State capitals... why so small?

Also, Australia has freaking huge areas with small populations.

If you split the electorate of Durack (WA) off into it’s own country it would land in the top 20 by area in the world - (1,583,683 square Km - population 177,244) in between Iran and Mongolia. Lingiari (making up most of the NT at 1,348,081 square Km and 109,476 people) would nudge out Peru for number 20 and O’Conner (908,062 Km) would be close behind it.

There’s nothing out there to support a city, most of that is sand, saltbush and spinifex :smiley:

Not true at all. Vancouver was the first sizable populated area in what was to become Washington state. It began as the Hudson’s Bay regional headquarters. As such it was basically a good-sized town. They grew their own food and had various facilities such as blacksmiths and tanneries. When the Oregon Treaty was approved and the area became owned by the US, it became Fort Vancouver, a US Army post. This was all long before the Olympia area was settled.

As I understand it, Olympia as capital was a compromise between Vancouver and Puget Sound settlers.

Walla Walla was larger when the territory was carved out (cite) followed closely by Vancouver. (The forts in those two cities also seem to have been the largest army presences as well.)
Olympia was central for certain definitions of “central,” but never the largest city.

Oklahoma: Guthrie -> OK City, 1910, 3 years after statehood
Basically local movers and shakers had wanted Oklahoma City to become the State Capital but political considerations had Guthrie stay on under the Admission Act, with the vote on the move only becoming viable after admission when Congress no longer had a say in it.

That must be it then. Only New Mexico and Arizona followed with statehood until Alaska and Hawaii.

I would also point out that Hartford, CT is not much smaller that the largest city in its state, and is much more centrally located. Ditto for Nashville, TN which actually has a larger metropolitan area than that state’s largest city. And Saint Paul, MN forms part of a single urban conglomeration with its state’s largest city. OTOH, Columbus, OH has a smaller metropolitain area than either Cleveland or Cincinnati, which historically have overshadowed it.

Jesus, half of you: the capitAl is the city, the capitOl is the building.

The Columbus metro area (at least the Census definition) just got bigger, though, so now all three areas are practically equal in size. 2.1 million for Cincinnati, 2 million for Cleveland, and 1.9 million for Columbus in the current estimate.

Crazy Uncle Carl … ahem, Carl Palladino lives in Buffalo. If he’d won, he’d have been the northernmost NY governor, possibly, ever (certainly in a damn long time).

St. Louis suburbs aren’t the same as suburbs everywhere else. Weird Civil War history there.

One thing to consider, many of these cities are centrally located, so they’re logical choices in either case.

Really, only Boston, Boise, Salt Lake City, Cheyenne, and Juneau are particularly far from the center of the state.

Also, Augusta, ME.

Damn long time, but not the first.

Grover Cleveland was Mayor of Buffalo in 1882, before becoming Governor of New York in 1883.

I also forgot Carson City, NV, which is on the west side of the state near Lake Tahoe. Of course, the geographic center of Nevada contains vast tracts of Absolutely Fucking Nothing, and is basically a warmer version of the interior of Alaska.

Yeah, there was. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all votes are equal. This is not true when you are allowed to lobby your representative. It’s far easier for people living in the capital city or surrounding area to lobby.

Furthermore, any representative will have to live in said city, and thus will become more attuned to the day-to-day problems in that city.