Hmm it seems smart, but then you lose the history and tradition and culture that is associated with your state. Plus, you would have to rename EVERYTHING. Signs would have to be changed, sports teams would be all over the place. No wonder the idea was defeated. It would be a whole lot of work for just a few benefits.

Even throwing aside the cost of re-doing the infrastructure, there are some odd choices here. The theory is to re-distribute the big cities, but Texas ends up with 3 big cities (per the mental floss map) and several other states get 2 big cities. I don't really see the big cities changing that much. I wonder if it was more around population distribution than actual cities. The redrawn map also keeps the upper peninsula as part of Michigan/Mackinac, actually making it even smaller. The only reason Michigan has that area right now is because of treaty agreements. Why maintain a split state unnecessarily?

Interesting concept. I think the US should go to city states though, like in Germany with Berlin, Bremen, and Hamburg.

Okay, Florida looks even MORE phallic or actually it looks Flacid. either way, giant D*ck

TsuKata, exactly! And "Dakota" ends up with only one big city!

Florida is the wang of the U.S.

I actually love most of the new names and boundaries in the western portion

I don't get what they consider a "major city." Pittsburgh and Columbus are major cities, but Cleveland and Cincinnati are not?

I see the population key, but I know that Cleveland's population in the 2000 census was right around 500,000.

Rapid City, SD: 96,280
Sioux Falls, SD: 123975
Bismarck, SD: 55532

lilkimbo, I don't understand what was considered a major city either.

I kind of love this. I'd be hailing from Chesapeake. I like it. Plus maybe with this new set up I'd have government represenation. Woo hoo!

Lilkimbo, it's based on population per the key on the lower right. Cleveland and Cincinnatti are actually closer to Pittsburg in population, but it looks like there's just not enough room for them.

And Omaha isn't listed!?

... sorry. I know I should just get over it.

D'oh. Bismark, ND (not SD)

Yeah, I get that it's based on population, which is why I noted that I saw the key and said that the population of Cleveland is around 500,000. So, there are quite a few cities included that have smaller populations. What made them include Pittsburgh over Cleveland?

It doesn't really matter, I was just kind of wondering how they chose, since it is obviously not based solely on population.

Pittsburgh's approximate population: 312,819
Cleveland's approximate population: 478,403

Sorry, I wasn't clear. There wasn't room in the region that would include Cincinnati and Cleveland, but there was room in the region that would include Pittsburgh.

Your second comment on the matter didn't post before I started to comment. I forgot you always do two or three in a row so I need to wait for the whole thought. Old habit from a Top Talker? : )

I see what you're saying, I'm just saying that if they didn't include Pittsburgh, they could include Cleveland (since they would actually be in the same region). Anyway, it doesn't really matter, I just think it's interesting how they chose "major cities," especially considering that they are basing their rezoning on the idea that each state will have fewer major cities.

And I swear, I never actually intentionally had two comments in a row, I just posted before I was done thinking!

I don't think I could handle being from Mohawk.

i like this map... as a life-long northern californian, i agree: TWO STATES!!!

I agree that California should be two states - selfish elitists, and conservation nazis. (JK)
I don't like the idea of 38 states. I've spent too many years trying to learn and remember the states as they currently are. I can't imagine trying to relearn the national map.

Divide things any way you want, it wouldn't end the competing, the arguments - it would just change the details.

What have you done to my beautiful Texas?!

This is a silly, unnecessary idea.

They mislabeled it Mich. In this redistribution, half of it was supposed to go to Mexico.

The electoral college would be interesting. I think it would be easier to predict which states would go blue and which would go red.

Haha. Mexico can have Texas.

Torg - but only if they promise to stop sending illegal aliens into America.

Torg, bite your tongue! Would you really be willing to give up this beautiful place? Or have you never been here? My guess is that you've never been to Austin, no liberal would want to give up this stronghold

yeah we should re-think that border wall... just have it go up and around texas.

I think we're going to get into the same conversation we got in to on the secession post.

Now I know yall are just kidding, but it still shows a difference between us. I would never give up a single state because I'm proud of the entire U.S. You don't like Texas' politics... so you want to wall it off or give it away to Mexico? Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive because I love Texas so much, but I still think you sound ridiculous.

Also, I'm aware that there are some conservatives who have suggested walling off San Francisco, but I'm not good with that either. As wacky as I think some of you folks are, I think it's a nice place with great food. And I love Alcatraz and the sea lions!

I had forgotten about that.

> Or have you never been here?

Too funny since I grew up there.

Really? Which part?

I don't think it's funny that she asked if you had been somewhere. I guess it's strange to ask for background information on someone now. We live in an odd world.

(Sorry, not in Austin, but in Texas. So it's funny that you said that.)

>I don't think it's funny that she asked if you had been somewhere.

I thought it was a little funny that she seemed to think it likely that I haven't been there when I have spent quite a bit of time there and still have family I visit there.

And I have been to Austin. I have family in Dallas, San Antonio, and on the gulf coast.

I guess all of us assume people mean things that they really don't. That's why I have been trying to not assume people's intentions lately on Citizen.

im going to assume that you guys are getting touchy. its all well meaning. if any state should go it's hawaii. we should give that back to the people who were there originally... seriously. the continental states are fine the way they are.

Torg, I guess I just didn't understand how you could want to give up such a beautiful place if you'd actually seen it. You'd think you "green" people would want to hold on to a place with so much wide open space. The hill country (although it's sadly being over-developed) is one of the most beautiful places I've seen in the U.S.

Seriously? Now you're getting on me for saying this...

"Torg, bite your tongue! Would you really be willing to give up this beautiful place? Or have you never been here? My guess is that you've never been to Austin, no liberal would want to give up this stronghold"

probably means the commenter suspects I haven't been there?

Let me be clear, then, so you don't have to make any assumptions: that is silly.

Why would you assume that what you are saying is well meaning but what others are saying is not? Seems odd to me.

The commenter suspects you haven't been to Austin, but not to Texas as a whole.

Oh, I wouldn't seriously give away any states. We've all got good parts and bad parts. I wouldn't want to have to get a passport to visit my family.

If we had to get rid of somebody (like some theoretical airplane that just lost an engine) wouldn't it make most sense to ditch the territories first? Like Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Why would you assume that I assume what I am saying is well meaning but what others are saying is not?

And what is silly is the fact that I thought Citizen could be fun again. I don't know why I keep kidding myself. Sigh.

I was referring to yy.