What state's borders should be changed?

[jimrtex]

Incidentally, the North Carolina - South Carolina border is in the middle of being clarified.  Here's a story about it.  The full story has several other problems the clarification is causing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's the doctor's home.  The blue line is where South Carolina thought the border was, the orange line is where North Carolina thought the border was, and the yellow line is where the boundary commission has determined where the border is.



In other places the border is moving to put people who thought they were in South Carolina into North Carolina, including a convenience store that sells fireworks and beer that it won't be able to in North Carolina. (South Carolina has the most liberal fireworks laws in the US, and the store would be in a dry county in North Carolina.  The store is located on the border mainly to sell beer to thirsty North Carolinians and some 70% of its sales are in those two items that would be banned once the clarification is approved.

Does this have an effect on the Andrew Jackson birthplace?

[opebo]

No changes would really serve any purpose worth the trouble of doing it, but dividing a couple of the biggest states would be a good idea if it could lead to more Democratic senators/electoral votes.

[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...

[DINGO Joe]

Not one for dramatic remakes of borders, but I'd add the eastern WV panhandle to either VA or MD and move SW VA into WV.

[Indy Texas]

Incidentally, the North Carolina - South Carolina border is in the middle of being clarified.  Here's a story about it.  The full story has several other problems the clarification is causing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's the doctor's home.  The blue line is where South Carolina thought the border was, the orange line is where North Carolina thought the border was, and the yellow line is where the boundary commission has determined where the border is.



In other places the border is moving to put people who thought they were in South Carolina into North Carolina, including a convenience store that sells fireworks and beer that it won't be able to in North Carolina. (South Carolina has the most liberal fireworks laws in the US, and the store would be in a dry county in North Carolina.  The store is located on the border mainly to sell beer to thirsty North Carolinians and some 70% of its sales are in those two items that would be banned once the clarification is approved.

Does this have an effect on the Andrew Jackson birthplace?

Clearly all he has to do is start seeing patients in his swimming pool and everything checks out.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Does this have an effect on the Andrew Jackson birthplace?

Not that I'm aware of.  There are several different locations near the border that are claimed to be the Jackson birthplace, but I don't think any of them are so close to the border as to switch states.

[muon2]

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)

[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?

[TNF]

all of them (abolish the states)

[muon2]

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.

[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).

[jimrtex]

Or for electing Supreme Court Justices:

Jay: (48) ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, VT
Taft: (50) NJ, PA, DE, OH, WV
Marshall: (49) MD, VA, NC, SC, TN, DC
Black: (48) GA, AL, FL
Fuller: (47) KY, IN, IL, MI
Miller: (46) MO, AR, IA, WI, MN, KS, NE , ND, SD, OK
White: (46) LA, MS, TX
Rehnquist: (49) PR, NV, CO, MT, WA, ID, WY, UT, NM, AZ, AK, HI
Warren: (53) CA

Current Justices

Jay: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Marshall: Scalia, Roberts
Taft: Alito
Black: Thomas
Fuller: open
Miller: open
White: open
Rehnquist: open
Warren: Kennedy

Justices will be elected to 12-year terms by thirds.  All districts and all justices will be up for election in 2015.  After that first election, justices and districts will drawn to serve initial terms of 4, 8, and 12 years, with districts selected so that there will be one eastern, southern, and western district each election.