# Do we really need fifty states? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 15, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385 "2004-02-15T20:02:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JerH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bb73d2/32.png) [@JerH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JerH)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/41 "2004-02-17T21:31:43Z")
> [@unixrat](#): > > I would like to point out that during these discussions, no one ever wants to consolidate **their** state, always someone else’s. > > Find two states that **want** to merge first and work on them before you come knocking on our doors… I’m willing to cut apart my state! I live in Virginia, and I’d be perfectly happy to let West Virginia have the western parts of the state, North Carolina have the South, and we Northern Virginians will merge with Maryland and Delaware. I’ve also thought that the state of my birth, Pennsylvania, could easily be split in half with New Jersey and Ohio each getting a piece. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/42 "2004-02-17T21:44:05Z")
Here are some ideas that have been floated, in earnest or otherwise, for reorganizing the American state system: 1. From Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 novel _It Can’t Happen Here,_ Chapter 16 (at this point in the story, a Midwestern populist-fascist demagogue, Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip, of the Corporate or “Corpo” Party, has just been elected president of the United States, has taken office, and has seized dictatorial power through his partisan army of “Minute Men” – modeled, clearly, on Hitler’s SA stormtroopers; the protagonist Doremus Jessup, a newspaper editor in a small town in New England, reflects on the changes): > [@](#): > > None of the changes was so publicized as the Presidential mandate abruptly ending the separate existence of the different states, and dividing the whole country into eight “provinces” – thus, asserted Windrip, economizing by reducing the number of governors and all other state officers and, asserted Windrip’s enemies, better enabling him to concentrate his private army and hold the country. > > The new “Northeastern Province” included all of New York State north of a line through Ossining, and all of New England except a strip of Connecticut shore as far east as New Haven. This was, Doremus admitted, a natural and homogeneous division, and even more natural seemed the urban and industrial “Metropolitan Province,” which included Greater New York, Westchester County up to Ossining, Long Island, the strip of Connecticut dependent on New York City, New Jersey, northern Delaware, and Pennsylvania as far as Reading and Scranton. > > Each province was divided into numbered districts, each district into lettered counties, each county into townships and cities, and only in these last did the old names, with their traditional appeal, remain to endanger President Windrip by memories of honorable local history. . . . > > The Northeastern Province’s six districts were: 1, Upper New York State west of and including Syracuse; 2, New York east of it; 3, Vermont and New Hampshire; 4, Maine; 6, Rhode Island and the unraped portion of Connecticut. > > District 3, Doremus Jessup’s district, was divided into the four “counties” of southern and northern Vermont, and southern and northern New Hampshire, with Hanover for capital – the District Commissioner merely chased the Dartmouth students out and took over the college buildings for his offices, to the considerable approval of Amherst, Williams, and Yale. > > So Doremus was living, now, in Northeastern Province, District 3, County B, township of Beulah, and over him for his admiration and rejoicing were a provincial commissioner, a district commissioner, a county commissioner, an assistant county commissioner in charge of Beulah Township, and all their appertaining M.M. guards and emergency military judges. Despite the dystopian-fictional context, this might be a good system – if each province, district and county were ruled by a locally elected executive and assembly, rather than a commissioner appointed by the president. 2. In his 1972 book _Reclaiming the Constitution: An Imperative for Modern America_ (Santa Barbara, CA: Clio Press), Leland D. Baldwin proposed reorganizing the “lower 48” into a system of 14 new states of roughly equivalent populations. Going from west to east (population figures are, of course, based on census data available in 1972): **Oregon:** 6.3 million people. Includes the present states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and the northwest edge of Montana **Sierra:** 8.2 million. Most of present-day California north of the L.A. area. **California:** 11.6 million. All of Southern Cal from L.A. to San Diego, down to the border with Mexico. **Deseret:** 4.7 million. All of Nevada, Utah and Arizona, plus western New Mexico, western Colorado, and the southwest corner of Wyoming. **Missouri:** 9 million. The Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, most of Montana and Wyoming, eastern Colorado, and northern strips of Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico (all in a line with the present Oklahoma panhandle). **Texas:** 15 million. Most of Texas and Oklahoma, plus eastern New Mexico, western Arkansas and northwestern Louisiana. **Mississippi:** 18 million. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois outside the Chicago metro area. **Chicago:** 8 million. The whole Chicago metro area, including adjacent urbanized parts of Indiana. **Erie:** 23.7 million. Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana outside metro Chicago. **Savanna:** 23.2 million. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, eastern Louisiana, eastern Arkansas, and the western tip of Tennessee. **Appalachia:** 16.5 million. Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and the bulk of Tennessee. **Alleghenia:** 19.7 million. Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and southern New Jersey. **New York:** 17.6 million. The whole New York City metro area, including northern New Jersey, southeastern New York, and western Connecticut. **New England:** 16 million. The remainder of New York and Connecticut plus all the other New England states. For geographic reasons, Alaska (pop. 295,000), Hawaii (718,000) and Puerto Rico (2.7 million) are left as separate states. _The People’s Almanac,_ by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1975), includes maps for two more reorganization schemes. 1. “A 16-State Nation,” proposed by Dr. Stanley D. Brunn, associate professor of geography at Michigan State University. The states are: **Pacifica:** Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California north of the L.A. area, plus northwestern Wyoming and Idaho, and a western strip of Nevada. Capital: San Francisco. **Rocky:** Montana, Colorado, Utah, most of Nevada, Wyoming and Idaho, northern strips of New Mexico and Arizona, western strips of South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and some western bits of Oklahoma and Texas. Capital: Denver. **Angelina:** Southern California, most of Arizona and New Mexico, and southwestern Texas. Capital: Los Angeles. **North Plains:** Minnesota, North Dakota, most of South Dakota, northeastern Wyoming, northern strips of Nebraska and Iowa, the northern half of Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Capital: Minneapolis. **Central Plains:** Most of Kansas and Nebraska, plus western strips of Iowa and Missouri. Capital: Kansas City. **South Plains:** Most of Oklahoma and northern Texas. Capital: Dallas. **North Heartland:** Central and eastern Iowa, southern Wisconsin, western Michigan, northern Illinois and most of Indiana. Capital: Chicago. **South Heartland:** Eastern Missouri, southern Illinois, a southern strip of Indiana, western Kentucky, northwestern Tennessee, and the northern third of Arkansas. Capital: St. Louis. **New South:** Georgia, north-central Florida, southern South Carolina, the west ends of North Carolina and Virginia, a bit of southeastern Kentucky, the bulk of Tennessee, southern Arkansas, eastern strips of Texas and Oklahoma, and all of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama that are not assigned to Gulf Coast (below). Capital: Atlanta. **Gulf Coast:** Southeastern Texas, southern coastal strips of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, and the western end of the Florida panhandle. Capital: Houston. **Industry:** Ohio, eastern Michigan, northeastern Kentucky, western West Virginia, western Pennsylvania, western New York. Capital: Detroit. **Yankee:** Maine, New Hampshire, Vermong, northeastern New York, eastern Massachusetts and half of Rhode Island. Capital: Boston. **Empire:** Connecticut, western Massachusetts, southwestern Rhode Island, central and southern New York, northeastern Pennsylvania, northern New Jersey. Capital: New York. **Mid-Atlantica:** Maryland, Delaware, south-central Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, northern Virginia, eastern West Virginia. Capital: Baltimore. **Carolina:** Southern Virginia, most of North Carolina, northern South Carolina. Capital: Norfolk. **Tropicana:** Central and southern Florida, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Capital: Miami. 4. Also in _The People’s Almanac:_ A 38-state nation proposed by G. Etzel Pearcy, geography professor at California State University, Los Angeles. The resulting map looks a lot like what we’ve got now, except that the states are an average of 1/4 larger in area and there are no straight-line boundaries. I won’t try to list or describe the new states. More interesting is the commentary: > [@](#): > > Why the need for a new map? Pearcy states that many of the early surveys that drew up our boundaries were done while the areas were scarcely populated. Thus, it was convenient to determine boundaries by using the land’s physical features, such as rivers and mountain ranges, or by using a simple system of latitude and longitude. Proof of this lies in the fact that the Mississippi River borders 10 states. The practicality of old established State lines is questionable in light of America’s ever-growing cities and the increasing mobility of its citizens. Metropolitan New York, for example, stretches into 2 adjacent states. Other city populations which cross State lines are Washington, D.C., St. Louis, Chicago, and Kansas City. The “straddling” of State lines causes economic and political problems. Who should pay for a rapid transit system in St. Louis? Only those citizens within the boundaries of Missouri, or _all_ residents of St. Louis’s metropolitan area, incluing those who reach over into the State of Illinois? > > * * * > > When Pearcy realigned the U.S., he gave high priority to population density, location of cities, lines of transportation, land relief, and size and shape of individual States. Whenever possible, lines are located in less populated areas. In the West, the desert, semidesert, or mountainous areas provided an easy method for division. In the East, however, where areas of scarce population are harder to determine, Pearcy drew lines “trying to avoid the thicker clusters of settlement.” Each major city which fell into the “straddling” category is neatly tucked within the boundaries of a new State. Pearcy tried to place a major metropolitan area in the center of each State. St. Louis is in the center of the State of Osage, Chicago is centered in the State of Dearborn. When this method proved impossible, as with coastal Los Angeles, the city is still located so as to be easily accessible from all parts of the State. In many cases, a State has 2 or more major cities within its boundaries. For example, citizens of Alamo can travel easily to Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, and San Antonio. ---
**Author:** ![unixrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3ec8ea/32.png) [@unixrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unixrat)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/43 "2004-02-18T15:09:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Here are some ideas that have been floated, in earnest or otherwise, for reorganizing the American state system: > > […] > > 1. “A 16-State Nation,” proposed by Dr. Stanley D. Brunn, associate professor of geography at Michigan State University. The states are: > > […] > > **North Plains:** Minnesota, North Dakota, most of South Dakota, northeastern Wyoming, northern strips of Nebraska and Iowa, the northern half of Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Capital: Minneapolis. Excellent post, BG. The above highlights one of the problems that I have with conglomerators (?) - most have nothing more than population glasses on. Why choose Minneapolis as the capitol? St. Paul already has a full set of governing buildings (some really quite nice) that would make the transition much easier, but noooo… Minneapolis _ **has more people** _, see? We’d just have to build another humongous set of capitol buildings! About ten miles from the old set! Because it has more people! Damn the costs! Roll out the taxes! ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/44 "2004-02-18T16:18:01Z")
> [@The\_Broken\_Column](#): > > It is Unconstitutional to redraw State Boundaries. > You can not create a new State within the boundaries of a current State, you can not disolve one State into many, and you can not disolve one State into another. Ummm…have you read the document to which you refer? Hint: You’re wrong. > [@](#): > > US Constitution, Article IV, Section 3 > New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, **without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.** > _emphasis added_ Nothing “Unconstitutional” about it if the Legislatures and Congress agree. I would also note that there is nothing in this section about leaving the Union although as far as the “Militias” go, it does have something to say… > [@](#): > > US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 > No state shall, **without the consent of Congress** , lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay._emphasis added_ Hmmm…consent of Congress. Fascinating document if you read it… ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/45 "2004-02-18T17:52:55Z")
> [@The\_Broken\_Column](#): > > It is all about State Soverignity. States are soverign and you just recall the Civil War if you think other wise. I think the civil war proved the exact _opposite_ point. States are “soverign” in certain respects, but they are most definitely not completely “soverign.” > [@](#): > > It is Unconstitutional to redraw State Boundaries. > > You can not create a new State within the boundaries of a current State, you can not disolve one State into many The people of Maine and West Virginia would be most interested in hearing that… Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/46 "2004-02-18T18:42:42Z")
> [@The\_Broken\_Column](#): > > In the United States there is something called a “Militia” which I believe consists of every male from age 17 to 34. Well, yes, there is a statute – a **federal** statute – to that effect: > [@](#): > > Title 10, United States Code, Section 311: > (a) > The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males of at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 year of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard. > (b) > The classes of the militia are - > (1) > the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and > (2) > the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. However, the “unorganized militia” clause has never, ever been used for any purpose, and there is no case law construing its meaning. > [@The\_Broken\_Column](#): > > The point of States is that we were not a nation but a Union. > > This has never been done before in the world, and it might be done again with the European Union. > > We are still a Union. > > We are not a Nation indivisible, or any of that garbage in the pledge (the Pledge isn’t garbage but it certainly is propoganda). **No, sir!** The United States of America is **not** a “Union” in the sense that you are using the term. The United States is a true nation and a true nation-state, in a way that the Soviet Union never was, and the European Union never will be if it merges all political sovereignty in the European Parliament and holds together for a thousand years. The American people, despite regional, ethnic and class divisions, are one people, with a shared and unique national culture that existed on this continent at least a century before we declared independence from Britain. The United States is not an “idea-state” like the Soviet Union, with liberal democracy substituted for Marxism-Leninism as the official ideology. The United States is a nation-state which happens, at this stage of its history, to have a federal republican system of government – just like Germany is a nation-state which happens, at this stage in its history, to have a federal republican system of government. Germany under the Kaiser, under the Weimar Republic, and under Hitler was still the same country. China is still recognizably the same country it was in the time of Confucius, even though since then there have been many imperial dynasties, periods of division, periods of rule by foreign conquerors, and most recently, Communist rule; China remains China. Poland remained Poland through all the centuries when no Polish state existed and the Polish people were ruled as subject minorities by the Germans, Russians and Austrians. If the United States were to come under a radically different political system, say a dictatorship, or a centralized unitary republic, or a reorganized federal system like we’re discussing in this thread, or even colonial rule by a foreign power, this would still be the same country. And bear in mind that some day, we Americans almost certainly **will** have a fundamentally different political system – several different systems, no doubt, over the course of the centuries: National cultures last much longer than constitutions or regimes. As George Orwell put it in his 1941 book _The Lion and the Unicorn,_ “What can the England of 1840 have in common with the England of 1940? But then, what have you in common with the child of five whose photograph your mother keeps on the mantelpiece? Nothing, except that you happen to be the same person.” ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/47 "2004-02-18T19:08:33Z")
I think it’s worth mentioning that the various regional models discussed above miss a crucial element. As our recent voting trends point out, population centers tend to have concerns in common with other population centers. Whereas, non-urban areas tend to have concerns in common with other non-urban centers. So, if I were to divide up the coutry differently than it is now, I would be more inclined to draw the boundries around large cities, separating out the less populated areas. Obviously, this would disrupt contiguous geography as a model, but it would certainly be more reflective of the common values exhibited by population groups through voting. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/48 "2004-02-18T19:57:41Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > I think it’s worth mentioning that the various regional models discussed above miss a crucial element. As our recent voting trends point out, population centers tend to have concerns in common with other population centers. Whereas, non-urban areas tend to have concerns in common with other non-urban centers. > > So, if I were to divide up the coutry differently than it is now, I would be more inclined to draw the boundries around large cities, separating out the less populated areas. Obviously, this would disrupt contiguous geography as a model, but it would certainly be more reflective of the common values exhibited by population groups through voting. I agree entirely – see my above post proposing that every metro area as large as or larger than the Washington metro area should be made a separate “city-state.” A governor of Illinois, I forget his name, once committed a major gaffe by stating publicly that the official figures for crime rates in Illinois did not provide an accurate picture of crime in that state because “Chicago skews the results” – implying that Chicago is not properly part of Illinois. Yet it is true that the people, and the problems, of the Chicago area are very different from those of rural and small-town Illinois. Let there be a divorce: Let Greater Chicago be a separate state, with a metro government that has all the plenary police powers of a state government, and let it devote all those powers to solving uniquely urban and suburban problems, such as planning for regional transportation; and let the rest of Illinois, or whatever new state its territory becomes a part of, have a state government that deals with the problems of rural and small-town society. Each state government would then have a chance to specialize in its own kinds of problems. I would add one more condition: No city-state should be an enclave entirely enclosed within the territory of a larger state, like Lesotho within South Africa, or the “independent cities” within the counties of Virginia. Let every city-state be on a border between two or more rural states. Since the urban agglomerations of population are very real, physical and social entities, rather than arbitrary lines on maps, let us begin with recognizing their existence, and use them as our starting points. “Greater Washington” is more clearly a real, distinct community than is an arbitrary regional description such as “Northwestern Florida” or “East Texas.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/49 "2004-02-18T23:26:34Z")
> [@Soup\_du\_jour](#): > > Because 50 is such a nice, big, round number, easy to organize on the flag and easy to remember. That’s why Puerto Rico will never get admitted. Because it would throw off the national vibe. 😉 So what? The blue field of the flag is getting too busy anyway. Let’s just drop the one-star-per-state tradition and go back to the original ring of 13 stars. At this stage in our history, no one will take that as implying any superior status for the original 13 colonies/states. To put this in perspective: Originally, the U.S. flag had a stripe for each state, as well as a star for each state. At some point, I’m not sure when, our forefathers noticed that, as more and more states were admitted, this practice would soon cause the red and white stripes to visually blur into a solid field of pink; so they went back to the original 13 stripes. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/50 "2004-02-18T23:33:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > To put this in perspective: Originally, the U.S. flag had a stripe for each state, as well as a star for each state. At some point, I’m not sure when, our forefathers noticed that, as more and more states were admitted, this practice would soon cause the red and white stripes to visually blur into a solid field of pink; so they went back to the original 13 stripes. The flag for a time had fifteen stripes, after the addition of the 14th and 15th states. It was during this era that they decided to not add a stripe for each new state, and went back to the 13th. But you can still find a few very, very old flags in museums with fifteen stripes. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/51 "2004-02-18T23:33:48Z")
> [@unixrat](#): > > The above highlights one of the problems that I have with conglomerators (?) - most have nothing more than population glasses on. Why choose Minneapolis as the capitol? St. Paul already has a full set of governing buildings (some really quite nice) that would make the transition much easier, but noooo… Minneapolis _ **has more people** _, see? We’d just have to build another humongous set of capitol buildings! About ten miles from the old set! Because it has more people! Damn the costs! Roll out the taxes! Please bear in mind, **unixrat,** that one pretty much has to be a Minnesotan to really understand, or care, that St. Paul and Minneapolis are not exactly the same city. And under practically any conceivable plan to rationalize state and local government in American, they **would** be the same city – that is, they would be consolidated in a single metro government. Same with Dallas-Ft. Worth, etc. And my own home town of Tampa, FL, would be merged with St. Petersburg and Clearwater. So “Minneapolis,” defined as “Minneapolis-including-St. Paul,” could indeed serve as a state capital, using the same state government buildings that are now standing in St. Paul – no need to build new ones. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/52 "2004-02-19T00:26:25Z")
Here are the population rankings of the 49 U.S. metro areas with populations greater than one million, based on the 2000 census (source: [http://mywebpage.netscape.com/fcsklabrie/ammetro.htm](http://mywebpage.netscape.com/fcsklabrie/ammetro.htm)): New York, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,199,865 Los Angeles, CA 16,373,645 Chicago, IL-IN-WI 9,157,540 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV 7,608,070 San Fransisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 7,039,362 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,188,463 Boston, MA-NH-ME-CT 5,819,100 Detroit, MI 5,456,428 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 5,221,801 Houston, TX 4,669,571 Atlanta, GA 4,112,198 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 3,876,380 Seattle-Tacoma, WA 3,554,760 Phoenix, AZ 3,251,876 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 2,968,806 Cleveland, OH 2,945,831 San Diego, CA 2,813,833 St. Louis, MO-IL 2,603,607 Denver, CO 2,581,506 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 2,395,997 Pittsburgh, PA 2,358,695 Portland-Salem, OR 2,265,223 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 1,979,202 Sacramento, CA 1,796,857 Kansas City, MO-KS 1,776,062 Milwaukee, WI 1,689,572 Orlando, FL 1,644,561 Indianapolis, IN 1,607,486 San Antonio, TX 1,592,383 Norfolk-Virginia Beach, VA-NC 1,569,541 Las Vegas, NV-AZ 1,563,282 Columbus, OH 1,540,157 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 1,499,293 New Orleans, LA 1,337,726 Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT 1,333,914 Greensboro–Winston-Salem–High Point, NC 1,251,509 Austin-San Marcos, TX 1,249,763 Nashville, TN 1,231,311 Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA 1,188,613 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 1,187,941 Hartford, CT 1,183,110 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 1,170,111 Memphis, TN-AR-MS 1,135,614 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL 1,131,184 Jacksonville, FL 1,100,491 Rochester, NY 1,098,201 Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI 1,088,514 Oklahoma City, OK 1,083,346 Louisville, KY 1,025,598 I would not propose making all of these “city-states” – but, assuming any of you even accept the “city-state” idea in principle, let’s have some discussion on what should be the cutoff point. How long does a metro area have to be before it merits consideration of state status? (My position is, any metro area below that cutoff level should be made a consolidated city-county.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/53 "2004-02-19T00:35:47Z")
For a contrary view – disputing the “self-evident” wisdom of consolidating local governments – see the following article by Elinor Olstrom, a polysci professor from Indiana University, from the website of the American Political Science Association: [http://www.apsanet.org/PS/march00/ostrom.cfm](http://www.apsanet.org/PS/march00/ostrom.cfm) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/54 "2004-02-19T05:41:09Z")
Sorry, in my above post I should have said, “How **big** does a metro area have to be before it merits consideration of state status?” Not, “how long”. I would have assumed polysci to be much too dry a field for Freudian slips . . . ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/55 "2004-02-19T06:15:08Z")
None of the scenarios offer where the SDMB will reside. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/56 "2004-02-19T23:45:22Z")
I doubt that New York would ever consent to a consolidation model that would result in a phasing out of “New Jersey” jokes. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385/57 "2004-02-20T06:16:31Z")
> [@The Scrivener](#): > > I doubt that New York would ever consent to a consolidation model that would result in a phasing out of “New Jersey” jokes. I expect we’ll have that kind of thing persisting in our culture for a long time, even after a given state is abolished or reconfigured as a political entity. At least we’ll always have “The Rolling Mills of New Jersey”: Down in Trenton there is a bar Where the bums come from near and far They come by truck, they come by car The lousy bums of New Jersey – by John Roberts and Tony Barrand, 1983; to the tune of “The Rolling Hills of the Border” On the subject of states old and new, there’s an interesting and generally forgotten bit of American history: The area that is now western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee was once slated to be admitted to the Union as our 14th state, the state of Franklin (named for Benjamin Franklin). The project was floated by settlers there in 1784 but a dead letter by 1788. (Perhaps admission to “the Union” is the wrong choice of words here, as this was all when we had the Articles of Confederation, not our present Constitution which was ratified in 1789.) See [http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~edwards/frank.html](http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~edwards/frank.html). I once saw a contemporary leaflet about a proposal by nine adjoining border counties – three from southeastern Kentucky, three from southwestern Virginia, three from northeastern Tennessee – to secede from their respective states and form a new state of “Cumberland.” The idea was that these counties have a common regional culture, and interests, that distinguish them from Kentucky, etc. I’m not sure how seriously it was intended. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-need-fifty-states/229385.md?page=2)