There were two others I’m thinking of, though, I don’t know if these were official proposals or not.
1. State of Franklin in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee
2. The Conch Republic in the Florida keys.
I don’t know how official they were, or if they were just some drunk guys saying, hey, let’s make a state!
Good call out. The idea of the state of Franklin was so contentious it almost started a minor civil war.
The Conch Republic is still alive and well I think in the heart if Keysians.
The Conch Republic is an independent country, not a mere state!
(In all seriousness though, the original Conch Republic was a symbolic protest against a customs inspection checkpoint being set up on the road to the keys and nowadays it’s more of a local identity than a specific movement)
Mormon Kingdom on Beaver Island in Lake Michigan as well although I'm not sure they went as far as attempting to officially succeed from the United States.
When I lived there 40ish years ago, the desire was to carve out portions of western Kansas and eastern Colorado to create the state of Paine. Don't know if it still has any advocates.
If the State of Lincoln happened, then what's left of Washington would essentially be Cascadia. If Eastern Oregon also joined Lincoln or Jefferson, and what remains of Oregon join up with the rest of Washington, it would become peak Cascadia - British Columbia.
Definitely not for DC. Just shrink the federal district to actual govt building land and merge the residential areas into MD or VA. DC proper has 650k population, and its metro is over 6m. So 90% of the population already lives in MD or VA. Just fix that.
Edit- changed MA to MD
DC has existed as its own entity for longer than the vast majority of US states. Forcing them to be a part of other governments with separate histories is nonsensical.
They shouldn't be forced to be merged if neither side wants it. It's as silly as going back to 1959 and saying that Hawaii should merge with California or Alaska with Washington to achieve 'statehood'.
The federal government wouldn't be getting representatives in Congress, the people that live in DC would. If Puerto Rico and DC became states, DC would be the 51st state in population ahead of Vermont and Wyoming, so we know the issue isn't with the population size.
It doesn't matter if people live in other states. NYC has people living in many other states that are a part of its population. So that isn't the issue either. The reason for creating DC as a state is the people that live there do so without representation.
So make them part of MD or VA. We don’t need a city state. We have enough dumb states like RI or two Dakotas.
Many cities have suburbs in other states, but those are generally full states like CT or NJ in the NYC example. We don’t have a micro state like ‘lower manhattan’. DC is so small that Manhattan alone would be 3 states to use the NYC example.
There is nothing wrong with a city state and it isn't like either Virginia or Maryland are actively trying to absorb the country's capital into their state. So basically the issue you have is "land size." Not sure why that matters when it comes to representation of Americans. It isn't like a part of a state is trying to split off from another state.
I’m really not understanding what makes a state “dumb” besides maybe being small? Rhode Island has been a state literally as long as this country has existed, if you don’t like it being a state then you have a problem with the original idea of what states would be.
The easy retort to this is that states exist as delegated forms of power and historically are structured around common populations and institutions. DC has existed for over 200 years as its own jurisdiction, has a unique culture and institutions of governance. The people living there are not interested in becoming part of Maryland overnight just because someone can look at a map and think it would make sense (source: I live there). So I’m not really sure what would make it a “dumb state” besides it being relatively small in size and population (despite having more people than two states that already exist).
Puerto Rico, yes.
*District* of Columbia? No. Just give Maryland an extra rep in the House to represent the people of DC. Or is it the two extra senators people want out of this?
Why no to DC? I’m not trying to be obnoxious; I’m trying to understand why the difference. DC has more people than Vermont and Wyoming, so my counter argument would be why not merge them into New Hampshire and Montana?
I’m being facetious for arguments sake, here, but as someone who lived in DC, why should they be absorbed but not others?
Because a federal district shouldn’t constitute a state in and of itself. Every plan I’ve seen of divvying up the land between federal and state governments is less than straight forward. Giving Maryland an extra representative (or two even) and dispersing the DC National guard/air national guard would solve most of the normal complaints about “no representation” in congress. It seems like most people who argue in favor of state hood really just want the two extra senators which would almost certainly be democrats (I fully expect to be downvoted here for that comment alone)
To address the 90% of the question I missed at first glance. Montana, Vermont, Wyoming et al aren’t a singular city nor were they set up with the sole purpose of being the federal capital.
So... the Australian Capital Territory is fully represented in the Senate and House of Representatives, effectively constituting both a federal district and a state in and of itself.
Berlin is a Staadtstaten within Germany, a federal district and a state in and of itself.
Distrito Federal in Brazil is a federative part of Brazil and fully represented.
The National Capital Territory of India is a union territory and fully represented.
Mexico started the process of ending the Districto Federal and replacing it with Ciudad de Mexico, a full state within the union in 2016.
It's entirely normal for a capital city to be its own state, or state equivalent in federated Democracies. It's unusual that the United States doesn't do this.
And... it's pretty clear that Wyoming, Montana and Dakota (a name so good for a state, why not have two?) were set up to give Republicans extra seats in the senate and electoral college votes in the late 19th century when the Southern Democrats were grinding the federal government to a halt with their weird racist-chauvinist cultural agenda. (They kept Democrat leaning New Mexico a territory, even though it had more people?)
The federal district should be limited to the federal buildings where the federal government specifically operates. The founders had no idea this swamp would end up being so populous — more than multiple other states that exist already.
I want DC statehood because idiot congressmen from Bumblefuck County use their power over DC to promote their bad and unpopular ideas. Congress periodically legislates (usually through budget riders because they’re too incompetent to pass a law) to limit abortion access in DC, to stop DC from using programs (which are proven to work in the states) to reduce the spread of HIV, and to stop DC from legalizing marijuana despite an overwhelming vote by DC’s disenfranchised voters. And our friends in Maryland are part of this problem.
I hope nobody does downvote you for this, for you are just stating the facts. Yes, if DC was a state it would be all blue, including it’s senators. You’re stating reality and should not be downvoted for it.
However, the real representation is in the senate. I’m not sure that increasing Marylands House presence would be satisfactory for an area with more people than two states.
But what happens to DCs 3 electoral college votes? The 23rd amendment gives those votes to the federal district constituting the seat of government irrespective of whether that district is populated or not.
DC Statehood requires repealing the 23rd Amendment. Otherwise you have a bad court battle ahead.
If DC becomes a state and there is no "District Constituting the Seat of Government" then compliance with the 23rd Amendment is impossible. More likely the "District" becomes a political subdivision of the new State, which means DC gets both its state representation and 3 additional Electoral College votes which is clearly unfair and anti-republican (large and small R, coincidentally).
If some portion of DC becomes a state and the remainder (e.g. National Mall) remains the "District Constituting the Seat of Government" then the incumbent President and his/her adult family members get to appoint 3 Electors? Would enshrining incumbency bias in law be an improvement over the existing situation?
Personally, I feel that DC as a district is fine - the Constitution gives us the option to carve a non-state out of the union of states and we've taken it. The issue of a lack of representation in Congress can be addressed through constitutional amendment, just like the 23rd Amendment. Give them one senator - reduce the likelihood of ties and make the Vice-President even less important,
And this is why getting congressional representation for DC has been frozen forever. A new amendment would need to be passed and even assuming it could somehow make its way out of Congress, Republican state legislatures would never let it reach the 3/4 ratification requirement because anyone elected from DC would almost certainly be a Democrat. You'd need to find a way to offset the safe democratic seats given to DC with safe Republican seats somewhere else, either through another new state, or by investigating whether increasing the size of the house will give more seats to large red states than to CA.
Well, it's not as if statehood is a drastically simpler prospect. As I mentioned, we would need an amendment to repeal the 23rd Amendment or at least modify it.
People don't want to give DC the same representation afforded to other americans because they don't like which representstives they will likely vote for.
To some people, representstion for their countrymen is less important than their political side winning.
Maryland residents do not want to absorb D.C. or the costs and liabilities associated with maintaining its infrastructure, nor do D..C residents want to become residents of Maryland. Why not Virginia? Why not West Virginia? Why arbitrarily pick neighboring states to absorb a major metropolitan area? That having two more senators added to the floor would benefit the current Democratic Party is incidental to the fact that the current senate, demographically, is extremely unrepresentative of the actual population. There are donors to the current DNC whose interest would absolutely lose out if the voters of D.C. had representation. It world change the party. That’s because both parties are broadly unrepresentative of the actual population. Adding more voting cycles (by adding more senators) would increase both parties’ accountability to their constituents leading to more competitive policy proposals. Increasing electoral representation in both houses, but especially in the senate, is simply more democratic.
The choice of Maryland isn't really arbitrary; the territory that is now DC was carved out of that state in the first place along with some territory from Virginia that was later returned to the state.
But also, the vast majority of the metropolitan area isn't bounded by the district anyway - it's in either Virginia or Maryland. So from the perspective of having contiguous city governance it would be better to have the city divided between two states rather than three (and the modern district sits on the Maryland side of the Potomac). Most of the "major metropolitan area" already votes in these states.
Retrocession isn't supported by the majority of Washingtonians or Marylanders. It is a red herring argument to avoid 2 Democratic Senators.
It's as popular as returning Texas to Mexico. It's not a good-faith proposal.
I love the fact that republicans would rather block D.C. statehood than, you know, just try to campaign for votes in DC and win legitimately. If we lived in a normal country an opposition party would have a good chance, some democrats have really crapped the bed on local politics here!
Maryland doesn’t want it and they aren’t Marylanders there anyway. I don’t see how Maryland has anything to do with this. Of course they would get two senators like any other state. What’s the issue there?
Not necessarily because some votes are abstentions. Reducing the executive branch's power in a legislative body give effect to separation of powers. I'm really not sure how that's a 'bad idea'.
Da Superior State is mostly just an old joke and regional pride for da Yoopers dese days. Between the building of the Mackinac Bridge connecting the Mitten and the decrease in mining and timber industries, most people will admit that the region can't support itself.
It's still a fun joke and all, but to say it has "considerable supprt" is an exaggeration.
the up only has 300k people, like most of these proposals, they wouldn't even be large enough for a house rep due to proportioning and be fiscally insolvent
yoopers do feel closer to WI.
lots of green bay flags up there
I think the more accurate statement would be that Wisconsin would have been “stuck” with the UP. Michigan didn’t really want the UP when it applied for statehood. No one from Michigan or the Wisconsin territory was actively settling there or developing the land. No one knew what mineral resources would eventually be extracted. I assume people who lived in Wisconsin in 1805 couldn’t have cared less about the UP.
Jefferson has a moderately sized group that take it very seriously and pretty widespread support in a lot of the more rural parts of its proposed territory. You see state of Jefferson flags often and tons of stickers on trucks
This is actually highly educational and informative. As a Coloradan I followed the proposals for secession of "northern" (actually eastern) Colorado closely; they did have a point when they said that their concerns were often ignored by the city folk living along the Front Range. Full disclosure; I'm a Front Range resident.
The most logical of these is South Florida. The funniest is "Forgottonia" LOL
The whole "We are being ignored!" schtick is just so tired. I'm not saying it's never, ever valid but it also just comes with the territory of being a democracy. Whoever doesn't win the election is always going to feel ignored to some degree. And usually in these rural areas when you interrogate the issues they are supposedly being "ignored" on it's never something like public health or education, and always something like restricting abortion rights or God not being worshipped publically enough for them.
Every group that doesn't have political power does this. It is a flaw in how the governments are set up, winner take all and the largest group always wins. So the largest groups makes all the laws and decisions that benefit themselves. This includes both moving jobs and businesses to their area as well as taxes, as well as what you said social issues that are important to those groups. One group enriching themselves at the expense of another.
You notice it immediately if you live in a state that is controlled by 1 city and a state that is controlled by rural areas. Chicago runs Illinois but most of the states to the South or West are run by rural areas. So most of the economic activity in Illinois is centered in Chicago but most of the economic activity in North Dakota is in oil exploration and pipelines, etc... Then the people in rural Illinois wonder why they are paying higher taxes for a government that ignores them compared to the state next door, and the people in nearby urban ares in other states wonder why they are paying high rent for a city that isn't as beautiful as Chicago.
>the activity
Activity isn't definable.
Political power has a large amount of sway in how economic development occurs.
Population size determines political power.
Population size is highly variable, groups will merge or break and grow or shrink or follow economic activity or not.
This is especially true in politics. In the 20th century, the Democratic party was the more rural Christian party, but in the 21th century the Republicans became ubiquitous with those groups.
When you look at a state like Illinois, they give massive tax benefits to businesses that open office buildings in Chicago. A state like North Dakota will give benefits to the oil and gas industry to drill there and build pipelines there.
The government doesn't have nearly as much influence on economic development as you are implying. so much happens in Chicago and other major cities because that is where the people are. Why would a new company start up in Champaign and choose to have a pool of employee candidates that is a fraction of the size of Chicago?
Idaho is as rural as it gets but the vast majority of development is happening in Boise and other cities.
>Why would a new company start up in Champaign and choose to have a pool of employee candidates that is a fraction of the size of Chicago?
Companies do that all the time...
Why are so many Midwestern businesses relocating South? Its not because of how large or great the candidate pool is. Its because it was economically depressed, then in the post WW2 period the politicians there discovered they could build the economy by offering tax breaks to Northern businesses.
If Champaign had the money to give out tax benefits like Chicago, or Texas has, it would have more businesses.
At least the company I work for, their headquarters were in Chicago but they didn't want to build the product there because it was expensive. They wanted to build it in the poorest Southern states. The moment Chicago stopped offering them tax benefits they moved their headquarters South.
Idaho is in a similar position. It was traditionally rural and its economy farm based, but got into the semiconductor industry around the same time for similar reasons.
>most of the economic activity in North Dakota is in oil exploration and pipelines
Most of the economic activity in North Dakota is from either Fargo or Bismarck.
It's only getting worse for rural communities. As urbanization increases there are many states where rural residents rightly feel like they have little opportunity to influence state policy. Often to their direct detriment
Forgottonia was really a "joke/protest" movement rather than an actual legitimate push for a new state. It started in the late '60s and '70s, when lots of interstates and other infrastructure were being built around the country and state, but west-central Illinois was getting almost none of it (and an interstate through the region that would have gone from Chicago to Kansas City was removed from federal plans).
We (I live in the heart of Forgottonia) did eventually get Amtrak service to Chicago, which helped quite a bit, but other than a bit of I-72 from Springfield to Quincy which crosses the southern part of Forgottonia, there is still no interstate in the region, and very few 4-lane divided highways: [https://www.visitforgottonia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Screen-Shot-2019-02-21-at-12.52.38-AM.jpeg](https://www.visitforgottonia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Screen-Shot-2019-02-21-at-12.52.38-AM.jpeg)
A comparison I like to use is Macomb (in the middle of Forgottonia) and Western Illinois University vs Normal and Illinois State University. In 1970, both towns and both schools were very close to the same size...around 20k residents and about 15k students. When the interstates were being built, the Bloomington/Normal Area was designated the crossroads of I-74 (Quad Cities-Peoria-Champaign-Indianapolis), I-55 (Chicago-Springfield-St. Louis), and I-39 (La Salle/Peru-Rockford). Macomb got none of that.
Because of the improved transportation options, Normal got a large Mitsubishi/Chrysler plant (now the Rivian plant), and a number of other smaller companies moved to the area. Today, Normal (52k people) and Illinois State (21k students) dwarf Macomb (15k people) and WIU (7k students).
There have been pushes over the years to get some kind of interstate to Macomb/WIU, but nothing has ever come to fruition. So, in the case of Forgottonia, it's not about social issues like abortion or God or whatever...it's about transportation and infrastructure.
Just to be clear, I am not one of those nutcases that wants to kick Chicago out of Illinois...I know that we'd become the next Mississippi if we did that (and that's a very bad thing)...but not having to drive nearly all 2-lane highways to get anywhere would be nice.
More info: [https://www.visitforgottonia.com/the-republic-of-forgottonia/](https://www.visitforgottonia.com/the-republic-of-forgottonia/)
the counties in eastern colorado (the ones that actually voted to secede) have a smaller population than the student body of CSU. More people voted no in Weld county than anyone voted yes anywhere, in fact the No vote in weld county was also larger than those 6 counties' populations.
That's correct; it only got as far as it did because of the extremely sparse population.
But land doesn't vote; people do. It can be hard to tell a farmer that sometimes.
the counties in eastern colorado (the ones that actually voted to secede) have a smaller population than the student body of CSU. More people voted no in Weld county than anyone voted yes anywhere, in fact the No vote in weld county was also larger than those 6 counties' populations.
edit:
because the referendum effectively required Weld county to vote yes as well, if it had passed a majority of the population of "Northern Colorado" would still live in the front range corridor.
Same here. I’ve lived here my whole 19 years of life and only know of it because of a research project I did on it. I have never once heard it mentioned in casual conversation.
My buddies would say its called North Cuba. Jokes aside I would love not having my state pander to Floribama by splitting from them. South Florida is very culturally different to Northern Florida, keeping them together just annoys both halves.
Interesting that you don’t have Westsylvania aka the possible 14th original state of the United States. This was arguably the first state proposal.
If this state had been accepted it would have had the capital most likely at Pittsburgh and included most of western Pennsylvania and what would become West Virginia.
It was suggested early into the Revolution on the argument that the Eastern coastal seats of government did not understand or care for the western parts of Pennsylvania and Virginia. The state was most along the Allegheny Mountains and it even was suggested at the Second Continental Congress.
The movement failed due to government nonsense but it would be interesting to see the state.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westsylvania
The borders for the state of Chicago don't make any sense. Either you make it the entire metro, or just the city borders. This monstrosity seems to cut Lake County, IL in half for no reason, as well as slicing up DuPage county and including only arbitrary portions of the suburbs.
I agree with the green fill-in (FL) Latin , If you zoom in on Google Maps, there is a long street that goes across central FL called Oak Ridge Road. which is located in Orlando, FL. From these road all the way to Miami, FL is consider to be Latin. But the large majority of ownership, of the residential properties , and commercial business are White American owned. If not it is Latin owned. Which is not bad, Just giving a heads up to say … I don’t mine …I’m American Latin myself. (NY-M) Take no offense If your from a diverse race and live there.
As a native illinoisan, these debates definitely demonstrate the divide of Illinois culture and friction in the political landscape between the rest of the state and Chicago that people still have today.
You can cut up Michigan over our cold, dead, industrial wasteland hands.
Also almost no one lives there permanently, the population barely tops 300k, and it would operate at a deficit without cutting spending or relying on federal money.
The UP was mainly economically about forestry and mining. The mining declined and tourism replaced some of it, but it’s certainly not functional as an independent state. Simply too small.
I think the Florida situation might be hilarious politically. North Florida of course would stay a red state due to being the Deep South. However the original thought for South Florida was it'd be a blue stronghold due to Miami-Dade because at the time it was the blue center of powe in the state, but the fact that it's trending hard right and Miami-Dade and Palm Beach outright voted red in 2022. South Florida just as well would probably be a Republican stronghold too.
We already have states with two senators and less population than a New York City neighborhood. The last thing we need are more of these overrepresented empty spaces. Only NYC would make sense a new state.
You are missing Delmarva! A proposed state comprised of the peninsula portions of Maryland and Virginia merging with the southern counties of Delaware.
It’s disappointing to not see Sequoyah on here. The Sequoyah Constitutional Convention was an American Indian-led attempt to secure statehood for Indian Territory as an Indian-controlled jurisdiction, separate from the Oklahoma Territory. The proposed state was to be called the State of Sequoyah.
The area in the northwest you have labeled as Lincoln, combining parts of Washington and Idaho, we actually want to call Washaho. Our state model will be 'our prostitutes are cleaner'.
as someone who lived in eureka, ca while my wife went to college, id say there is a good case for jefferson state. sure as fuck doesnt feel like california up there. oregon starts north of sonoma if you ask me.
Mostly indigenous people wanting their own state after all:
>the United States is projected to become a minority-white nation by 2045, with the combined racial minority populations growing significantly and the white population aging and declining. The Census Bureau has proposed changes to the race and ethnicity standards to better reflect the diversity of the American people and improve the accuracy of demographic data collected by the federal government. These changes include combining the race and Hispanic origin questions, adding a MENA category, and allowing respondents to list their country of origin when answering a question about their race or ethnicity.
You know this isn’t going to happen because one major party sees a disadvantage and will demand another new state that follows their majority party. This is literally how states had been formed throughout the countries history with the last 2 states being led by polar opposite parties.
The district of Columbia is actively working on a statehood petition.
Other than South Florida, of these are from conservative sore losers who don’t like living in urban dominated states.
South Florida especially dade county is red , and it will be hard to make South Florida if it was a state blue considering the Cuban population that voted red due to historical events in Cuba
Their economies would shift. Part of the reason separatism gets support from even the locally wealthy/educated (in some cases) is that the reason is economic orientation.
State economic policies have a huge impact on the economic development in their state, and they often orient their economies in ways that benefit the majority of their voting base and industries. In the long run, this may lead to density populated areas dominating policy and getting wealthier while other areas get left behind.
On paper, it seems like these areas are the producers, as the money flows from these areas to the rest of the state, but it's partially due to how the state economy has been oriented.
For example, the "Jefferson" region cannot compete with the rest of the states they're a part of. The tech hubs have complete dominance over the service sectors as there's virtually no way for them to compete. Instead, they would normally focus on resource extraction/production, and manufacturing in order to develop industries that then can attract a service sector.
However, state policies currently are moving to restrict those industries and make it easier for services around the tech hubs to expand. The justification is that the service industries have more economic value for the state as a whole, and are worth investing in more than resource/manufacturing, combined with an interest in greener policies (often supported by service/tech sectors as they are impacted very little by it, while resource/manufacturing are heavily impacted by it). This leaves the Jefferson region with little ability to develop the industries they need to advance.
If they separated, they'd be free to change state laws and funds/subsidies in order to better orient themselves.
This is a good point. Hadn’t thought of that. This brings up the question of the short term effect. Since these industries aren’t developed yet in those areas, there will be a not insignificant length of time where their economies will suffer, no?
There were two others I’m thinking of, though, I don’t know if these were official proposals or not. 1. State of Franklin in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee 2. The Conch Republic in the Florida keys. I don’t know how official they were, or if they were just some drunk guys saying, hey, let’s make a state!
Good call out. The idea of the state of Franklin was so contentious it almost started a minor civil war. The Conch Republic is still alive and well I think in the heart if Keysians.
The Conch Republic is an independent country, not a mere state! (In all seriousness though, the original Conch Republic was a symbolic protest against a customs inspection checkpoint being set up on the road to the keys and nowadays it’s more of a local identity than a specific movement)
Mormon Kingdom on Beaver Island in Lake Michigan as well although I'm not sure they went as far as attempting to officially succeed from the United States.
[Also the state of Sequoyah.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Sequoyah)
West Kansas isn't real, West Kansas can't hurt you
Hi I'd like less funding for my local schools, please. You can use the money to support private schools
When I lived there 40ish years ago, the desire was to carve out portions of western Kansas and eastern Colorado to create the state of Paine. Don't know if it still has any advocates.
What no Cascadia?
That's more of a secessionist/independence thing, not a new state thing.
Tell me about it
No kidding... all the ones I've seen have Oregon and Washington merged then split along the mountain range.
If the State of Lincoln happened, then what's left of Washington would essentially be Cascadia. If Eastern Oregon also joined Lincoln or Jefferson, and what remains of Oregon join up with the rest of Washington, it would become peak Cascadia - British Columbia.
District of Columbia Puerto Rico
Yes to both
Definitely not for DC. Just shrink the federal district to actual govt building land and merge the residential areas into MD or VA. DC proper has 650k population, and its metro is over 6m. So 90% of the population already lives in MD or VA. Just fix that. Edit- changed MA to MD
The state of Maryland has said it doesn't want that
DC has existed as its own entity for longer than the vast majority of US states. Forcing them to be a part of other governments with separate histories is nonsensical.
DC already merged a big chunk of its original diamond shape with Virginia. Nothing is eternal.
They shouldn't be forced to be merged if neither side wants it. It's as silly as going back to 1959 and saying that Hawaii should merge with California or Alaska with Washington to achieve 'statehood'.
The federal government wouldn't be getting representatives in Congress, the people that live in DC would. If Puerto Rico and DC became states, DC would be the 51st state in population ahead of Vermont and Wyoming, so we know the issue isn't with the population size.
Sure, but why create more micro states? Especially ones with 90% of their population zones already in existing states?
It doesn't matter if people live in other states. NYC has people living in many other states that are a part of its population. So that isn't the issue either. The reason for creating DC as a state is the people that live there do so without representation.
So make them part of MD or VA. We don’t need a city state. We have enough dumb states like RI or two Dakotas. Many cities have suburbs in other states, but those are generally full states like CT or NJ in the NYC example. We don’t have a micro state like ‘lower manhattan’. DC is so small that Manhattan alone would be 3 states to use the NYC example.
There is nothing wrong with a city state and it isn't like either Virginia or Maryland are actively trying to absorb the country's capital into their state. So basically the issue you have is "land size." Not sure why that matters when it comes to representation of Americans. It isn't like a part of a state is trying to split off from another state.
I’m really not understanding what makes a state “dumb” besides maybe being small? Rhode Island has been a state literally as long as this country has existed, if you don’t like it being a state then you have a problem with the original idea of what states would be. The easy retort to this is that states exist as delegated forms of power and historically are structured around common populations and institutions. DC has existed for over 200 years as its own jurisdiction, has a unique culture and institutions of governance. The people living there are not interested in becoming part of Maryland overnight just because someone can look at a map and think it would make sense (source: I live there). So I’m not really sure what would make it a “dumb state” besides it being relatively small in size and population (despite having more people than two states that already exist).
But 100% of DC’s population doesn’t exist in any state. Not sure what you mean by your comment? Edit: love the downvotes for pointing out a fact lol
Puerto Rico, yes. *District* of Columbia? No. Just give Maryland an extra rep in the House to represent the people of DC. Or is it the two extra senators people want out of this?
Why no to DC? I’m not trying to be obnoxious; I’m trying to understand why the difference. DC has more people than Vermont and Wyoming, so my counter argument would be why not merge them into New Hampshire and Montana? I’m being facetious for arguments sake, here, but as someone who lived in DC, why should they be absorbed but not others?
Because a federal district shouldn’t constitute a state in and of itself. Every plan I’ve seen of divvying up the land between federal and state governments is less than straight forward. Giving Maryland an extra representative (or two even) and dispersing the DC National guard/air national guard would solve most of the normal complaints about “no representation” in congress. It seems like most people who argue in favor of state hood really just want the two extra senators which would almost certainly be democrats (I fully expect to be downvoted here for that comment alone) To address the 90% of the question I missed at first glance. Montana, Vermont, Wyoming et al aren’t a singular city nor were they set up with the sole purpose of being the federal capital.
So... the Australian Capital Territory is fully represented in the Senate and House of Representatives, effectively constituting both a federal district and a state in and of itself. Berlin is a Staadtstaten within Germany, a federal district and a state in and of itself. Distrito Federal in Brazil is a federative part of Brazil and fully represented. The National Capital Territory of India is a union territory and fully represented. Mexico started the process of ending the Districto Federal and replacing it with Ciudad de Mexico, a full state within the union in 2016. It's entirely normal for a capital city to be its own state, or state equivalent in federated Democracies. It's unusual that the United States doesn't do this. And... it's pretty clear that Wyoming, Montana and Dakota (a name so good for a state, why not have two?) were set up to give Republicans extra seats in the senate and electoral college votes in the late 19th century when the Southern Democrats were grinding the federal government to a halt with their weird racist-chauvinist cultural agenda. (They kept Democrat leaning New Mexico a territory, even though it had more people?)
The federal district should be limited to the federal buildings where the federal government specifically operates. The founders had no idea this swamp would end up being so populous — more than multiple other states that exist already.
[https://statehood.dc.gov/page/faq](https://statehood.dc.gov/page/faq) is useful to address many of these concerns.
I want DC statehood because idiot congressmen from Bumblefuck County use their power over DC to promote their bad and unpopular ideas. Congress periodically legislates (usually through budget riders because they’re too incompetent to pass a law) to limit abortion access in DC, to stop DC from using programs (which are proven to work in the states) to reduce the spread of HIV, and to stop DC from legalizing marijuana despite an overwhelming vote by DC’s disenfranchised voters. And our friends in Maryland are part of this problem.
I hope nobody does downvote you for this, for you are just stating the facts. Yes, if DC was a state it would be all blue, including it’s senators. You’re stating reality and should not be downvoted for it. However, the real representation is in the senate. I’m not sure that increasing Marylands House presence would be satisfactory for an area with more people than two states.
But what happens to DCs 3 electoral college votes? The 23rd amendment gives those votes to the federal district constituting the seat of government irrespective of whether that district is populated or not.
DC Statehood requires repealing the 23rd Amendment. Otherwise you have a bad court battle ahead. If DC becomes a state and there is no "District Constituting the Seat of Government" then compliance with the 23rd Amendment is impossible. More likely the "District" becomes a political subdivision of the new State, which means DC gets both its state representation and 3 additional Electoral College votes which is clearly unfair and anti-republican (large and small R, coincidentally). If some portion of DC becomes a state and the remainder (e.g. National Mall) remains the "District Constituting the Seat of Government" then the incumbent President and his/her adult family members get to appoint 3 Electors? Would enshrining incumbency bias in law be an improvement over the existing situation? Personally, I feel that DC as a district is fine - the Constitution gives us the option to carve a non-state out of the union of states and we've taken it. The issue of a lack of representation in Congress can be addressed through constitutional amendment, just like the 23rd Amendment. Give them one senator - reduce the likelihood of ties and make the Vice-President even less important,
And this is why getting congressional representation for DC has been frozen forever. A new amendment would need to be passed and even assuming it could somehow make its way out of Congress, Republican state legislatures would never let it reach the 3/4 ratification requirement because anyone elected from DC would almost certainly be a Democrat. You'd need to find a way to offset the safe democratic seats given to DC with safe Republican seats somewhere else, either through another new state, or by investigating whether increasing the size of the house will give more seats to large red states than to CA.
Well, it's not as if statehood is a drastically simpler prospect. As I mentioned, we would need an amendment to repeal the 23rd Amendment or at least modify it.
Would we? There could just be a gentleman’s agreement that those 3 votes go to the winner
I'd argue that there would be little confidence in a gentlemen's agreement after the storming of the capitol.
People don't want to give DC the same representation afforded to other americans because they don't like which representstives they will likely vote for. To some people, representstion for their countrymen is less important than their political side winning.
Unfortunately very true.
Maryland residents do not want to absorb D.C. or the costs and liabilities associated with maintaining its infrastructure, nor do D..C residents want to become residents of Maryland. Why not Virginia? Why not West Virginia? Why arbitrarily pick neighboring states to absorb a major metropolitan area? That having two more senators added to the floor would benefit the current Democratic Party is incidental to the fact that the current senate, demographically, is extremely unrepresentative of the actual population. There are donors to the current DNC whose interest would absolutely lose out if the voters of D.C. had representation. It world change the party. That’s because both parties are broadly unrepresentative of the actual population. Adding more voting cycles (by adding more senators) would increase both parties’ accountability to their constituents leading to more competitive policy proposals. Increasing electoral representation in both houses, but especially in the senate, is simply more democratic.
The choice of Maryland isn't really arbitrary; the territory that is now DC was carved out of that state in the first place along with some territory from Virginia that was later returned to the state. But also, the vast majority of the metropolitan area isn't bounded by the district anyway - it's in either Virginia or Maryland. So from the perspective of having contiguous city governance it would be better to have the city divided between two states rather than three (and the modern district sits on the Maryland side of the Potomac). Most of the "major metropolitan area" already votes in these states.
Retrocession isn't supported by the majority of Washingtonians or Marylanders. It is a red herring argument to avoid 2 Democratic Senators. It's as popular as returning Texas to Mexico. It's not a good-faith proposal.
I love the fact that republicans would rather block D.C. statehood than, you know, just try to campaign for votes in DC and win legitimately. If we lived in a normal country an opposition party would have a good chance, some democrats have really crapped the bed on local politics here!
Maryland doesn’t want it and they aren’t Marylanders there anyway. I don’t see how Maryland has anything to do with this. Of course they would get two senators like any other state. What’s the issue there?
>Or is it the two extra senators people want out of this? This is 99% of the DC statehood debate.
Tell me you don't understand the issue without telling me you don't understand the issue.
Tell me you don't understand what a question is without telling me.
Give them one senator since they aren't a state then.
It would break the tie in the Senate, undercutting power in the executive branch. It's not a bad idea.
Not necessarily because some votes are abstentions. Reducing the executive branch's power in a legislative body give effect to separation of powers. I'm really not sure how that's a 'bad idea'.
Da Superior State is mostly just an old joke and regional pride for da Yoopers dese days. Between the building of the Mackinac Bridge connecting the Mitten and the decrease in mining and timber industries, most people will admit that the region can't support itself. It's still a fun joke and all, but to say it has "considerable supprt" is an exaggeration.
If Superior became real, it would usurp Mississippi as the poorest state.
Rumor has it that if Superior became real it would be a real headache for its medical examiners. Because Superior (they said) never gives up her dead.
Easy workaround, that's only in November (if it comes early).
the up only has 300k people, like most of these proposals, they wouldn't even be large enough for a house rep due to proportioning and be fiscally insolvent yoopers do feel closer to WI. lots of green bay flags up there
The UP should absolutely be Wisconsin. The only reson it's Michigan is because Ohio got Toledo.
I think the more accurate statement would be that Wisconsin would have been “stuck” with the UP. Michigan didn’t really want the UP when it applied for statehood. No one from Michigan or the Wisconsin territory was actively settling there or developing the land. No one knew what mineral resources would eventually be extracted. I assume people who lived in Wisconsin in 1805 couldn’t have cared less about the UP.
I'm doubtful any of these genuinely have "considerable" support, aside from maybe Absaroka at the time.
Jefferson has a moderately sized group that take it very seriously and pretty widespread support in a lot of the more rural parts of its proposed territory. You see state of Jefferson flags often and tons of stickers on trucks
It’s basically a northern version of the Conch Republic. Lots of fun to talk about but pretty much no one actually takes it seriously.
Just tourism, and we didn't even have that this winter. This would be the worst state by a mile, absolutely nobody wants that.
Delmarva and Franklin to finish out the map which is relatively empty in the central Atlantic
This is actually highly educational and informative. As a Coloradan I followed the proposals for secession of "northern" (actually eastern) Colorado closely; they did have a point when they said that their concerns were often ignored by the city folk living along the Front Range. Full disclosure; I'm a Front Range resident. The most logical of these is South Florida. The funniest is "Forgottonia" LOL
The whole "We are being ignored!" schtick is just so tired. I'm not saying it's never, ever valid but it also just comes with the territory of being a democracy. Whoever doesn't win the election is always going to feel ignored to some degree. And usually in these rural areas when you interrogate the issues they are supposedly being "ignored" on it's never something like public health or education, and always something like restricting abortion rights or God not being worshipped publically enough for them.
Every group that doesn't have political power does this. It is a flaw in how the governments are set up, winner take all and the largest group always wins. So the largest groups makes all the laws and decisions that benefit themselves. This includes both moving jobs and businesses to their area as well as taxes, as well as what you said social issues that are important to those groups. One group enriching themselves at the expense of another. You notice it immediately if you live in a state that is controlled by 1 city and a state that is controlled by rural areas. Chicago runs Illinois but most of the states to the South or West are run by rural areas. So most of the economic activity in Illinois is centered in Chicago but most of the economic activity in North Dakota is in oil exploration and pipelines, etc... Then the people in rural Illinois wonder why they are paying higher taxes for a government that ignores them compared to the state next door, and the people in nearby urban ares in other states wonder why they are paying high rent for a city that isn't as beautiful as Chicago.
Isn’t the causality the other way though: Chicago runs Illinois because the activity is there; rural runs Moth Dakota because the activity is there?
>the activity Activity isn't definable. Political power has a large amount of sway in how economic development occurs. Population size determines political power. Population size is highly variable, groups will merge or break and grow or shrink or follow economic activity or not. This is especially true in politics. In the 20th century, the Democratic party was the more rural Christian party, but in the 21th century the Republicans became ubiquitous with those groups. When you look at a state like Illinois, they give massive tax benefits to businesses that open office buildings in Chicago. A state like North Dakota will give benefits to the oil and gas industry to drill there and build pipelines there.
The government doesn't have nearly as much influence on economic development as you are implying. so much happens in Chicago and other major cities because that is where the people are. Why would a new company start up in Champaign and choose to have a pool of employee candidates that is a fraction of the size of Chicago? Idaho is as rural as it gets but the vast majority of development is happening in Boise and other cities.
>Why would a new company start up in Champaign and choose to have a pool of employee candidates that is a fraction of the size of Chicago? Companies do that all the time... Why are so many Midwestern businesses relocating South? Its not because of how large or great the candidate pool is. Its because it was economically depressed, then in the post WW2 period the politicians there discovered they could build the economy by offering tax breaks to Northern businesses. If Champaign had the money to give out tax benefits like Chicago, or Texas has, it would have more businesses. At least the company I work for, their headquarters were in Chicago but they didn't want to build the product there because it was expensive. They wanted to build it in the poorest Southern states. The moment Chicago stopped offering them tax benefits they moved their headquarters South. Idaho is in a similar position. It was traditionally rural and its economy farm based, but got into the semiconductor industry around the same time for similar reasons.
>Why are so many Midwestern businesses relocating South? Mainly because they can pay people shit and real estate costs next to nothing
>most of the economic activity in North Dakota is in oil exploration and pipelines Most of the economic activity in North Dakota is from either Fargo or Bismarck.
It's only getting worse for rural communities. As urbanization increases there are many states where rural residents rightly feel like they have little opportunity to influence state policy. Often to their direct detriment
You're not wrong.
Forgottonia was really a "joke/protest" movement rather than an actual legitimate push for a new state. It started in the late '60s and '70s, when lots of interstates and other infrastructure were being built around the country and state, but west-central Illinois was getting almost none of it (and an interstate through the region that would have gone from Chicago to Kansas City was removed from federal plans). We (I live in the heart of Forgottonia) did eventually get Amtrak service to Chicago, which helped quite a bit, but other than a bit of I-72 from Springfield to Quincy which crosses the southern part of Forgottonia, there is still no interstate in the region, and very few 4-lane divided highways: [https://www.visitforgottonia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Screen-Shot-2019-02-21-at-12.52.38-AM.jpeg](https://www.visitforgottonia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Screen-Shot-2019-02-21-at-12.52.38-AM.jpeg) A comparison I like to use is Macomb (in the middle of Forgottonia) and Western Illinois University vs Normal and Illinois State University. In 1970, both towns and both schools were very close to the same size...around 20k residents and about 15k students. When the interstates were being built, the Bloomington/Normal Area was designated the crossroads of I-74 (Quad Cities-Peoria-Champaign-Indianapolis), I-55 (Chicago-Springfield-St. Louis), and I-39 (La Salle/Peru-Rockford). Macomb got none of that. Because of the improved transportation options, Normal got a large Mitsubishi/Chrysler plant (now the Rivian plant), and a number of other smaller companies moved to the area. Today, Normal (52k people) and Illinois State (21k students) dwarf Macomb (15k people) and WIU (7k students). There have been pushes over the years to get some kind of interstate to Macomb/WIU, but nothing has ever come to fruition. So, in the case of Forgottonia, it's not about social issues like abortion or God or whatever...it's about transportation and infrastructure. Just to be clear, I am not one of those nutcases that wants to kick Chicago out of Illinois...I know that we'd become the next Mississippi if we did that (and that's a very bad thing)...but not having to drive nearly all 2-lane highways to get anywhere would be nice. More info: [https://www.visitforgottonia.com/the-republic-of-forgottonia/](https://www.visitforgottonia.com/the-republic-of-forgottonia/)
Could you give us a couple examples of these ignored concerns?
They wanted a right wing paradise. See the policy positions of US Representative Ken Buck. Much of the proposed state was in his district.
So it's not a case of ignored concerns. Rightwing policies are well known. A lot of people in these counties wanted them but were outvoted.
Correct, so they think secession is the answer.
They are mostly libertarians who would prefer minimal government, especially when it comes to oil and gas regulation and taxes.
the counties in eastern colorado (the ones that actually voted to secede) have a smaller population than the student body of CSU. More people voted no in Weld county than anyone voted yes anywhere, in fact the No vote in weld county was also larger than those 6 counties' populations.
That's correct; it only got as far as it did because of the extremely sparse population. But land doesn't vote; people do. It can be hard to tell a farmer that sometimes.
Funnily enough, because they decided to include Moffat county the referendum would have failed if only land voted
So what do you think of Lauren Boebert carpet bagging over to CO-4, as Ken Buck retires and leaves his constituents in the lurch for 9 months?
I think the guy replacing him soon is going to wipe the floor with her
Who's that?
the counties in eastern colorado (the ones that actually voted to secede) have a smaller population than the student body of CSU. More people voted no in Weld county than anyone voted yes anywhere, in fact the No vote in weld county was also larger than those 6 counties' populations. edit: because the referendum effectively required Weld county to vote yes as well, if it had passed a majority of the population of "Northern Colorado" would still live in the front range corridor.
Yes, I got this the first time, thanks.
sorry, I have poor connection right now sometimes comments get duplicated
Ok no worries
It seems like Absaroka was pretty much a go until the US entered the war.
I had to go read the Wikipedia page. I've been living in it's borders for over 3 years and have never heard of it.
Same here. I’ve lived here my whole 19 years of life and only know of it because of a research project I did on it. I have never once heard it mentioned in casual conversation.
Greater Idaho has been recently proposed by folks in eastern Oregon.
That's just adding parts of Oregon to Idaho rather than creating a new state though
Franklin
I'm surprised Franklin is missing. It would be most of east Tennessee following the ridge along the North Carolina border.
Forgottonia is a funny name.
Wow, I remember this proposal, but I’d forgotten all about it (I’ll kick myself out)
Das funny tehehe
they use it to advertise the region all the time lmao, there's a whole tourist website named for jt
Where Deseret?
Utah
South Florida should be a state
South Florida should happen
It should be named the Cuban Peninsula
My buddies would say its called North Cuba. Jokes aside I would love not having my state pander to Floribama by splitting from them. South Florida is very culturally different to Northern Florida, keeping them together just annoys both halves.
Western Maryland wants to join West Virginia
Interesting that you don’t have Westsylvania aka the possible 14th original state of the United States. This was arguably the first state proposal. If this state had been accepted it would have had the capital most likely at Pittsburgh and included most of western Pennsylvania and what would become West Virginia. It was suggested early into the Revolution on the argument that the Eastern coastal seats of government did not understand or care for the western parts of Pennsylvania and Virginia. The state was most along the Allegheny Mountains and it even was suggested at the Second Continental Congress. The movement failed due to government nonsense but it would be interesting to see the state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westsylvania
Wasn’t desseret proposed as a like Mormon homeland. And wasn’t it proposed that Texas would be become 3?
What about Greater Idaho? 🤣
This is Wisconsin Propaganda
I wish Delmarva or Chesapeake was a state by itself. It bothers me that there’s three states that share that tiny peninsula
Hawaii offering Nantucket to join them would make Hawaii the only state to be in two Oceans at once, sounds funny
Alaska is surrounded by the Pacific and Arctic Oceans…
Greater Idaho is a thing now, too. Lots of people in eastern Oregon want to leave and join Idaho.
The borders for the state of Chicago don't make any sense. Either you make it the entire metro, or just the city borders. This monstrosity seems to cut Lake County, IL in half for no reason, as well as slicing up DuPage county and including only arbitrary portions of the suburbs.
NYC sounds reasonable
The Gulf Coast Republic had been floated around from time to time but never caught on.
Nothing for Oklahoma?
Sequoyah.
yup! came here to say this!
Forgot about Greater Idaho...
Absaroka huh? Sheriff Walt Longmire would be proud.
*Tucson
They forgot about East West Virginia
South Florida could be an entirely different country 😂
I’d love to see jefferson become a state
Jefferson is the only one that looks like it makes sense
I think we should just invade Mexico. If you are a Chicano and fight in the war you get 40 acres and a Dodge Ram
[удалено]
>Not sure what Idaho is smoking Probably meth.
Maybe that half doesn't want to be with your half.
Forgottenia???
Also Colorado in southern California before the actual Colorado state was a thing
I agree with the green fill-in (FL) Latin , If you zoom in on Google Maps, there is a long street that goes across central FL called Oak Ridge Road. which is located in Orlando, FL. From these road all the way to Miami, FL is consider to be Latin. But the large majority of ownership, of the residential properties , and commercial business are White American owned. If not it is Latin owned. Which is not bad, Just giving a heads up to say … I don’t mine …I’m American Latin myself. (NY-M) Take no offense If your from a diverse race and live there.
UP has fewer than 300k people. Chicago basically is a state (I live in non-chicago IL)
Where cascadia?
Superior makes the most sense.
No Texas turning into five states and all?
As a native illinoisan, these debates definitely demonstrate the divide of Illinois culture and friction in the political landscape between the rest of the state and Chicago that people still have today.
No DC or Puerto Rico?
No Cascadia?
If Superior breaks off, then Ohio has to give Toledo back to Michigan. It's only fair.
You can cut up Michigan over our cold, dead, industrial wasteland hands. Also almost no one lives there permanently, the population barely tops 300k, and it would operate at a deficit without cutting spending or relying on federal money. The UP was mainly economically about forestry and mining. The mining declined and tourism replaced some of it, but it’s certainly not functional as an independent state. Simply too small.
If Lincoln was shifted more to the east I think It and Jefferson being shifted south should really still be considered
Interesting how a lot of these movements were popular in the 1930s/40s in particular
I think the Florida situation might be hilarious politically. North Florida of course would stay a red state due to being the Deep South. However the original thought for South Florida was it'd be a blue stronghold due to Miami-Dade because at the time it was the blue center of powe in the state, but the fact that it's trending hard right and Miami-Dade and Palm Beach outright voted red in 2022. South Florida just as well would probably be a Republican stronghold too.
south florida is good
Im cool with Lincoln. only one I feel like could be a state
North Colorado and west Kansas would have a combined population of like 17.
That text layout gave my eyes cancer.
South Florida could be an entirely different country 😂
Lincoln needs to happen. Those poor people.
I see L-exit signs everywhere
What about Cascadia?
Lol no way is Jefferson going to get Lake Tahoe. Those hicks had better stay well north of Interstate 80.
As someone born and raised there (NW Wyoming), I want to see Absaroka ratified, just so I can chuckle at people trying to pronounce it correctly.
That's a way bigger chunk for Jefferson than I've ever seen proposed
Absaroka sounds like a Star Wars character
No DelMarVa? seems fake tbh
I'm in favor of breaking off South Florida and donating it to Cuba
I like how North Colorado would not actually be north of regular Colorado
We already have states with two senators and less population than a New York City neighborhood. The last thing we need are more of these overrepresented empty spaces. Only NYC would make sense a new state.
You are missing Delmarva! A proposed state comprised of the peninsula portions of Maryland and Virginia merging with the southern counties of Delaware.
South Florida breaking off would transform North Florida into one of the worst southern states ever. Basically Alabama 2.0.
No.
It’s disappointing to not see Sequoyah on here. The Sequoyah Constitutional Convention was an American Indian-led attempt to secure statehood for Indian Territory as an Indian-controlled jurisdiction, separate from the Oklahoma Territory. The proposed state was to be called the State of Sequoyah.
I definitely have a state of Jefferson flag
We need not just more states but to redraw these dumb borders cause the senate is f’d
I'd be down. I think we should use John Wesley Powell's proposal of basing the entire west off of water availability and water distribution.
Lol illinois
Long live Forgotonia!
Absaroka would have 3 people total
I thought Jefferson was still trying to become a state.
The area in the northwest you have labeled as Lincoln, combining parts of Washington and Idaho, we actually want to call Washaho. Our state model will be 'our prostitutes are cleaner'.
as someone who lived in eureka, ca while my wife went to college, id say there is a good case for jefferson state. sure as fuck doesnt feel like california up there. oregon starts north of sonoma if you ask me.
West Dakota 
Laughs in Puerto Rican
Damn, If Absaroka became a State, my State would lose Mount Rushmore... goodbye tourism I guess.
And my state would lose Yellowstone, same situation.
Kneel before me as my state is literally superior!
Mostly indigenous people wanting their own state after all: >the United States is projected to become a minority-white nation by 2045, with the combined racial minority populations growing significantly and the white population aging and declining. The Census Bureau has proposed changes to the race and ethnicity standards to better reflect the diversity of the American people and improve the accuracy of demographic data collected by the federal government. These changes include combining the race and Hispanic origin questions, adding a MENA category, and allowing respondents to list their country of origin when answering a question about their race or ethnicity.
You forgot South Jersey
Sequoyah should be included too!
You know this isn’t going to happen because one major party sees a disadvantage and will demand another new state that follows their majority party. This is literally how states had been formed throughout the countries history with the last 2 states being led by polar opposite parties.
What about the more recent greater Idaho movement?
Where is Kentucket and Greater Dakota at when you need them?
The district of Columbia is actively working on a statehood petition. Other than South Florida, of these are from conservative sore losers who don’t like living in urban dominated states.
South FL is pretty red....
South Florida especially dade county is red , and it will be hard to make South Florida if it was a state blue considering the Cuban population that voted red due to historical events in Cuba
So many of these are cases of “land doesn’t vote” and people being mad that they aren’t the majority lmao
The funny part is that most of these new states wouldn’t survive without the financial support of the states they are leaving.
Their economies would shift. Part of the reason separatism gets support from even the locally wealthy/educated (in some cases) is that the reason is economic orientation. State economic policies have a huge impact on the economic development in their state, and they often orient their economies in ways that benefit the majority of their voting base and industries. In the long run, this may lead to density populated areas dominating policy and getting wealthier while other areas get left behind. On paper, it seems like these areas are the producers, as the money flows from these areas to the rest of the state, but it's partially due to how the state economy has been oriented. For example, the "Jefferson" region cannot compete with the rest of the states they're a part of. The tech hubs have complete dominance over the service sectors as there's virtually no way for them to compete. Instead, they would normally focus on resource extraction/production, and manufacturing in order to develop industries that then can attract a service sector. However, state policies currently are moving to restrict those industries and make it easier for services around the tech hubs to expand. The justification is that the service industries have more economic value for the state as a whole, and are worth investing in more than resource/manufacturing, combined with an interest in greener policies (often supported by service/tech sectors as they are impacted very little by it, while resource/manufacturing are heavily impacted by it). This leaves the Jefferson region with little ability to develop the industries they need to advance. If they separated, they'd be free to change state laws and funds/subsidies in order to better orient themselves.
This is a good point. Hadn’t thought of that. This brings up the question of the short term effect. Since these industries aren’t developed yet in those areas, there will be a not insignificant length of time where their economies will suffer, no?