What state's borders should be changed?

[Skill and Chance]

Here is another re-stating proposal that I haven't seen discussed yet:



It shrinks the total number of states to 38 based on keeping metro areas together and preserving rural states where possible.  There is obviously no attempt to maintain population equality.  Seward probably only has 200K people in total.  Going west to east:

Kilauea: Safe D
Seward: Toss up? (amazingly, this would be a McCain 2008-Obama 2012 state)
Kodiak: Safe R (Anchorage has the population)
Cascade: Safe D (More D than WA or OR is currently)
El Dorado: Safe D
San Gabriel: Likely to Safe D
Bitteroot: Safe R
Bonneville: Beyond Safe R
Cochise: Toss Up? (This is where it gets interesting- some very conservative AZ territory is gone but so are some very liberal parts of NM and eastern AZ, and of course it takes on El Paso)
San Luis: Lean R (Colorado with 1-2 CDs of blood red Plains tacked on)
Bighorn: Safe R
Dakota: Safe R (wouldn't rule out D's occasionally snatching a senate seat, though)
Shawnee: Beyond Safe R
Alamo: Likely to Safe R (this is probably a tad bluer than real world Texas but El Paso cancels some of the lost conservative territory out)
Bayou: Safe R
Ozark: Safe R (rural enough to cancel out Memphis)
Osage: Toss Up? (another interesting one- St. Louis + the IL college towns might get the job done)
Prairie: Lean D (Likely D if it has Madison, but I think it excludes Dane)
Superior: Lean D?
Dearborn: Beyond Safe D
Wabash: Safe R
Cumberland: Safe R (aaaand.. Nashville has it even worse now)
Talladego: Safe R
Biscayne: Toss Up? (Is this more R or D than the real Florida- the $64,000 question)
Piedmont: Safe R (wouldn't stay that way long term, though)
Carolina: Likely R (also wouldn't stay that way long term)
Appalachia: Safe R if not named Manchin
Erie: Lean R?
Mackinac: Likely D (more D than the real Michigan)
Allegheny: Lean D (wow, Pittsburgh and Cleveland vs. coal country)
Albemarle: Lean D (can safely say it's to the left of real NC and it has Norfolk)
Chesapeake: Safe D (and getting moreso)
Susquehana: Likely D
Hudson: Beyond Safe D
Mowhawk: Toss Up
Plymouth: Beyond Safe D
Kennebec: Safe D (epic D gerrymander of NH going on here)

I can't say anything about the EC without knowing the populations, but if we split the toss up states evenly, the new senate would be:

35D-33R

[Skill and Chance]

Here is another idea: combining states.

This is a plan for 8 "Californias" letting CA stand alone and then combining other states along cultural lines until there are only 8 states in total with between 50-60 CDs worth of population each.  The downside is that a COI nightmare Louisiana Purchase state from the Mississippi to the Pacific NW is basically unavoidable:

New States:

Adams (NJ+NY+New England): 60 CDs, 62 EV, Safe D
Jefferson (NC+VA+DC+MD+PA+DE): 52 CDs, 54 EV, Lean D?
Pinckney (FL+GA+SC): 48 CDs, 50 EV, Likely R
Jackson (AR+LA+MS+AL+TN+KY+WV+OH): 55 CDs, 57 EV, Safe R
Lincoln (MN+WI+IL+IN+MI): 57 CDs, 59 EV, Likely D
Houston (TX+NM+AZ+OK): 51 CDs, 53 EV, Safe R (isn't this still Hispanic plurality?)
Sacagawea (AK+HI+WA+OR+ID+NV+UT+MT+WY+CO+ND+SD+NE+KS+MO+IA): 59 CDs, 61 EV, lean R?
Fremont (CA): 53 CDs, 55 EV, Safe D

Northern OH and Western PA probably hate me right now...

[Skill and Chance]

Here is another idea: combining states.

This is a plan for 8 "Californias" letting CA stand alone and then combining other states along cultural lines until there are only 8 states in total with between 50-60 CDs worth of population each.  The downside is that a COI nightmare Louisiana Purchase state from the Mississippi to the Pacific NW is basically unavoidable:

New States:

Adams (NJ+NY+New England): 60 CDs, 62 EV, Safe D
Jefferson (NC+VA+DC+MD+PA+DE): 52 CDs, 54 EV, Lean D?
Pinckney (FL+GA+SC): 48 CDs, 50 EV, Likely R
Jackson (AR+LA+MS+AL+TN+KY+WV+OH): 55 CDs, 57 EV, Safe R
Lincoln (MN+WI+IL+IN+MI): 57 CDs, 59 EV, Likely D
Houston (TX+NM+AZ+OK): 51 CDs, 53 EV, Safe R (isn't this still Hispanic plurality?)
Sacagawea (AK+HI+WA+OR+ID+NV+UT+MT+WY+CO+ND+SD+NE+KS+MO+IA): 59 CDs, 61 EV, lean R?
Fremont (CA): 53 CDs, 55 EV, Safe D

Northern OH and Western PA probably hate me right now...

I think a mountain west/plains split makes more sense here. (60, 57, 52, 59, 55, 51, 49, 53)

Your's is visually more attractive and probably has more swing states.  The northern plains and South Florida officially hate you now, though.  The only truly uncontroversial parts are CA and the Northeast because you are forced to draw an NY+New England state to maintain contiguity.  South Florida really can't win in any permutation, but your map gives them absolutely no hope.  I also like that I've managed to preserve 2 pretty rural states (Jackson and Sacagawea) given that 20ish% of the population is still rural.  Yours looks like:

NE state: Safe D
Rust Belt state: Toss Up
DC Area + Appalachian state: Toss Up? (will be D in the near future if not now)
Florida+Deep South: Safe R
TX+OK+LA+AR: Even Safer R (Is this state majority-minority?)
IL+WI+Northern Plains: Is it still Lean D?
Mountain West: Lean D? I think the small hard right states are swamped by the bigger D states?
CA: Safe D

Interestingly, it seems really hard to do this without 5 of the 8 states favoring Democrats.  It's the opposite effect that we see when we divide states and the Republicans gain a bigger and bigger EC advantage.  Could this be because each large state basically has to take in a huge city somewhere?

[Skill and Chance]

Here is another idea: combining states.

This is a plan for 8 "Californias" letting CA stand alone and then combining other states along cultural lines until there are only 8 states in total with between 50-60 CDs worth of population each.  The downside is that a COI nightmare Louisiana Purchase state from the Mississippi to the Pacific NW is basically unavoidable:

New States:

Adams (NJ+NY+New England): 60 CDs, 62 EV, Safe D
Jefferson (NC+VA+DC+MD+PA+DE): 52 CDs, 54 EV, Lean D?
Pinckney (FL+GA+SC): 48 CDs, 50 EV, Likely R
Jackson (AR+LA+MS+AL+TN+KY+WV+OH): 55 CDs, 57 EV, Safe R
Lincoln (MN+WI+IL+IN+MI): 57 CDs, 59 EV, Likely D
Houston (TX+NM+AZ+OK): 51 CDs, 53 EV, Safe R (isn't this still Hispanic plurality?)
Sacagawea (AK+HI+WA+OR+ID+NV+UT+MT+WY+CO+ND+SD+NE+KS+MO+IA): 59 CDs, 61 EV, lean R?
Fremont (CA): 53 CDs, 55 EV, Safe D

Northern OH and Western PA probably hate me right now...

I think a mountain west/plains split makes more sense here. (60, 57, 52, 59, 55, 51, 49, 53)

Your's is visually more attractive and probably has more swing states.  The northern plains and South Florida officially hate you now, though.  The only truly uncontroversial parts are CA and the Northeast because you are forced to draw an NY+New England state to maintain contiguity.  South Florida really can't win in any permutation, but your map gives them absolutely no hope.  I also like that I've managed to preserve 2 pretty rural states (Jackson and Sacagawea) given that 20ish% of the population is still rural.  Yours looks like:

NE state: Safe D
Rust Belt state: Toss Up
DC Area + Appalachian state: Toss Up? (will be D in the near future if not now)
Florida+Deep South: Safe R
TX+OK+LA+AR: Even Safer R (Is this state majority-minority?)
IL+WI+Northern Plains: Is it still Lean D?
Mountain West: Lean D? I think the small hard right states are swamped by the bigger D states?
CA: Safe D

Interestingly, it seems really hard to do this without 5 of the 8 states favoring Democrats.  It's the opposite effect that we see when we divide states and the Republicans gain a bigger and bigger EC advantage.  Could this be because each large state basically has to take in a huge city somewhere?

In 2012 Romney just carries the Mountain West so it's R+2. The Northern Plains goes almost exactly the same as Obama's winning national margin so call it D+0, a tossup. The Rust Belt also goes at less than a half percent above Obama's winning margin so that's also a D+0 tossup. And in the Cumberland Gap states Romney wins by 2,769 votes, so it would be R+2.

Over all the map is 2R, 2r, 2e, 2D and it actually leans R. If these states were the EC, Obama squeaks by 233 to 219.

Interesting.  So my Sacagawea would definitely be a Romney win then (IA+MO is right of AZ+NM).  And my Jefferson should be solidly Lean D if Obama because I am trading TN+WV+KY for PA.  IN clearly doesn't offset IL+WI+MI+MN so my map is also 4D-4R last year (although McCain probably lost Sacagawea in 2008).  With the sizes of my states, my EC is: 228 Obama/221 Romney

It would be pretty hard to avoid 228D/221R in a close election (although Bush might have won Jefferson in 2004).  Jefferson is now going to be more D than Sacagawea is R so my map probably is D-favoring (largely by virtue of the forced NYC+New England state being so populous).