I have been bothered by the fact that Delaware is considered as much a state as Texas. What a “state” is east of the Appalachians is much smaller than what it is in the west. This doesn’t exactly give us corresponding state governments or equivalent federal representation. Delaware is understandably proud of being the first US state, but it is basically a county by standards west of the Mississippi.
I think someone once suggested (not on this board) that we just pick an average size for a state & redraw the US map with new states more normed to that size. (Relative “size,” in this case could be based on the product of total arable land area & current population, or some other mathematical construction. I don’t mean just land area, though I think it is significant.) However, this plan would not go over very well if it meant Delaware and Vermont being absorbed into larger states, which it almost certainly would.
So I came up with a different idea. The USA could be divided into several smaller regional federations, which could contain even smaller “states.”
The East Coast states could exist on this smaller level, while Texas, say, would be a region.
Well, I dunno, but it seems like this would just add another bureaucratic level to everything from taxes to federal elections. It goes against the philosophy “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
The prpblem, unfortunately, is that a lot of the small states will still lose power that way, so they would be against the plan. Recall that a Constitutional amendment requires approval from three quarters of the states, so you couldn’t push this measure through unless you convinced the legislatures of 38 states that it would benefit them. In your proposal, while Texas and a few other big states would be happier, all of the smaller states would probably be opposed.
Well, my suspician is that the folks in Texas won’t like your plan because it divides their fine state, and the folks in Delaware and Rhode Island won’t like it because it dissolves their fine states.
(“Corresponding” State Governments? Please explain.)
As to Equivalent Representation, I thought that was the point of the bicameral Congress. Y’know, the House of Representatives by population, the Senate by full equality of all States? VT and WY get their lone congressman apiece due to small population. TX and CA get a ton thereof because they have a lot of that. CT gets as many congressmen as Arizona 'cause it fits that much population in its small surface. Etc. So they have the same rank as “states”… so? Why does it bother? These types of proposals all tend towards a view of the USA where the “states” are mere administrative districts and not communities with a history and an identity.
BTW regarding constitutional viability: IIRC 27 States have 6 or less congressional seats. No way to get the 38-state majority to consent to some “arrangement” that subsumes them. (And IMO “arable land area” is NOT a criterion AT ALL, not even weighted or factored in with something else, to determine apportionment of political power. If Delaware and Vermont go, Wyoming and North Dakota have got to go, too; and you end up with one mothertruckin’ HUGE “state” across the upper middle, compared to which New Mainachussermonticutt Island woudl still look “small”.)
As to the idea of turning it into a multi-tier federation-of-federations… How would the National government work?
If what you mean is that then those would be the components of the Union, (i.e. those who would make up the Senate in equal parts, who would make up the house per population, who would have the Electoral Votes) . . . that just transfers the non-correspondence, non-equivalency down to the 2nd or 3rd level.
No, you forget (as so do most people in this country) that we are not a country like most of the rest of the world. Each state is separate and sovereignfrom the federal government. They are not underlings to Washington, and Washington has no power, or right, to slice up or change the states in any way.
We are more like the United Nations, or the European Union, then a single country.
Why not pay some attention to the fact that both Delaware and Rhode Island have larger populations than either North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, or Wyoming (and RI also beats Montana)? How do you expect to get a more coherent “regional” division out of some “combination of total arable land area and current population” than the one we have now? (And why on earth is only “arable land” to be considered in land area? Mountains and wetlands don’t count or something?) You’ll still wind up with vast tracts of less-populated land in the west and tiny regions of high population density in the east. I think you size-obsessed Texans should just relax and accept the fact that not all states have to be the same size.
Woah, don’t go there! How much goverment do you want?
Here in Australia we have, IIRC, fifteen houses of parliament (state, territories, and federal). Below that are the countless city, shire and municipal bodies of local government. Not too bad you might think, but when you consider that the entire Australian population is less than two-thirds of that of the US state of California, it starts to seem like overkill.
Although we have electoral boundaries based on population, election of senators is state-based, and yes this does slew the numbers in favour of the less populated states. My Sydney vote counts for less than a vote from Tasmania. And once you start flirting with the idea of factoring in geographical size, you are, IMHO, on dangerous ground. There are areas here the size of Sydney (pop. about 4 million) with one or two cattle stations (ranches) on them. Should a half dozen or so farmers have the same electoral clout as several million city residents? I can’t see this working in the US any more than it would here.
Some states should be split up or joined:
Delaware and Maryland: They’re pretty much the same. There’s virtually nothing distinguishing Delaware from the areas of Maryland surrounding it
North Dakota and South Dakota: Then they could all be Dakota, and therefore content
Split California: Northern California could be normal and Southern California could mismanage itself. Divide it just above LA.
Michigan (part) and Wisconsin. I never got why they should have the Upper Penninsula. Give it to Wisconsin.
Also, give the inland parts of Washington, Oregon and Northern California to Idaho, or make them a whole new state, because they’re so different from the coastal portions of their respective states
PS Connecticut and Rhode Island should NOT be joined. I have lived in both (albeit Rhode Island briefly) and they are two very different states that have a mutual loathing going on.
It’s really too bad that civics and history aren’t taught in schools anymore.
And why should this bother you, exactly?
Why should two different states have “corresponding state governments”? The people of Texas and the people of Delaware have separate and distinct ideas about how their governments should represent them. Only on the surface does it appear that there are more similarities than differences. As to “equivalent federal representation” … We have a bicameral legislature for a reason. The consequences of admitting states of various sizes and populations to the Union were discussed at length and resolved to everyone’s general satisfaction back in 1787 at the Consitutional Convention. It was called the Connecticut Compromise and it settled differences between rival plans from New Jersey and Virginia. States have representation proportional to their populations in the House. All states have equal representation in the Senate.
Maybe in size, but the full faith and credit clause of Article IV Section 1 guarantees its equal status among the Western States, which came after Delaware.
Obviously someone who wasn’t thinking clearly. What problem would this solve? What does arable land have to do with anything? Are agricultural states more important than industrial states?
Until we get a “Why” that makes some sense, there’s no point in debating the idea.
Divide the USA into smaller federations? That’s the stupidest idea i’ve ever heard. One reason, it’s too similiar in nature to the confederacy (possibly one of the worst types of government ever imagined). And as someone already pointed out, it would just make things more complicated.
And dividing texas into 5 different states probably wouldn’t make any difference, they would still all think the same.
You can not do any of the things that you guys are proposing.
You seem to think that states are just some random jurisdiction thrown together for convenience, like a county.
They are not.
Each state was once (sort of) their own separate nation. The peoples of the sovereign state of California, the Republic of Texas, The colony of Delaware, all had to petition to become members of the union of states. Although the popular view has changed (starting after the Civil War, but most dramatically after FDR), the USA is a conglomeration of separate, unique, and sovereign (my new favorite word) states. The Federal government is incidental to the states, and only exists by the will of the states.
It cannot, and willing it never will, have the power to destroy the states. That is impossible. It would not be some simple matter of redistricting, it would be the literal end of this country and the formation of a new one.
should just relax and accept the fact that not all states have to be the same size.