(Italics mine)
[Blatant Hijack]
Whoa…you have Shires over there? Any Hobbits?
[/Blatant Hijack]
<another hijack>
Any remapping of the US that does not make Canada, Mexico, Central America and all the little islands states is just wrong.
</hijack>
General Lee will be glad to get THAT telegram 
But, seriously…
I prefer the P.O.V. that in the modern USA We The People are the ultimate sovereigns, and in the exercise of that sovereignty we constitute (thru representatives) BOTH (a) a State suited to the needs of our geo/historic community (the “several states”), AND (b) a Federal state with which our participation is mostly organized thru our social/historic State, but is direct in some matters. The 50 Historic States are NOT “creatures” of the Federal government, they are real and exist as much as it does, they embody communities with real identities. Several such communities starting with TN even constituted themselves as states YEARS before Congress agreed to recognize them as such. But the Union does not exist merely at the sufferance of the State governments either – that was figured out the hard way in the 1860’s.
In this view, admission is essentially the Congress “recognizing” the the people of Alaska, or Arizona, or Wyoming, have duly constituted a “state”, and that further they have agreed to the terms for participation in the other “state” called the USA. And that a state has been constituted by a geographically and historically identifiable community is not dependent on numbers or surface. Going international: Singapore is as much a sovereign state as the USA; Switzerland as much as Russia; Israel as much as India.
[sub]And BTW, getting back to Delaware… (yeah, really, why pick on Delaware?) it would probably make more sense to just have it annex the Eastern Shores of MD and VA, if for some reason DE’s smallness bothers anyone.[/sub]
jrd
screw this “equality” crap…let’s just cut off half of texas and make it the “republic of jon”? cecil can be the president i suppose…
Ya beat me to it, JR. 
From Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 1 of the US Constitution:
“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.”
Seemed relevant.
Let me ask you something: have you ever been to either Maryland or Delaware?
And do you wanna step outside?
So you want some too, huh?
grumblegrumble*
People have been trying to steal little Rhode Island for 350 years, now. When are people going to realize that Rhode Islanders stole that territory fair and square, and they’re not going to give it up?
I thought we had pretty much established that Delaware does not exist, anyway.
IIRC, that didn’t stop the Fed’s from carving West Virginia out of Virginia when it suited their purpose. I bet General Lee loved that one, also.
Though I have never lived in Delaware, I have lived in Maryland and when you go into Delaware, you don’t notice any difference. Please tell me if there is something that differentiates MD’s Eastern Shore and Delaware, because I sure didn’t notice anything.
SK: When are people going to realize that Rhode Islanders stole that territory fair and square, and they’re not going to give it up?
Hear hear! Do any of the rest of you have “Gaspee Days”? Do any of the rest of you have the “Ancients and Horribles” 4th of July parade? Can any of the rest of you pronounce the simple noun “Cranston” with a diphthong that would cut through cement? Would any of the rest of you recognize “coffee syrup” if you fell over it? Have any of the rest of you ever developed your own breed of chicken? Didn’t think so! So quit imagining that you can just lump us in with Massanecticut or some such territorial carcinoma whenever you feel like it, 'cause we’re the rogues of “Rogues Island” and we ain’t gonna go. Plus, we happen to be bigger than any of the rest of you.
…in terms of official state name size, that is. “The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations”: top that, you spindly little Commonwealths. (Plus, if you throw in all the ocean between us and our lawful territory of Block Island, we gain quite a bit of area too. :))
<hijack continues>Hah! Leave us out of it! In the last thirty years Canada has become increasingly Americanized. The result has not been pretty.
We’re our own country with our own history, our own culture, our own way of life. The fact that these things are being erased by the creeping nothingness from the south is a trend most of us would like to reverse.</hijack>
As for OP, I would wonder why you’d be willing to redraw the map and erase the history and unique culture of the states, but not change the government. I mean, wouldn’t your plan just turn the Senate into another House of Representatives, both based on population? If the Senate doesn’t work, shouldn’t you change that?
Now, I’m not suggesting you follow our example – the Canadian Senate is one of the few areas we failed on our own, rather than having to import failure across the border. But Europe seems to have some interesting ideas on this. Several European Senates are decided by proportion of the popular vote going to each party.
This would mean that even though Justice Scalia could still have crowned King George the Second, the Democrats would control the Senate, and even Nader’s Greens would have a few seats.
Just a thought.
Eh.
Oh yeah … now that would be greeeeat!
In addition to the concerns already raised about the Constitutionality of such a move, the problem in differentiating between equality of size and equality of population, and the historical creation of the United States as a federation of separate states, there’s the fact that some of the founding fathers used the existence of the individual states as an argument for the particular brand of representative democracy that we have today.
One of the greatest concerns of the founding fathers was that democracy was unworkable in large groups, such as the entire United States. In fact pure democracy has always had a pretty lousy record when it gets to a level at which the people aren’t in continuous daily communication. Either the majority completely squashes the minority, or a demagogue is able to sway the people to an extreme view and mob rule takes over. The founding fathers instituted a number of defenses against this process, one being the use of representative, rather than pure democracy, and another, specifically cited by James Madison, being the existence of the several states. Although instantaneous global communications now make it easier for majorities and demogogues to exercise power, the fact that the U.S. is composed of a large number of states, each with its own issues, concerns, and government, helps to temper the excesses.
The success of the American model is due in part to our great diversity of opinion, which is encouraged by our being divided into smaller regions of special interests. Although it’s true that people living on state borders will always have common concerns with those living near them, the states still maintain unique identities, which make factionalism, the number one concern of the founding fathers, less of a threat. America works by filtering every idea through so many levels (states, representives, the Electoral College, etc.) that the extremes are discarded and we come up with laws and leaders who, while not beloved by everyone, are at least accepted by almost everyone. It’s a messy and confusing system, but it has worked for 200 years.
When you do proportional representation a major problem arises: areas being represented by people with their interests in mind. The representative from Kansas’s first district is concerned with agricultural issues. The representative from North Carolina’s seventh district wants to protect tobacco interests. The representative from New York’s 15th district has African-American interests in mind. If you allow party hacks to control who represents America you’ll have old rich white Washington insiders dominating the process. Sure, there’ll be a radical Green, but then you’ll have a 434-1 vote against his hippy initiative. As it is, the system allows independents to choose the person, not the party. If that system had been in place before, Maine would still be 100% Republican because Ed Muskie’s personality and charm was a driving force behind his original Senate victory. That led a Democratic tidal wave and for the first time they won gubenatorial races and Congressional races. All because of Muskie. Proportional representation ultimately stifles competition.
The way I remember it, Virginia left the Union first, and then West Virginia broke off from it.
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota and South Dakota should be combined into one state. Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico should be admitted to the Union as states. Divide California into north and south. The state of New York should be split up into upstate New York, and each borough of New York as a separate state.
Instead of your “superstate” I’d leave utah out (the mormons want their own state and they got utah, a giant desert, so why should we care) and I’d leave Oklahoma out because they’re quasi-southern. Combine them with Texas if anyone if you want to destroy them and rename it “Oilland.” Also, combine MT, ID and WY separate of the others because they’re rocky mountain instead of Great Plain. Otherwise I like your realignment plan.
During many trips across this nation with my family, I tried to make a goal of peeing in every state I went through. So far I have peed in 25. But whenever I noticed I was in Deleware, by the time I pulled over, I was in some other state. It has happened at least three or four times. To this day Delaware still eludes me . By the way I never understood why we needed two Dakotas. Frankly I think having two is just a little bit excessive.