What would a map of the continental United States look like, if as many states as possible, had equal land surface area in square mileage?
If anyone can come up with an illustration I would find it fascinating.
Um… I think it would look like a giant square or rectangle with 48 sections making it up, all of which are the exact same size… Maybe?
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One week, one day, 23 hours, 4 minutes and 1 second.
358 cigarettes not smoked, saving $44.81.
Life saved: 1 day, 5 hours, 50 minutes.
The closest thing I’ve seen to this would be a map that make sthe size of each state proportional to it’s population. (i.e New York gets huge and idaho gets teeny-tiny)
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone hadn’t turned their computers’ cartography skills to the ultimate democritization of surface area. It would be a radical culmination of Jefferson’s rationalization of the western territories…
I’ll see if I can turn up anything.
sho says they have to be squares? I think it’s look like fourty eight simillerly sized lizards.
Jerrymanders?
I do believe there are 49, not 48 U.S. States on this continent.
Magical, I don’t quite understand your question - are you trying to visualize all the States the same size?
Some of the States might be shaped like lizards, but the midwest would definitely be square.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
MagicSilverKey,
You haven’t defined your request enough to make any sense of it. What do you want to keep constant in this map - the shape of the states, their relative positions? I can’t think of any clear interpretation of your proposed map.
Uhh, Sake…there are only 48 contiguous,(I.E.-touching) states.
The other two do not have land contact with the other 48(Hawaii is an island, remember? :))>
GaWd, the OP asked about the continental United States, not contiguous. On North America, there are 49. I go with Sake on this.
Wrong thinking is punished, right thinking is just as swiftly rewarded. You’ll find it an effective combination.
I’ll also assume that the OP is asking about a map in which state boundaries within the contiguous states are redefined to give each state exactly the same area as all the others.
Given that, the crooked borders on three sides of the U.S. would make it difficult to subdivide it into squares or rectangles. But why not a series of concentric U.S.A.'s?
Take the outline of the U.S. Let’s assume that has a perimeter of 9,000 miles. (That’s a ballpark guess.) Now draw a line connecting every point exactly one mile in from the national border. Connect those points, and you have a mini-U.S. nestled within the first one. We’ll call that one “Alabama,” and it’ll have an area of 9,000 square miles. Next, draw a line connecting every point 1 mile and 300 yards or so in from the border of “Alabama,” and that becomes “Arkansas.” Calculus majors can do the math to compute the exact distance you need to go in, but it can’t really be that difficult.
Continue until you’ve got 48 concentric U.S.'s, each increasing in “thickness” as you move towards the center, and each with an equal area. That solves the problem, doesn’t it?
To clarify my OP
(a) The present location of each state would remain the same. Only their sizes and shapes would change.
(b) Each state would have equalivalent land area as possible.
By my rough calculations, if you take the total area of the lower 48 (including water) and take the average, you get almost exactly 65,000 square miles. Florida is the closest to this area.
So, make up a map with 48 states the size of Florida and see if you can keep everybody in the same place.
Good luck with New England.
I think I understand what we’re looking for here although I don’t have the skill or inclination to construct it. Allow me instead to propose some tips for anyone else who wants to try:
- Forget Alaska. Non-contiguity and immense size will throw the whole thing too far off-kilter.
- Respect the National boundary lines.
- So you’d have to start with the peninsular states: Maine and Florida.
- Someone said Florida is already pretty close - Maine would have to ‘bulge out’ to it’s new size by pushing Vermont and New Hampshire out of the way.
- From there it gets less defined, but generally you’d work sequentially from the Atlantic.
- Somewhere in the Rockies the ‘bulging’ states would probably start to balance their movement with the already larger than average ones.
- California would end up clinging to its coastline and little else.
- Some states, such as Maryland and Massachusetts would probably become almost unrecognizable.
- Pennsylvania would probably find itself much farther upstream.
also -
I do remember another map that did something akin to this with an entirely different goal - and that’s a map that was purported to be David Duke’s proposed ethnic resettlement scheme for the USA. It abandoned states and divided the country into regions roughly equivalent to minority representation. The south was reserved for Africans, some little spots on the upper Mississippi for Cajuns, etc. Crude stuff.
Nurlman’s nested states idea is cool, and it makes the New england problem much less of a headache. Imagine the tourist trade that “Alabama” would have due to all the coastline. Of course, I don’t want all my Federal tax money supporting “Alabama’s” Coast Guard and Border Patrol needs, or my insurance money covering “Alabama’s” hurricane, flood and earthquake problems.
Come to think of it, “Alabama” really sucks.
Larry Niven would have a field day with this.
I lead a boring life of relative unimportance. Really.