Fifty states with equal population

[Skill and Chance]

FL

1. North Florida (safe R)
2. South Florida (lean to likely D)
*not sure where Tampa and Orlando go here*

NY

1. Greater New York City (beyond safe D)
2. Upstate New York (tossup to lean D depending on the cutoff line)

This would probably help R's on balance in the electoral college and D's in the senate and maybe the house (because they would probably get to gerrymander South Texas, South Florida and Greater NYC).

The Tampa area would be split, Orlando would be in North FL.

As for NY, the cutoff line is basically just the Harlem River.  The Bronx would go in Upstate.

The problem is Republicans would never agree to that.  CA is going to split either 3D-1R or 2D-1R-1T (does Orange go with LA or San Diego?) and TX is 2R-1D.  FL would be 1R-1D (which is a net benefit for D's since FL is right of center) and the new NY would be 2D-0R.  So we are going from 2D-1R-1T to 7D-3R-1T (and the San Diego state would be trending hard D). 

R's would have to be really worried about TX long term to sign on to this.  You would probably have to throw in South Illinois and West Pennsylvania to get any R support at all...   

[Bacon King]

If we're talking about reforming state lines, North and South Dakota should really be merged; the only reason the Dakota Territory wasn't admitted as a single state was because the Republicans at the time wanted two extra Senators and the extra EV's.

[Skill and Chance]

If we're talking about reforming state lines, North and South Dakota should really be merged; the only reason the Dakota Territory wasn't admitted as a single state was because the Republicans at the time wanted two extra Senators and the extra EV's.

Agreed.  There is also a good argument for merging Idaho and Montana and having a single state of New England if we are going down this route...

[Benj]

FL

1. North Florida (safe R)
2. South Florida (lean to likely D)
*not sure where Tampa and Orlando go here*

NY

1. Greater New York City (beyond safe D)
2. Upstate New York (tossup to lean D depending on the cutoff line)

This would probably help R's on balance in the electoral college and D's in the senate and maybe the house (because they would probably get to gerrymander South Texas, South Florida and Greater NYC).

The Tampa area would be split, Orlando would be in North FL.

As for NY, the cutoff line is basically just the Harlem River.  The Bronx would go in Upstate.

The problem is Republicans would never agree to that.  CA is going to split either 3D-1R or 2D-1R-1T (does Orange go with LA or San Diego?) and TX is 2R-1D.  FL would be 1R-1D (which is a net benefit for D's since FL is right of center) and the new NY would be 2D-0R.  So we are going from 2D-1R-1T to 7D-3R-1T (and the San Diego state would be trending hard D). 

R's would have to be really worried about TX long term to sign on to this.  You would probably have to throw in South Illinois and West Pennsylvania to get any R support at all...   

Perhaps now is when it should be pointed out that a three-way split of Texas creating a state that is safe for the Democrats is all but impossible. Even drawing a pretty Democratic-favorable map, you're still going to end up with an El Paso-San Antonio-Austin-South Texas-Central Texas seat that's at most 51-52% Obama in 2008 or so and probably voted for Romney.

[Benj]

If we're talking about reforming state lines, North and South Dakota should really be merged; the only reason the Dakota Territory wasn't admitted as a single state was because the Republicans at the time wanted two extra Senators and the extra EV's.

Agreed.  There is also a good argument for merging Idaho and Montana and having a single state of New England if we are going down this route...

Single state of New England might be too aggressive, but definitely merging Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine; and Rhode Island with either Connecticut or Massachusetts; would be reasonable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here's my take at NY...






...and Florida.






I think preserving constituencies that make sense is more important than perfect population equality.

Do you know how D your Upper NY is?  That South FL has significantly more than half the state population and is probably only D+2-3, right?

I had a whole project (which I never finished... ) about redrawing US States. Here are the 2008 election results for all these States:

New York (NYC metro):

Barack Obama : 3,265,245 (68.20%) => 22 EVs
John McCain : 1,486,975 (31.06%)
Others : 35,712 (0.75%)

D+29.88

Adirondack (upstate NY):

Barack Obama : 1,539,700 (53.97%) => 12 EVs
John McCain : 1,265,796 (44.37%)
Others : 47,520 (1.67%)

D+2.34

North Florida:

John McCain : 1,949,292 (53.00%) => 12 EVs
Barack Obama : 1,689,042 (45.92%)
Others : 39,684 (1.08%)

R+14.34

South Florida:

Barack Obama : 2,593,325 (54.78%) => 17 EVs
John McCain : 2,096,927 (44.30%)
Others : 43,591 (0.92%)

D+3.22

Here you can find the whole map. 2000-census EVs.




2008 election results (those I've calculated so far).




Here's the thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102228.0

[traininthedistance]

If we're talking about reforming state lines, North and South Dakota should really be merged; the only reason the Dakota Territory wasn't admitted as a single state was because the Republicans at the time wanted two extra Senators and the extra EV's.

Agreed.  There is also a good argument for merging Idaho and Montana and having a single state of New England if we are going down this route...

Single state of New England might be too aggressive, but definitely merging Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine; and Rhode Island with either Connecticut or Massachusetts; would be reasonable.

A fairly conservative reform proposal:

When you look at California's counties, it has that straight line north of Bakersfield which runs across the state.  Make everything north of that one state, it would have ~22 districts and would be an upper bound on state size.  Then split SoCal into two: Los Angeles and areas to the north and west, Inland Empire/OC/San Diego.  The last one would tilt R and the other two would be Safe D.

Split New York at the Bronx/Westchester line.  Should be Safe D and Lean D.  You could potentially give Nassau and Suffolk to Upstate and make NYC a city-state, actually.

Texas and Florida thus only need to be split once.  East Texas would have more population and less area- basically DFW and Houston, West Texas most everything else.  Both would be Safe R for now, West Texas might be swingy someday.  (It would be better for the Dems to split Texas into a north and a south, but that probably makes less sense in general.)  Florida would be split just south of Tampa; South FL would be a little smaller in area and population.  Presumably they would be Likely D and Likely R.

That gives you room for five state mergers, which should all be used to subsume At-Large states into larger states.  Vermont/New Hampshire is one; Maryland/Delaware is two, the Dakotas are three, and Montana/Wyoming/Alaska can be four and five.  Or just accept that Alaska needs to be alone even if it's at-large, and make Montana/Wyoming/Idaho instead.

When Rhode Island drops down to at-large representation, throw it in with Connecticut and give Texas another split.  Splitting Texas in three should produce 2 Safe R (DFW/Panhandle, Houston etc.) and 1 Lean D (Austin/San Antonio/Rio Grande/El Paso), which almost makes up for the loss of RI.

[Skill and Chance]

If we're talking about reforming state lines, North and South Dakota should really be merged; the only reason the Dakota Territory wasn't admitted as a single state was because the Republicans at the time wanted two extra Senators and the extra EV's.

Agreed.  There is also a good argument for merging Idaho and Montana and having a single state of New England if we are going down this route...

Single state of New England might be too aggressive, but definitely merging Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine; and Rhode Island with either Connecticut or Massachusetts; would be reasonable.

A fairly conservative reform proposal:

When you look at California's counties, it has that straight line north of Bakersfield which runs across the state.  Make everything north of that one state, it would have ~22 districts and would be an upper bound on state size.  Then split SoCal into two: Los Angeles and areas to the north and west, Inland Empire/OC/San Diego.  The last one would tilt R and the other two would be Safe D.

Split New York at the Bronx/Westchester line.  Should be Safe D and Lean D.  You could potentially give Nassau and Suffolk to Upstate and make NYC a city-state, actually.

Texas and Florida thus only need to be split once.  East Texas would have more population and less area- basically DFW and Houston, West Texas most everything else.  Both would be Safe R for now, West Texas might be swingy someday.  (It would be better for the Dems to split Texas into a north and a south, but that probably makes less sense in general.)  Florida would be split just south of Tampa; South FL would be a little smaller in area and population.  Presumably they would be Likely D and Likely R.

That gives you room for five state mergers, which should all be used to subsume At-Large states into larger states.  Vermont/New Hampshire is one; Maryland/Delaware is two, the Dakotas are three, and Montana/Wyoming/Alaska can be four and five.  Or just accept that Alaska needs to be alone even if it's at-large, and make Montana/Wyoming/Idaho instead.

When Rhode Island drops down to at-large representation, throw it in with Connecticut and give Texas another split.  Splitting Texas in three should produce 2 Safe R (DFW/Panhandle, Houston etc.) and 1 Lean D (Austin/San Antonio/Rio Grande/El Paso), which almost makes up for the loss of RI.

I would just have three rules:

1. When a state has at least 20 CDs, a non-partisan commission is convened to divide it into two smaller states, and the population ratio between the two has to be inside 2:1. 

2. When a state only has the population for a single CD, it will be joined to the smallest neighboring state.

3. Any non-contiguous states are exempt from #2 to preserve a right to local government. 

How does that sound?

[jimrtex]

If we're talking about reforming state lines, North and South Dakota should really be merged; the only reason the Dakota Territory wasn't admitted as a single state was because the Republicans at the time wanted two extra Senators and the extra EV's.

Agreed.  There is also a good argument for merging Idaho and Montana and having a single state of New England if we are going down this route...

Single state of New England might be too aggressive, but definitely merging Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine; and Rhode Island with either Connecticut or Massachusetts; would be reasonable.

Start with this map, and define the specified number of states in each region, that have between 0.5 and 1.5 of the ideal population.  Existing state lines need not be followed.

Northeast (7 states):

North New England: ME, NH, VT 0.531 of ideal (capital Dixville Notch)
Massachusetts 1.061
South New England: CT, RI 0.750 (capital New London or Norwich)  Connecticut qualifies to remain separate, so portions of RI could join Massachusetts.
New Jersey 1.424 so could remain whole.
Long and Staten Islands (capital Brooklyn)
Hudson Valley (capital Armonk) Manhattan, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland
Upstate New York (capital Syracuse)

Areas along the west bank of the Hudson might want to join the Hudson Valley, as well as counties further upstream.

Pennsylvania (2 states)

Philadephia is in East Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh in West Pennsylvania.

Ohio-Indiana (3 states)

Indiana can remain a State, so Cincinnati in South Ohio and Cleveland in North Ohio.  Columbus would be like Brussels with a boundary along the 50 yard line at Buckeye Stadium, and the tuba player alternating between the two States.

Michigan-Wisconsin-Minnesota-Iowa (4 states)

Michigan is too large (1.603), and Iowa (0.494) too small to retain the existing states.  I don't know whether Northlands (just north of Saginaw to Fargo) including Appleton, Oshkosh, Green Bay, Superior, and Duluth has enough population (3.1 million).  This would permit a merger of the remainder of Minnesota with Iowa.

Alternatively, UP Michigan gets added to Wisconsin, and Iowa persuades some Minnesotans to become Iowans.

Illinois (2 states)

Chicagoland (7 counties, 1.35 of ideal, capital West Chicago)
Illinois (0.65, capital Springfield)

Missouri (1 state) 0.971 of ideal.

North Carolina-Virginia-Maryland-Delaware (4 states).

North Carolina is over 1.5 times the ideal, while Maryland-Delaware is just over (1.082).  So there would be 3 states formed from Virginia and North Carolina.

One possible split would be three strips: Tidewater, Piedmont, and Mountains, but it might be difficult to get enough people in Mountains without going a lot further east than Roanoke, Asheville, and the Shenandoah.

So maybe Tidewater (extending south from the Chesapeake Bay to Wilmington, and then Central Virginia, and West North Carolina.

Kentucky-West Virginia (1 state)

Kentucky (0.704) has enough population to remain independent, so West Virginia could go elsewhere.

Tennessee (1.031) remains independent.

Georgia-South Carolina-Alabama (3 states)

South Carolina (0.751) and Alabama (0.777) have enough to remain independent, but Georgia 1.573 has too many.   So perhaps Savannah and Augusta to South Carolina, and Columbus to Alabama.

Florida (3 states)

North Florida, including Jacksonville and Orlando.
Gulf Florida, including Tampa, St.Petersburg, and Sarasota
Gold Coast, including Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and (West) Palm Beach.

Mississippi-Arkansas (1 state)

Arkansas (0.473) and Mississippi (0.482) are too small to remain independent.  Capital, Greenville.

Texas-Louisiana-Oklahoma-Kansas (6 states).

Louisiana (0.736) is large enough to remain independent, but Kansas (0.436) is not.  Oklahoma+Kansas is about the right size (1.072) for a state, capital in Tulsa, Wichita, Guthrie, or Baxter Springs.

Divide Texas into 4 states:

South Texas (capital Houston)
North Texas (capital Fort Worth or Plano)
Central Texas (capital San Antonio, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Temple, or Waco)
Rio Grande (capital Del Rio)

Nebraska-South Dakota-North Dakota-Wyoming-Idaho-Montana (1 state)

Capital of Upper Louisiana is Rapid City, Sturgis, or Deadwood.

Arizona (1.037) remains independent.

Colorado-New Mexico-Utah-Nevada (2 states)

Utah-Nevada (0.836) becomes state of Deseret, with capital alternating between Provo and Las Vegas.

Colorado-New Mexico (1.150) becomes Colorado.

Washington-Oregon-Hawaii-Alaska (two states)

Washington (1.092) can remain independent.

Oregon-Hawaii-Alaska form the other state (0.960)

California (6 states)

Northern California
Bay Area
Central California
Los Angeles
Coastal Southern California
Desert Southern California

[muon2]

I decided to go to the county level and start with the west coast based on the recent Pacifica thread. I use the name Ecotopia to describe these states based on Garreau's Nine Nations of North America. For state names I use names of native origin associated with places in the area (Hi Lewis ) The three states, 2010 populations, and fractions of 1/50th of the US population are:

Salish - 4.7 M; 0.77% (includes AK panhandle)
Willamette - 3.8 M; 0.62%
Sonoma - 9.7 M; 1.57% (includes HI)

[Kitteh]

This guy's webpage is really awesome. Lots of other cool stuff.

[old timey villain]

The state of Atlanta is interesting. Obama's share of the two party vote was 48.8% without any kind of GOTV efforts. If this map existed in real life I can see Republicans and Democrats heavily contesting this state.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Here's my take at NY...






...and Florida.






I think preserving constituencies that make sense is more important than perfect population equality.

Do you know how D your Upper NY is?  That South FL has significantly more than half the state population and is probably only D+2-3, right?

I had a whole project (which I never finished... ) about redrawing US States. Here are the 2008 election results for all these States:

New York (NYC metro):

Barack Obama : 3,265,245 (68.20%) => 22 EVs
John McCain : 1,486,975 (31.06%)
Others : 35,712 (0.75%)

D+29.88

Adirondack (upstate NY):

Barack Obama : 1,539,700 (53.97%) => 12 EVs
John McCain : 1,265,796 (44.37%)
Others : 47,520 (1.67%)

D+2.34

North Florida:

John McCain : 1,949,292 (53.00%) => 12 EVs
Barack Obama : 1,689,042 (45.92%)
Others : 39,684 (1.08%)

R+14.34

South Florida:

Barack Obama : 2,593,325 (54.78%) => 17 EVs
John McCain : 2,096,927 (44.30%)
Others : 43,591 (0.92%)

D+3.22

Here you can find the whole map. 2000-census EVs.




2008 election results (those I've calculated so far).




Here's the thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102228.0

Finish that, damn it!

[Antonio the Sixth]

I promised to myself I would! Probably not before this summer, though...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here's Nate's take about all this. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/did-democrats-get-lucky-in-the-electoral-college/

Very interesting read.