USA: Do the States really matter, and should they?

Great Debates
1

The US has 50 States. Many of their boundaries are geographically relevent: rivers, etc. Many are not (the Western “box States”). Many are historically relevant: they were the original 13 colonies or particular foreign territories that were added to the Union (e.g., Texas). Many are not: States arbitrarily carved out of the Northwest Territory, etc.

Indeed, many State boundaries today are counterproductive or downright perverse: Kansas City Kansas/Oklahoma; Northwest Indiana, which (one would think) would have more in common with Chicago, Illionois, than the State capital of Indianapolis.

Politically, states are relevent because American law definitely makes them so. Delaware, Alaska, and Wyoming have more Senators than Representatives because of the Constitution.

But should our collection of States remain just as they are forever? Pretty much the only anomaly is West Viriginia, which broke off from Virginia in the Civil War. Since then there have been to my knowledge no changes in State boundaries (excepting the additions of new States). If Oklahoma and Kansas can’t agree to combine Kansas City into one fine lump, then I guess the motivation to do any similar thing isn’t present (and for good reason: no State wants to lose population and the Representatives, power, and tax dollars that they bring in).

The (mostly arbitrary?) political relevence is undoubtable, but is there really such as thing as “stateness”? Does the State really maintain its character until one hits the border?

I would say no, but it’s hard to predict these things. Take Northwest Indiana, where I lived a long time. Despite the fact that the time zone and TV are Chicago’s, people there are very cognizant that they are not part of Illinois. In fact, people there feel that NW IN is special, terming Lake and Porter Counties the “Region.” And yet the Region is quite different in feel and mood than Indy, Ft. Wayne, and Evansville, which have their own distinct cultures (if “culture” is not too high-falutin’ a word to name these differences). The north of Indiana, very flat and agricultural, is quite different from the South, which is hilly and forested. Once you are in S IN, you feel like you are truly in the South.

There is no doubt that there is a kind of Hoosier cohesiveness, but it is an amalgam of genuine commonalties with a heavy admixture of the aforementioned arbitrary political unity.

Our psychology as humans is such that if we name a thing a thing, we think of it as distinct merely for that reason. Hence, we are able to divide people arbitrarily into teams and root for “our side” or “our State.”

There is a real but I think false belief in “stateness” in the US. We think of them as “real” and not merely administrative units. In other countries it is different. The prefectures in Japan do not have real power, and in China large individual cities are treated as “special administrative units” because that is practical (compare to New York and Illinois, in which single large cities dominate politics because they are arbitrarily connected to largely agrarian States).

What ought we to do? We should get rid of as many silly and arbitrary boundaries as possible and administer our country on the basis of logic and geographic exigencies. We should probably make the biggest cities and/or metro areas their own units. Certainly, large megastates like Texas and California should be broken up.

Then again, maybe we should just keep the status quo. What is your opinion?

2

States are absolutely relevant. Everybody is allowed to live in an environment that they prefer. You have 50 to choose from, and none are exactly the same.

It’s the differences that makes the United States of America unique. Offhand, I can’t think of another country with as many variations in government as we have. In some respects homogeneity is desirable, but in others it’s very undesirable, and because each state has the right to determine most of their own laws it makes each place more or less attractive to people depending upon their personal tastes.

As an example, I very much like Pennsylvania. California? Not so much. I wouldn’t be caught dead living there. You may feel exactly the opposite. If everything were exactly the same that choice would be taken away from us, to our sorrow.

Why, exactly, do you think Texas and California should be broken up? How should they be broken up? Should West Texas, home of nothing but dust, be left to fend for itself while the eastern portion gets fat? Should Northern California be separated from the soutern cities? How do you think that would benefit anybody, especially Northern California?

3

Aeschines: The US Constitution provides for a method of separating or joining states:

4

This is the source of your error. Can you elaborate? What makes you think it’s “false”. It might be for you, world traveller that you are, but most people aren’t like you. In my experience, most people identify strongly with their states.

I’ve lived all over, and I’m as much a world traveller as you are. Still, I live in CA now, and actually do strongly identify with that state*. We may or may not decide to break up at some point, but we’ll make that decision ourselves thank-you-very-much.

You actually hit on the real reason not to break things up in your OP:

That’s the rub. We are a nation of laws, and the law makes states relavent. We do have a process to change that, though, so it’s not a commandment etched in stone. If and when we, as a people, decide to change things, we can and will. Until then, it would simply be illegal to do so outside the constraints of the constitution.

*Airman: Don’t be so sure about not living in CA. The politics can be nutty in certain locals, but it’s a really big state with something for everybody. Not that we need more people or anything, but I just felt a little taken aback by your comment, that’s all. :slight_smile:

5

Although I know the laws are significantly different state to state, as well as taxes and other by-products of differing governments and customs, for me a major difference among the states is their weather, climate, seasonal differences, and such things.

I admit familiarity with only a few of the states, mostly in the Southeast, but have traveled enough to get a little bit of sense for other states’ environs. Movies have helped me form other impressions of the “feel” of other states.

Oddly enough, if I were to leave Tennessee it might be for Maine or Oregon, mostly for the seashore and more pronounced winters. I doubt if I could move further south because of the more oppressive summers. Tennessee is plenty hot and humid but at least the other seasons can be recognized and can help spread out the comfortable portion of a year. Further west in the same basic latitudes would be into still more severe weather territory which wouldn’t be very attractive for me.

Moving out of the South would be enough of a culture shock for me that I’d probably want to move back after a year or two.

6

A matter of occasional debate here. Many of us Northern Californians would like it if the South wasn’t dragging us to the right and trying to grab our water.

7

And those of us in the South would like to try it just to get rid of all the granola north of Santa Barbara. Yet somehow we manage to get along well enough to have the 5th largest economy on the planet. States exist to maximise freedom.

Pennsylvania? <shudder>

8

It is false, but I am not rabidly against it. It is false in that much of it is arbitrary: often there are different regions in States with little in common but the fact that they just happen to be under the same political umbrella. For example, rural western IN is flat out the same place as rural eastern IL. There is no river to divide them, just a big 'ol straight line running north and south. In NW IN, if you are out in the country you often don’t know if you are in IN or IL unless you look closely at the street signs, of which there are few.

In other cases, you have metro areas divided by State lines. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a real division in feel (NW IN being an example in which there is), but often the division has no practical value, or is of negative value.

Sure. Some of this is based on a genuine identification with a region (I certainly feel that Indy has a distinctive feel and culture) and some is just arbitrary (our team/our state).

Sure, break up if you feel like it–or not. At some point, however, you reach Oregon, and what is the difference between one and the other?

CA is so damn big that its unity is more arbitrary than that of smaller entities.

Of course, I wouldn’t advocate otherwise. But there is zero incentive for a State to do anything that would reduce its power in the House or Senate. In 1776, the Eastern Seaboard States were indeed separate colonies that had to be enticed into unifying. Now shitstain states like Delaware and Rhode Island just don’t make any sense.

I like CA too, but it’s just too cold (San Francisco), so I prefer the warmth of Indiana. :slight_smile:

9

Kansas City is not very close to Oklahoma. Quick eyeball estimate… at least a 4 hour drive. You mean Kansas City, Missouri (about 450,000 people), and Kansas City, Kansas (about 150,000). The latter is a suburb of the former.

10

When you think about it, a river makes a very poor choice for a border. It’s only advantage is that it’s definite. But a river is likely to have a lot of people living on both sides, with a lot of commerce and travel back and forth; it makes no sense that they should live in separate states. If we’re drawing borders from scratch, we should make sure as many borders as possible run through sparsely inhabited areas.

11

Not so. I give you Kaskaskia, Illinois:

12

Well, borders historically were often determined by military consideration or battles won/lost, so it’s not surprising they became regarded as natural borders. They are natural barriers, especially to a primitive army.

13

I think this is a very interesting question giving the trampling of state sovereignty starting with Reconstruction.

Theoretically, the basic unit of power in the US is the state, as in the United STATES of America. That’s not how it is anymore, instead it is de facto The Republic of America with states merely being convienent and traditional political divisions. I personally think that soon the pendulum will swing the other way. Witness the reaction after Kelo v. New London, Conn. with many states tightening their eminate domain laws or the backlash of the states with the Federal Interference of Education Act (aka NCLB).

14

Kansas City, Oklahoma? As a Missourian, I call “shame!”

15

Also, given the size of the US, doesn’t having areas broken down into separate “states” make it somewhat easier to manage?

16

Well, historically the states may have originally have been conceived as a confederation of independently sovereign entities, but nowadays I know of no-one outside the states who would consider it such a thing (I’m sure you can find plenty of people in any country, of course, who want it to be run differently, including as lots of little countries, but they don’t constitute the political will of the entire country). Plus, wasn’t the civil war fought over exactly this issue, and the states lost and the feds won?

17

Perhaps I do not understand the OP, but as I get it “Let’s all just draw new borders”. Well that will just result in more abusive gerrymandering (sorry for the spelling). The other thing the OP could mean is centralize all government and have no states. To that I say pish-posh. It is the United States, not the United State.

18

The states provide a useful laboratory for testing out how something will work in practice. Want to know how civil unions are going to work out? Check Vermont. Gay marriage? Check Massachusetts. Are there advantages to a unicameral legislature? Ask Nebraska. Dislike state income tax? Several states don’t have one. Think a principal residence should be exempt from tax forfeiture? Some states have a “homestead exemption” to such seizures. Want a share in oil revenues? Establish residence in Alaska. Want to be sure there’s a superhighway within five miles of your home? It’s state policy to build such a network in North Carolina. Want business-friendly state laws? Try Delaware. And so on. What works, we adopt piecemeal and eventually nationally. What doesn’t, gets thrown out after a while.

Are the present states, as constituted, less than effective at giving voice to popular desires? Damn straight: look at Downstate vs Upstate New York or Illinois, the Californias, the various components of Texas. Orange County, NC, is as liberal as any given piece of the Northeast – and in the middle of a state where there is serious advocacy of teaching Creationism.

But those things can be dealt with, over the long term. The important fact is that the states continue to exist as sovereignties, limited by what they’ve placed in Federal control but with important residual powers and the ability to experiment within them.

19

Huh? How is Kelo v. New London a “trampling of state sovereignty”?? I would say it’s just the opposite: residents of Connecticut sued the state of Connecticut in state court under the federal Bill of Rights to restrain a particular state action, condmenation of property under state eminent domain.

The Supreme Court of the United States eventually held that the state action was not contrary to the takings clause of the federal Constitution, and therefore the State of Connecticut could condemn the property.

Now, that may lead the inhabitants of some states to tighten up the rules of eminent domain under state law or state constitutions, but Kelo leaves that to the wisdom of each state and its inhabitants. Isn’t that exactly the sort of local state decision-making that you are advocating for, Saint Cad?

20

I don’t see how you could draw borders for states that weren’t arbitrary in some sense. Everytime you draw a line, there will be some people on one side and other people on the opposite side. We don’t have clear-cut divisions of culture, language or some other clear social barriers to link up with naturally occuring geographical barriers.