too late for Oklahoma...western Oklahoma is more Texas than Texas and eastern Oklahoma is more Arkansas than Arkansas, so problem solved. Though Little Rock is now probably too far east to be the capital. Fort Smith might work.

Can't see splitting Minwisyoop north and south... the Madisonites are just going to have to own up to their Ole and Lena heritage like the rest of us. Thinking about it, Stevens Point would make a better capital than Wausau. It's more central, has a four-year university (snicker), a river, and a brewery. What else could you ask for? ;)

Okay, that'll piss off the Okies, but it does have it's logic. Another correction -- Georgia should only get the part of northern Florida that does NOT extend west of the main, southeasterly-pointing body of the state. The whole Tallahassee/Pensacola region should go to Alasippi, which deserves more coastline.

Again, I applaud your initiative and your work! 36 states. Nice and square.

Sure. You could have Texas, North Austin, East Austin, South Austin and West Austin. Try gerrymandering that.

East Austin proper and West Austin proper can go.

Not big on East Austin gangs and rich ass Westlake kids.

The answer to the OP is of course, Mississippi.

Seriously, Mississippi ranks bottom on EVERYTHING.

Well:

1. We can merge Maine with Massachusetts (49)
2. We can merge Rhode Island with Connecticut (48)
3. West Virginia can be merged back into Virginia (47)
4. Delaware can be merged with Maryland (46)
5. We can merge North and South Dakota (45)

Frankly, I would just re-do this whole "state" business and group states by other sorts of similarities. I'll start in Maine and work my way south and then west.

THE NEW ENGLAND STATES: I'll leave Maine alone, simply because I'm leaving New Hampshire the hell alone. New Hampshire is like no other state, and therefore, it remains its own state. Maine stays put. However, Vermont is merged with western Massachusetts, and Boston joins Connecticut and Rhode Island as one state.

THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC: NY City joins with the northern half of New Jersey and eastern PA. Southern New Jersey, Delaware, eastern Maryland, and coastal Virginia all become one state.

APPALACHIA: The middle chunk of New York state, Pennsylvania, most of West Virginia, and the western parts of Maryland and Virginia are probably turned into two states. Saw off the western edge of North Carolina and the eastern edge of Tennessee, and we have us North Appalachia and South Appalachia.

THE SOUTH ATLANTIC: The Carolinas merge into one state. Georgia is left alone, but it gains the eastern panhandle of Florida. Central Florida is renamed Disney Kingdom. South Florida is renamed New Cuba.

THE SOUTH: Merge Mississippi and Alabama. Sure, they won't be pleased about it, but do it anyway. Tennessee stays, or what of it doesn't go to Appalachia, and I'll leave Arkansas and Louisiana alone.

THE RUST BELT: The entire northeast of Ohio, from about Cleveland down to a few miles north of I-70, joins western PA and Michigan as a state. Oh yeah, and Michigan gets Toledo back. The southern portion of Ohio joins Kentucky, and the western portion, including Dayton, joins Indiana, or rather, a conglomerate state of Indiana and the southern two-thirds of Illinois. The part of Illinois containing Chicago becomes its own state. Wisconsin and Minnesota get left alone, though the U.P. of Michigan joins Wisconsin.

THE HEARTLAND: Missouri loses Kansas City to Kansas, and I'm merging Iowa and Nebraska, since both states are known only for lots of corn. I'll also re-draw the borders of Texas and Oklahoma to be more insane, but collectively, the two states will neither gain nor lose land.

THE ROCKIES: The Dakotas become one state, simply called Dakota. I don't care how many nukes those two states have. Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho become one state. Come on. Do we really need three? Colorado's populated enough to stay one state. Arizona and New Mexico are merged. Utah's different enough to stay its own state.

THE PACIFIC: I'll split California and Nevada differently - the southern end of Nevada, a.k.a. the part with Vegas, joins southern California as one state. The rest of Nevada joins northern California as another. Oregon and Washington stay the way they are, Alaska stays as-is, Hawaii stays as-is provided Maui doesn't petition the government for statehood, and Puerto Rico joins the union as the...jeez, how many states are we up to here?

We have Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont/Western MA (which I'll just call Vermont), New England (Boston, CT, RI), New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia (which I'll just call New York,) Coastal Virginia (or probably just Virginia,) Catskillia (formerly North Appalachia,) Appalachia (formerly South Appalachia,) Carolina, Georgia, Disney Kingdom, New Cuba, Alabama/Mississippi (I'll just call it General Lee), Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Super Michigan (probably just Michigan), Kentucky, the comglomerate of western Ohio, Indiana, and southern Illinois (maybe Flatland), Chicago, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa/Nebraska (Cornfield), Texas, Oklahoma, Dakota, Big Sky, Colorado, Utah, Arizona/New Mexico (probably just Arizona), HighCal, LowCal, Oregon, Washigton, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

I've got it down to 39 states. That's 22 fewer Senators. That and no more Ohio. I'd say my work is done.

Utah and Idaho are almost impossible to tell apart already. Same wide open spaces, same mountains, same unpredictable weather, same wretched cultural phenomenon, there I propose Udaho.

Sure. You could have Texas, North Austin, East Austin, South Austin and West Austin. Try gerrymandering that.Cool. That'd increase the likelyhood of the D3emocrats picking up a couple of senate seats.

Speaking of gerrymandering, one street in Austin has five different districts. One of those districts has a mile wide strip all the way to the Mexican border- 300 miles away.

Cool. That'd increase the likelyhood of the D3emocrats picking up a couple of senate seats.

Speaking of gerrymandering, one street in Austin has five different districts. One of those districts has a mile wide strip all the way to the Mexican border- 300 miles away.

I have no idea how they got away with that. Molly Ivins was right about a lot of things, but most especially about the "lege".

Sell Alaska back to the Russians.

...in trade, of course, for their naked newscasters?
Believe me, not so many in this state want to have *anything* to do with the contiguous.

No claims of great artistry, and I haven't starred the capitals, but....
http://pics.livejournal.com/rubinans/pic/0000h634

I think I fixed northern Idaho, though she looks a tad funny. And Dakota is one heckuva large state, but population-wise balances out. Too late for Oklahoma...western Oklahoma is more Texas than Texas and eastern Oklahoma is more Arkansas than Arkansas, so problem solved. Though Little Rock is now probably too far east to be the capital. Fort Smith might work.

Can't see splitting Minwisyoop north and south... the Madisonites are just going to have to own up to their Ole and Lena heritage like the rest of us. Thinking about it, Stevens Point would make a better capital than Wausau. It's more central, has a four-year university (snicker), a river, and a brewery. What else could you ask for? ;)

Hey! you took our UP! That's basically our trophy from the Toledo war, come on...

...Super Michigan...no more Ohio...

Your ideas intrigue me...

Hey! you took our UP! That's basically our trophy from the Toledo war, come on...

fair enough - michigan gets toledo. all better.

fair enough - michigan gets toledo. all better.

I don't want no god damned Toleto. It's all dirty and full of fail.

No! I have a friend who is an Alaskan. Also, all the oil.

and all that gold they just found, sell it back to the Russians, gold and oil included, for a much better price than you paid for and let them destroy the pristine nature of the region. Your hands are clean and you are able to finance the next armed conflict of your choice.

Your ideas intrigue me...

Go on; take. Take Columbus, too. (Yes, I'm from Columbus. I just want to see the massive head explosions when the citizens of Columbus are told that they're now part of Michigan.)

Because something that huge would be nigh impossible to govern efficiently?

Because Texans don't even trust the State government to govern, much less the Feds. I can't see anyone in a country the size of the US trusting in a government several thousand miles from home to actually care much for them.

A lot of non-Californians have mentioned their hopes that California leave the union already.

That's fine with us. You don't want 17% of the entire country's GDP? Or 20% of the top 20 largest cities in the US? But at least you won't get our "illegals" right?

Or our tax dollars. Maybe you could play musical chairs to see which 10 remaining states get the tax hikes to try and cope with our lost federal taxes.

And we can stop funding your stupid wars, like the war on education, the war on freedom, the war on the Constitution...

Works for us. CYA!

How about instead of getting rid of states, we add more, by annexing Canada?
:D

How about forcing all of the US territories into being states. There are 16 U.S. Territories that get none of the benefits, yet all of the burdens of being American Citizens.

The list:
American Samoa
Baker Island
Howland Island
Jarvis Island
Johnston Atoll
Kingman Reef
Guam
Misway Island
Navassa Island
Northern Mariana Islands
Palmyra Atoll (uninhabited, so really doesn't apply)
Petrel Island
Puerto Rico
Serranilla Bank
U.S. Virgin Islands
Wake Island

A lot of non-Californians have mentioned their hopes that California leave the union already.


I live in California (most of the time). What's the argument against California? The main one I can think of is that they simply don't like the place (LA is horrible) but if you don't like it, you don't have to go there. I can't see why any American would like to get rid of it.

The whole midwest should be consolidated into one state with two senators, two representatives, and two electoral votes.

Seconded. Honestly the best idea I've seen yet.