U.S. Map Redrawn as 50 States With Equal Population

[Buck87]

Came across this on my facebook feed and thought it would something fun for this community to critique

http://mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population



I found it kind of neat that they went with "Firelands" for the state I'd end up in, as that's a term for a two county sized area that I happen to live in

[The Nature Boy]

Shows how arbitrary state lines really are when parts of Maine could end up in the same state as Buffalo and Rochester.

[AlexandriaVA]

Makes you realize how over-represented rural states are in Congress...

[The Nature Boy]

Makes you realize how over-represented rural states are in Congress...

I like the idea of the Senate being the equalizer and the House (the smallest states like Vermont and Wyoming have but a single vote, California has 40+) being where population determines representation. I'm not a fan of a system where California and New York can override the interests of Vermont and Maine.

Rural states have our forests, mountains and are where your food is grown, they deserve adequate representation. The compromise reached in the 1780s helps to ensure that that happens.

[kkt]

California, Oregon, and Washington have forests, mountains, and grow food.  They're also quite diverse; it's a rare issue that has all the members of congress from those states voting the same way.

[The Nature Boy]

California, Oregon, and Washington have forests, mountains, and grow food.  They're also quite diverse; it's a rare issue that has all the members of congress from those states voting the same way.

I agree that there's no such as a statewide monolithic voting bloc but I do think that the Senate (by providing two votes per state) is a powerful voice for Senators from small states to advocate for issues that affect their states specifically. It's a good theory at least, I'm not so sure it happens in practice.

You get rid of the Senate and you end up with national policy being largely directed by what people in urban areas want. You're right, even states like New York are diverse. I imagine that with no Senate, we'd see members from urban areas (regardless of state) voting together to override the interest of rural areas. That's not an America I feel comfortable with.

[SD Mapman]

To take it a little further, what about urban areas beating down on rural within the states? To take a theoretical example from the map, the "Ogallala" state would be dominated by the Front Range whether they would like it or not.

For a real-world version (again with the Front Range), what about the Eastern Colorado proposal that surfaced a few years ago?

[US 41]

Here's a Thomas Jefferson quote.

When they get plied upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.

[AlexandriaVA]

Makes you realize how over-represented rural states are in Congress...

I like the idea of the Senate being the equalizer and the House (the smallest states like Vermont and Wyoming have but a single vote, California has 40+) being where population determines representation. I'm not a fan of a system where California and New York can override the interests of Vermont and Maine.

Rural states have our forests, mountains and are where your food is grown, they deserve adequate representation. The compromise reached in the 1780s helps to ensure that that happens.

1) Even in the House, rural area are over-represented. Wyoming has one congressman for its 584,000 citizens. California has 53 for its 37 million people. If California had the same representation per person as Wyoming, it would have over 63.

2) Food is grown neither in mountains or forests. They are grown in plains. Had the plains remained territories, they would still be producing many foodstuffs.

[AlexandriaVA]

Here's a Thomas Jefferson quote.

When they get plied upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.

Fortunately we have Real American Heroes like Warren Jeffs, Waco Whackos, and Ted Kazynscki, who rejected modern urban living and live a decent lifestyle in the countryside and rural woodlands.

[The Nature Boy]

Makes you realize how over-represented rural states are in Congress...

I like the idea of the Senate being the equalizer and the House (the smallest states like Vermont and Wyoming have but a single vote, California has 40+) being where population determines representation. I'm not a fan of a system where California and New York can override the interests of Vermont and Maine.

Rural states have our forests, mountains and are where your food is grown, they deserve adequate representation. The compromise reached in the 1780s helps to ensure that that happens.

1) Even in the House, rural area are over-represented. Wyoming has one congressman for its 584,000 citizens. California has 53 for its 37 million people. If California had the same representation per person as Wyoming, it would have over 63.

2) Food is grown neither in mountains or forests. They are grown in plains. Had the plains remained territories, they would still be producing many foodstuffs.

1) I think you're missing the point. All 50 states are equal sovereigns who interests are represented equally in the upper house of our legislature. The original idea behind the Senate is not that the Senators represented people, there's a reason that the state legislatures picked Senators, but rather they represented the interests of the states as sovereign entities. New York and Wyoming are equally apart of the United States so they receive equal representation in the United States Senate.

2) You just made the argument for why the plains states need adequate representation in our legislature. Why should (for example) Nebraska not have its interests adequately represented? We need someone to look out for farmers and ensure that they're not being screwed over after all. Farming is an important activity in this country but it's also one that takes place predominantly in areas with low population density. Without the Senate, states like the Dakotas, Nebraska and Iowa would be dominated by urban interests since that's where the majority of people live.

Here's a Thomas Jefferson quote.

When they get plied upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.

Fortunately we have Real American Heroes like Warren Jeffs, Waco Whackos, and Ted Kazynscki, who rejected modern urban living and live a decent lifestyle in the countryside and rural woodlands.

What about the millions of Americans who live in small towns all across this country? Including in your home state. Ted Kaczynski is not your typical rural dweller. I've seen people from small towns do the opposite of what you just did and characterize every urban area as being a crime infested hell hole. Overly broad generalizations are never particularly helpful.

I've lived in both rural and urban areas and both are filled with good people.

[AlexandriaVA]

Here's a Thomas Jefferson quote.

When they get plied upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.

Fortunately we have Real American Heroes like Warren Jeffs, Waco Whackos, and Ted Kazynscki, who rejected modern urban living and live a decent lifestyle in the countryside and rural woodlands.

What about the millions of Americans who live in small towns all across this country? Including in your home state. Ted Kaczynski is not your typical rural dweller. I've seen people from small towns do the opposite of what you just did and characterize every urban area as being a crime infested hell hole. Overly broad generalizations are never particularly helpful.

I've lived in both rural and urban areas and both are filled with good people.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, our friend from rural Indiana felt the need to insinuate that big cities and those who live in big cities are corrupt. I merely felt the need to poke holes in the logic of his argument.

[US 41]

NYC, LA, and Chicago are the three largest cities in the US and all three of them are very corrupt.

[The Nature Boy]

NYC, LA, and Chicago are the three largest cities in the US and all three of them are very corrupt.

I have lived in small towns for most of my life and I have seen corruption that would make Chicago look like Mayberry.

[US 41]

The only point I was trying to make off of that comment Thomas Jefferson made is that it's the way it is so that everyone gets represented in the USA not just those that live in NYC and LA, because people in the western US (not California) have different values that someone that lives in an apartment in NYC. Not saying that there aren't good people in NYC (or other big cities). I'm just saying living in NYC is a different lifestyle than living in rural Kansas or Wyoming. For example in NYC most people are probably in favor of stricter gun laws, while most people in the western US are probably against stricter gun laws.

[AlexandriaVA]

No, the point you were trying to make is that big cities are corrupt. If you didn't, you wouldn't have posted a quote that said just that. If you wanted to make a point about rural and urban priorities being different, you would have posted a different quote.

But don't post a quote suggesting that cities are inherently corrupt and then claim that you didn't suggest that cities are evil or corrupt.

BTW I agree that small towns often have the worst corruption because you have a nice confluence of a small obedient press corps, police who can get away with whatever they want, and a lazy electorate that never fields competitive elections. Big cities have media, civil society, and business interests that will demand accountability from their elected officials.

[US 41]

No, the point you were trying to make is that big cities are corrupt. If you didn't, you wouldn't have posted a quote that said just that. If you wanted to make a point about rural and urban priorities being different, you would have posted a different quote.

But don't post a quote suggesting that cities are inherently corrupt and then claim that you didn't suggest that cities are evil or corrupt.

BTW I agree that small towns often have the worst corruption because you have a nice confluence of a small obedient press corps, police who can get away with whatever they want, and a lazy electorate that never fields competitive elections. Big cities have media, civil society, and business interests that will demand accountability from their elected officials.

The top 6 most corrupt cities in the US are Chicago, Las Vegas, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Newark, and Detroit. All are big cities, but the people of these cities are the ones that have let the corruption continue in these cities for decades.

http://stories.avvo.com/money/the-6-most-corrupt-cities-in-america.html

I believe it when it says Chicago is number 1. The state of Illinois is very corrupt and it's not because of the people from southern and central Illinois, it's because of Chicago electing already corrupt Chicago politicians.

Here's a map of the 2010 election results for Illinois governor. You'd think the republican won in a landslide based on all the red. Wrong! The republican lost in a close race because Pat Quinn (the democrat) won Chicago. So tell me again big cities aren't corrupt.

[Buck87]

well, shit

...this thread didn't exactly go as I had foreseen

[AlexandriaVA]

Here's a map of the 2010 election results for Illinois governor. You'd think the republican won in a landslide based on all the red. Wrong! The republican lost in a close race because Pat Quinn (the democrat) won Chicago. So tell me again big cities aren't corrupt.

Only a rube would get excited over seeing a map with mostly one color. Sorry that Terre haute and the other hick parts of Illinois get outvoted by the one thing Illinois has going for it, Chicago. Take away Chicago and Illinois would be a nothing state.

[The Nature Boy]

Take away Chicago and Illinois would be Indiana. Cities are economic engines but it doesn't mean that they should get more seats at the table. Someone has to look out for the little man.

Anyway, corruption isn't confined to one party. An electoral map means nothing.

My original point was just that rural interests should be represented. I wasn't judging either side.

[vdeane]

Most small towns aren't cities, so they wouldn't even be on the list.  Plus most corruption in small towns would almost certainly go unreported, so there's no record to compare.  Apples to oranges.  Just because corruption isn't reported (or is legalized) doesn't mean it isn't corruption.

As for the map, people elect governors, not counties.  And yeah, corruption isn't confined just to whichever political party one doesn't like.

The idea is "one person, one vote".  Why should one's vote be worth more than another's?  Government is there to represent PEOPLE, not lines on maps.

[US 41]

Take away Chicago and Illinois would be Indiana. Cities are economic engines but it doesn't mean that they should get more seats at the table. Someone has to look out for the little man.

Anyway, corruption isn't confined to one party. An electoral map means nothing.

My original point was just that rural interests should be represented. I wasn't judging either side.

At one point 4 out of the last 7 Illinois governors ended up in prison. I think they all ended up in Terre Haute at our federal penitentiary at some point or another.  3 were democrat and 1 was republican, so yes there is clearly corruption on both sides. Politicians on both sides are more crooked than a mountain road.

[kkt]

Here's a map of the 2010 election results for Illinois governor. You'd think the republican won in a landslide based on all the red. Wrong! The republican lost in a close race because Pat Quinn (the democrat) won Chicago. So tell me again big cities aren't corrupt.

Dude, people vote, acres don't.  Just because you don't like the results doesn't make them corrupt.

[NE2]

Ugly bags of mostly water.

[cl94]

Here's a map of the 2010 election results for Illinois governor. You'd think the republican won in a landslide based on all the red. Wrong! The republican lost in a close race because Pat Quinn (the democrat) won Chicago. So tell me again big cities aren't corrupt.

Dude, people vote, acres don't.  Just because you don't like the results doesn't make them corrupt.

Yeah. It's like the idiots in the Southern Tier of New York who claim everything east of I-81 is ruining the state. Never mind that, if Upstate was by itself, it would still vote Democrat most of the time...