Timmy's States

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Thread for this map. Stay tuned!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

More names...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I will be providing research and data for this escapade as well (consider this a joint project in Tim's name )

Yep.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Per IRC-obtained advice and suggestions:
The unnamed green state in Western NC is Boone
The darker blue state in central IL is Lincoln.
The blue state in the Great Lakes area is Gitchigumi (per Snowguy716)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yeah, the Bay Area split really bugs me.

A good amount of these boundaries are exactly the way they are for no reason other than to things to look nice on paper.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This looks very nice!

A couple things really bother me though:

- Why split the Bay Area? Marin County at least definitely has more ties to San Francisco than to Southern Oregon. I think a Coast/Valley divide makes a lot more sense than a North/South divide in NorCal.

- Conversely, San Bernardino County should be either in the LA-based State or in the red one.

- Western Massachusetts wouldn't be very happy to share a State with Westchester County.

- What's Baltimore gotta do with suburban/rural Eastern PA?

- In some places you're creating severe population discrepancies. It's your choice if you want to avoid that or no, but personally I think it would be better to.

The reason Baltimore is in Susquehanna is because the DC metro is largely its own state. I wanted to have Delmarva as well so I had no choice other than to go north; giving it its own state seemed ludicrous to me. Another factor was that many rivers have states which center on them. The Susquehanna River starts in the Chesapeake Bay. I used rivers as guides.
Similarly, Adams takes in most of the Boston metro, so western MA had to go somewhere.
I did end up splitting many metro areas. That's because I drew this without looking at Census definitions or jimrtex's county clusters. When you draw states based on shape, communities of Interest get split.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You said the borders are fixed, but you haven't said what the rationale was for the divisions. If they are fixed there is presumably a reason they are that way. I'm hoping you'll share that reason.

I am not sure about them being outright fixed... These boundaries are just outright different. I did a quasi-blind map, this map is the end result.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'd definitely recommend you to rework some of these boundaries. What looks nice on a map isn't always what makes sense culturally or economically for an area, and I think maps get a lot better when you take that into account. There's a lot to like about your map, so I think it could become really neat with just a few tweaks.

Thanks. You were a vital inspiration for this, so I value your input. I won't tinker all that much with my current lines, but I will look at uniting some CoI that aren't united right now.
The Bay area split is not going to be touched, fyi. My partner already did data for Oso.  He would loath having to redo it.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Population balance will not in an of itself be reason to change boundaries. It wasn't in real life...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

We could also combine Yellowstone with Dakota, or Dakota with the unnamed brown state just north. That would allow for splitting Kennebec or adding a new state in the South, or splitting the Chicagoland state in two. That could solve our Western MA problem. Columbia County needs to stay in Hudson though.
As for the Bay Area, I would accept making Oso cover all counties actually along the Bay, and Santa Clara and Santa Cruz . Secoya could then envelope Oso. Whether we do this is your call LLR.
Combining Kootenai and Oregon would be fair. If we did that we could split the mega Ohio state in two. That state is pretty disjointed. The southern parts could be their own state, They don't have anything to do with the Great Lakes anyways.
We could also reconfigure the entire boundary of Oregon and Shoshone when all is said and done.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Perhaps you could make Puerto Rico a state?

We could also do that. I really like that.
Should we stick with 50 states or are you okay going over that?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Glad to know I was an inspiration.

I saw your entire thread, all 20-odd pages. I was inspired.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Perhaps you could make Puerto Rico a state?

We could also do that. I really like that.
Should we stick with 50 states or are you okay going over that?

50 is nice, because then we don't have to switch flags

Ok.
There will be a Puerto Rico. The only question is, which state does it eliminate?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Perhaps you could make Puerto Rico a state?

We could also do that. I really like that.
Should we stick with 50 states or are you okay going over that?

50 is nice, because then we don't have to switch flags

Not a problem.



51 Star Flag

51 Star Flag (continued)

That really shouldn't have been a consideration, but I thought also that he liked the number 50.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As a Western Mass native, I actually really like the concept of a Connecticut Valley-to-Hudson Valley state--perhaps with Springfield and Albany as joint capitals, if you wanted to go really outside the box--but I agree that Hudson as you have it extends too far south.

Hmm, so keep it the way it is and put Westchester, Rockland, and possibly Fairfield in New York?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As a Western Mass native, I actually really like the concept of a Connecticut Valley-to-Hudson Valley state--perhaps with Springfield and Albany as joint capitals, if you wanted to go really outside the box--but I agree that Hudson as you have it extends too far south.

Hmm, so keep it the way it is and put Westchester, Rockland, and possibly Fairfield in New York?

That'd be my vote, yeah.

With Fairfield? Gotcha.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As a Western Mass native, I actually really like the concept of a Connecticut Valley-to-Hudson Valley state--perhaps with Springfield and Albany as joint capitals, if you wanted to go really outside the box--but I agree that Hudson as you have it extends too far south.

Hmm, so keep it the way it is and put Westchester, Rockland, and possibly Fairfield in New York?

That'd be my vote, yeah.

With Fairfield? Gotcha.

Fairfield definitely belongs in New York.

Ok. Thanks for your input.
What do you think about Adams and Kennebec?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As a Western Mass native, I actually really like the concept of a Connecticut Valley-to-Hudson Valley state--perhaps with Springfield and Albany as joint capitals, if you wanted to go really outside the box--but I agree that Hudson as you have it extends too far south.

Hmm, so keep it the way it is and put Westchester, Rockland, and possibly Fairfield in New York?

That'd be my vote, yeah.

With Fairfield? Gotcha.

Fairfield definitely belongs in New York.

Ok. Thanks for your input.
What do you think about Adams and Kennebec?

Adams and Kennebec work very well as they are, actually.

Do you think Susquehanna extends too far east? Should Hudson pick up Pike County and Sussex County?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As a Western Mass native, I actually really like the concept of a Connecticut Valley-to-Hudson Valley state--perhaps with Springfield and Albany as joint capitals, if you wanted to go really outside the box--but I agree that Hudson as you have it extends too far south.

Hmm, so keep it the way it is and put Westchester, Rockland, and possibly Fairfield in New York?

That'd be my vote, yeah.

With Fairfield? Gotcha.

Fairfield definitely belongs in New York.

Ok. Thanks for your input.
What do you think about Adams and Kennebec?

Adams and Kennebec work very well as they are, actually.

Do you think Susquehanna extends too far east? Should Hudson pick up Pike County and Sussex County?

I think the Susquehanna-Hudson border is fine as it is.

Your proposals are to be adopted.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Again, I'd move Saratoga/Schenectady/Montgomery/Fulton to Hudson.

Again, adopted.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Again, I'd move Saratoga/Schenectady/Montgomery/Fulton to Hudson.

Again, adopted.

Sorry, not trying to be pissy; it's just that when I suggested this above I did it as an edit to a post that you'd already read and quoted. Not trying to come off as pompous or bossy.

You didn't come across as that. No apologies needed.
Do you suggest any more changes at all to the New England states here? Checking to be sure.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You have split Amarillo and Midland-Odessa. I'd extend Texas to include the Little Texas area of New Mexico. I'd also redeem Greer County to Texas.

Terrell belongs with the rest of the Trans-Pecos.

I'd move Madison, Brazos, Burleson, Fayette, Gonzales, DeWitt, Karnes, and Bee to Houston.

Would Texas border Mexico in this arrangement?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Again, I'd move Saratoga/Schenectady/Montgomery/Fulton to Hudson.

Again, adopted.

Sorry, not trying to be pissy; it's just that when I suggested this above I did it as an edit to a post that you'd already read and quoted. Not trying to come off as pompous or bossy.

You didn't come across as that. No apologies needed.
Do you suggest any more changes at all to the New England states here? Checking to be sure.

Oh, and possibly rename the state 'Taconic' because the Taconic Mountains are a more geographically central feature and the New Englander side of the state would be happier with that name (since they're not uniquely associated with either New York or New England).

Why the use of possibly?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Again, I'd move Saratoga/Schenectady/Montgomery/Fulton to Hudson.

Again, adopted.

Sorry, not trying to be pissy; it's just that when I suggested this above I did it as an edit to a post that you'd already read and quoted. Not trying to come off as pompous or bossy.

You didn't come across as that. No apologies needed.
Do you suggest any more changes at all to the New England states here? Checking to be sure.

Oh, and possibly rename the state 'Taconic' because the Taconic Mountains are a more geographically central feature and the New Englander side of the state would be happier with that name (since they're not uniquely associated with either New York or New England).

Why the use of possibly?

Mostly I'm unsure because the Taconics simply aren't as well-known a feature as the Hudson, so the name has less 'gravitas'.

So Kennebec is just as good a name as Taconic, because of the gap in name recognition?