What if each state had two capitals?

[empirestate]

Suppose it was decided that each U.S. state had to have two capitals, either to better represent different regions of the state, or for the old-fashioned reasons of centrality and distance, or whatever. Which two cities would you choose?

For each state, imagine two different scenarios: 1) where the current capital must be retained, and 2) where the current capital need not be kept (but it can be, making both scenarios the same in this instance).

I'll start with an obvious one, New York:
1) Albany, New York
2) Syracuse, New York

[NWI_Irish96]

With Indianapolis being by far the largest city and already in the middle of the state, a second capital wouldn't really make sense, but if you had to do it, I guess Crown Point would be it, being the county seat of the second largest county.

[TravelingBethelite]

Illinois would certainly benefit from this. A second capital could represent Chicago (and vicinity), while the current one in Springfield would represent the rest of the (underrepresented) state. Connecticut (Delaware, Rhode Island, etc) is too small to need another capital  One works for us just fine. 

[The Nature Boy]

Maine: Augusta and Portland
New Hampshire: Concord and Berlin
Vermont: Montpelier and Bennington
Massachusetts: Boston and Springfield

North Carolina: Raleigh and Charlotte
South Carolina: Columbia and Charleston
Virginia: Richmond and Alexandria


I thought I'd advance some to get the discussion flowing. NH and VT were based on trying to get adequate representation in an underrepresented area relatively far from the current capital. 

[jeffandnicole]

New Jersey:

If retaining the current capital:   Trenton & Newark
Better representing the entire state:  Morristown & Egg Harbor City.  Why those two?  Because one would almost always be 60 - 90 minutes away from either capital, regardless of where they are in the state.

Suppose it was decided that each U.S. state had to have two capitals, either to better represent different regions of the state, or for the old-fashioned reasons of centrality and distance, or whatever. Which two cities would you choose?

For each state, imagine two different scenarios: 1) where the current capital must be retained, and 2) where the current capital need not be kept (but it can be, making both scenarios the same in this instance).

I'll start with an obvious one, New York:
1) Albany, New York
2) Syracuse, New York

I'd use New York City as a capital.  If you want to better represent different regions of the state, the most populated city in the entire country should be represented.

[empirestate]

Connecticut (Delaware, Rhode Island, etc) is too small to need another capital  One works for us just fine. 

Well, of course it is. :-) But, for whatever reason, the decision is made that you have to have two; which do you pick?


iPhone

[spooky]

Rhode Island: Providence and Newport

[SteveG1988]

Is this like how Germany did it during the cold war? how West Germany still technically had west Berlin as the Capital, but they really used Bonn Germany as the head of government.

For New Jersey i would have the main capital stay Trenton, and have the secondary one be Jersey City. Trenton is close enough for the shore towns to flock to, and Jersey City would serve as oversight on the more populated section of the state.

[TravelingBethelite]

Connecticut (Delaware, Rhode Island, etc) is too small to need another capital  One works for us just fine. 

Well, of course it is. :-) But, for whatever reason, the decision is made that you have to have two; which do you pick?


iPhone

Okay. Here goes:
Connecticut: Hartford/New London (East CT is not very well-represented)
Rhode Island: Providence/Newport
Delaware: Dover/Wilmington

[tchafe1978]

For Wisconsin, I'd keep Madison as one capital. But I wouldn't go with Milwaukee as the second capital just because it's the largest city in the state. I'd pick Green Bay or Wausau to better represent the northern half of the state.

[jeffandnicole]

PA: 
Current:  Harrisburg & Pittsburgh.
Option to pick new:  Philadelphia & Pittsburgh.

[TXtoNJ]

Texas:

Austin and Midland

[jeffandnicole]

Is this like how Germany did it during the cold war? how West Germany still technically had west Berlin as the Capital, but they really used Bonn Germany as the head of government.

For New Jersey i would have the main capital stay Trenton, and have the secondary one be Jersey City. Trenton is close enough for the shore towns to flock to, and Jersey City would serve as oversight on the more populated section of the state.

The interesting thing about the shore points:  Generally speaking, there's no great route to Trenton, compared to Jersey City.  Doing some quick travel times, getting to Jersey City is only 15 - 30 minutes longer from any shore point between Belmar and Cape May.  North of Belmar, the difference is even less!  Even from Belmar, the difference is only 18 minutes, and that includes Belmar being basically one straight road to Trenton!

[davewiecking]

DE: Dover, and a data center in some warehouse just outside of Dover.
MD: Annapolis and Cumberland

[empirestate]

Is this like how Germany did it during the cold war? how West Germany still technically had west Berlin as the Capital, but they really used Bonn Germany as the head of government.

Interesting question; I'll let you decide. Do you pick two capitals that have approximately equal status? One central capital with a satellite elsewhere in the state (esp. for scenario 1)? Or one de facto and one de jure or ceremonial capital? Or even divided by branch of government, á la South Africa (but with only two choices)?


iPhone

[empirestate]

Connecticut (Delaware, Rhode Island, etc) is too small to need another capital  One works for us just fine. 

Well, of course it is. :-) But, for whatever reason, the decision is made that you have to have two; which do you pick?


iPhone

Okay. Here goes:
Connecticut: Hartford/New London (East CT is not very well-represented)
Rhode Island: Providence/Newport
Delaware: Dover/Wilmington

No different choices for option 2 (not retaining the current capital)? It seems that with such small states, you'd definitely want the two as far apart as possible–unless you're choosing them by a different rationale, of course.


iPhone

[Brandon]

For Wisconsin, I'd keep Madison as one capital. But I wouldn't go with Milwaukee as the second capital just because it's the largest city in the state. I'd pick Green Bay or Wausau to better represent the northern half of the state.

Green Bay is the "religious" capital of Wisconsin anyway.  Every fall, hordes of people descend religiously upon Green Bay on certain Sundays, and the occasional Monday night.

[OCGuy81]

For California, you can probably keep Sacramento to represent Northern California, and some of the Central Valley.

I suppose LA would be the capital of Southern California.

[Henry]

Here are ten ideas of my own:

FL: Tallahassee and Miami
GA: Atlanta and Savannah
KS: Topeka and Wichita
MI: Lansing and Detroit
MO: Jefferson City and St. Louis, or Jefferson City and Kansas City
NV: Carson City and Las Vegas
OH: Columbus and Cleveland, or Columbus and Cincinnati
OK: Oklahoma City and Tulsa
TN: Nashville and Memphis
WA: Olympia and Spokane

[Mr. Matté]

I'll start with an obvious one, New York:
1) Albany, New York
2) Syracuse, New York

Wouldn't be more obvious to have NYC as one capital just since most of the population either lives there or has to drive through there to get to the current capital?

In general, I wish more states would go the Brasilia route of capitals- create an entirely new city with modern infrastructure rather than jury-rigging existing built-up cities from the 1800s to fit current requirements.

[golden eagle]

Jackson is rather centralized. Since a lot of the state's power structure has been concentrated in north Mississippi, I'd make either Oxford or Tupelo the Capitol for that part of the state.

[Brandon]

Here are ten ideas of my own:

MI: Lansing and Detroit

I would choose Lansing and Marquette.

[Brandon]

I'll start with an obvious one, New York:
1) Albany, New York
2) Syracuse, New York

Wouldn't be more obvious to have NYC as one capital just since most of the population either lives there or has to drive through there to get to the current capital?

In general, I wish more states would go the Brasilia route of capitals- create an entirely new city with modern infrastructure rather than jury-rigging existing built-up cities from the 1800s to fit current requirements.

Some of these states chose their capital in the 1800s that way.  Columbus and Indianapolis come to mind.  Lansing was chosen that way as well (nothing but a sawmill existed there at the time).  And Madison was planned to be the capital from the start.  Of all the Old Northwest states, only Illinois shoehorned a capital into a preexisting city, Springfield.

I'm sure some other states did likewise.

[vdeane]

In general, I wish more states would go the Brasilia route of capitals- create an entirely new city with modern infrastructure rather than jury-rigging existing built-up cities from the 1800s to fit current requirements.

You could make the next Brasilia, but you run the risk of making the next Naypyidaw instead.

[1995hoo]

For Virginia, it should be Richmond and somewhere in Northern Virginia. But with the way things work here, Richmond and Roanoke would be more likely.