<p>…to end the sectarian violence…in the United States. After all, many observers have concluded that the USA has too many factions to be governed effectively. Frankly, it seems like every single issue seems to be split into 51% one way and 49% the other with the two sides never being able to come up with any compromises.</p>
<p>Here are the six nations, I propose, New England, Mid-Atlantic, the South, the Great Lake States, Midwest & Rockies, the Pacific Coast. These nations would be more homogenious politically and culturally than exists now. </p>
<p>I furhter propose that each of the new nations build walls around their borders to keep illegal immigrants from the other five out.</p>
<p>I doubt think this would weaken us defensively. Ideally, all six would enter into a common defense treaty (“the Mid-North America Treaty Organization” or MINATO). Even if that didn’t work, it’s likley that between all of us, we’d have the six largest armies in the world anyway.</p>
<p>Actually, I prefer 5,000 little cantons, each of which could choose to enter into defense arrangements with each other or not, as they please. If Uganda invades Piscataway, the latter may call upon others for help. So may Uganda.</p>
<p>I really think the Iraqis should decide. It’s their country. They had the elections they wanted, they have to develop a solution that works for them. They’ve had so many years under tyranny, they don’t know what they want and it’s going to take time.</p>
<p>Consider that the American Revolution lasted for years, was bloody and frequently between neighbors on local matters, and then we still had to endure a hideous War Between the States.</p>
<p>Back off - let them figure it out. Hell, we’re STILL in Germany! Why?</p>
<p>The socialist republic of Madison would love to be on its own provided of course the University and all the research institutes kept on getting all those Federal dollars.</p>
<p>You’re obviously from the North. No self respecting southerner, and especially a Texan, would ever agree to such a setup. </p>
<p>First, Texas would insist on going its own way. It already does for many things like electrical power and capital punishment.</p>
<p>Second, there’s no way the “real” south would allow south Florida to join them. So carve off Florida just north of West Palm Beach as its own place.</p>
<p>Now, talk about other problems! Midwest and rockies? You gotta be kidding. New England? NH and MA in the same bed? No way. In fact, NH is more likely to hook up with Texas than MA. After all, both NH and Texas pride themselves on low taxes (except property taxes and Texas sales tax. Oh well, they still hold the ideal.), low governmental regulation and so forth.</p>
<p>Nah, we already have a ready made solution: Just split up the nation into the individual states. A few will partition further, like California into northern and southern. That’s long overdue anyway (unless CA fissures further into north coastal, south coastal, central valley, redwood land and National Parks. The latter would include the Owens valley, with Bishop as the capital.)</p>
<p>Actually Texas is one of the few states who COULD successfully go their own way. After all, we have a tax base and GDP equivalent approximately to that of Australia. We have the industry, ports, plant to operate independently…and Lord knows we can raise an Army. BUT, Texans are also fiercely loyal patriots; so despite the very vocal Texas Secession movement, I’m afraid you are stuck with us.</p>
<p>There has to be some semblence of contiguity (is that a word?). It’s not a perfect split.</p>
<ol>
<li>Most states couldn’t go it alone. TX could, so could CA.</li>
<li>I’d like to see more elections go for margins better than 51-49 and 52-48. I thought to lampoon the Iraq situaton a little.<br></li>
<li>I thought about the splits when I was researching which states had high or low teen pregnancy rates and high and low abortion rates (given that there is a pregnancy) as some sort of indication of culural differences. I was struck by the regional differences: South (high pregnancy, low abortion, but FL is an exception), Mid-Atlantic and Pacific Coast (almost as high pregnancy and the highest abortion rates). New England (low pregnancy and high abortion rates) and the Plain States-Rockies (low pregnancy and low abortion).<br></li>
</ol>
<p>The Great Lake States are in the middle of the stats and you can’ really have a country seperated by an the entire width of the continent, so we need to break up the Mid-Atlantic and the Pacific Coast.</p>
<p>Interesting idea. I’ve been in favor of redistricting the states for a while – I wonder if this might be a good interim step? There is no excuse for having Wyoming (like 400,000 people) and California (35 million?) both have the same political status. So, since there are around 300 million USAians now, it’s time to redistrict. How about a nice round 50 states with about 6 million people each? I haven’t worked out all the details, but:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Let’s face it, British Columbia is just too cool to be part of Canada. It has nothing really in common with the rest of the country, and it has neat scenery and trees just like the rest of the Pacific Northwest. So, the first thing we’ll do is annex BC and combine it into Alaska. The capital will move to Vancouver.</p></li>
<li><p>Western Washington and northwestern Oregon will merge.</p></li>
<li><p>Washington and Oregon east of the Cascades will merge with Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to form a state.</p></li>
<li><p>The northernmost part of California will merge with southwest Oregon. The line will be set in California west of the Cascades/Sierras and down to some point in California where the population will be about six million. This is probably somewhere like Napa or Marin.</p></li>
<li><p>The Bay area will be a state.</p></li>
<li><p>The California Central Valley west of the Sierras will be a state – maybe from Chico down to the Tehachapis. Something like that.</p></li>
<li><p>Orange County and San Diego become a state – maybe with the Inland Empire.</p></li>
<li><p>Here’s the cool part – Los Angeles County becomes two states.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I will leave the rest of the country as an exercise for the student.</p>
<p>NMD, there is no way that California will get partioned into North/South. Bakersfield is the sticking point. The South insists that it’s part of the North, the North insists that it’s part of the South.</p>
<p>But if it happened, we get the coast up past Cambria and Hearst Castle.</p>
<p>Here’s a suggestion: Three states. Valley is one. North CA and half the Sierra Nevada (Let’s say Yosemite north) is another. Southern CA, south sierras and Owens valley is another. That way, SoCal gets an OK ski area. Oh yea, if your oil tax referendum passes, there may be renewed interest in Bakersfield.</p>
<p>Now, let’s go back east and extend Rick Tyler’s ideas. Alberta can’t stand the rest of Canada, and would fit well with its southern neighbors. It’s 3 million, together with Montana and a few others can be one.</p>
<p>Waaay east, the maritime provinces have been salivating at the chance to join the US for years, ever since Quebec kicked out all the english speakers (not kidding here). They fit well with Maine, NH etc. </p>
<p>Ontario? dunno. they talk funny up there (“nooo”) and have the great lakes barrier anyway. Let them continue to fight with Quebec.</p>
<p>No one’s addressing the real issue here - how would financial aid work in these new republics? Would ‘internationals’ lose out? Would we lose the ability to understand other regional dialects if we partition ourselves off? What new academic departments would spring up as a result - Texan Studies, Northern New England Agriculture?</p>
Hell, we’re STILL in Germany! Why?</p>
After all, we have a tax base and GDP equivalent approximately to that of Australia. We have the industry, ports, plant to operate independently…and Lord knows we can raise an Army. BUT, Texans are also fiercely loyal patriots; so despite the very vocal Texas Secession movement, I’m afraid you are stuck with us.</p>