Washington DC

Sep 2006
1,453
Korea (but I'm American!)
Washington DC has been the US Capital for about 200 years now. If say, the Capital had to be moved to a different place, where should it be moved to? Should it be an already existing city or should the US create a whole new city?
Also, what do you think about redistricting states? I mean, taking states like Rhode Island and Connecticut and putting them together to form one state, or perhaps breaking California in half to form two different states. If you could ignore any sort of domestic opposition, what changes would you make?
 

MrStoff1989

Historum Emeritas
Aug 2006
844
Tennessee
Well, to tell you honestly, I would leave the states the way they are. It shows America's uncanny ability to unite a 3,000 mile nation, regardless of land size, into a great republic. We did have another capitol though, In New York, around 1790. I never truely understood the concept of north and south dakota or north and south carolina, the one i did understand, was West Virginia.
 
Feb 2007
400
If the capital were to move I would move it to an already existing city. I mean why not? Why build another one? I could understand 200 yrs ago but today? It would have to be a city like omaha that has not reached its limits yet, and has still plenty of space to grow, and needs the economy.

I think a redistricting of states would be a good idea.

Delaware should be given to NJ.

Southeast NY State should combine with Connecticut.

Rhode Island should go w/Mass.

Vermont, and NH should combine with Maine.

Penn should be split down the middle

The south can stay the way it is.

ND, and SD should just combine with Minn

Iowa, Neb, kan should combine

ark and Missouri should combine

Ok and Tex should combine

Nev should split N and S and Cal should do same and Each N portion should combine, and each S portions should combine

Ariz, and NM should combine

Utah, Colorado, Wyo should combine

Montana should combine w/ rest of Northwest.
 
Feb 2007
538
Ohio
If there were to be a new US capital, it should be in Kansas somewhere. The suggestion to combine Colorado with Utah and Wyoming will never work, as it is enough to try to keep western Coloradans and eastern Coloradans from killing each other in a bloodbath of a civil war. :D The suggestion to combine Montana with the rest of the Northwest (Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, I presume?) will likewise never work, inasmuch as it is more than enough work to keep western Washingtonians and eastern Washingtonians from killing each other in a bloodbath of a civil war. :D
 
Last edited:
Feb 2007
538
Ohio
Washington DC has been the US Capital for about 200 years now. If say, the Capital had to be moved to a different place, where should it be moved to? Should it be an already existing city or should the US create a whole new city?
Also, what do you think about redistricting states? I mean, taking states like Rhode Island and Connecticut and putting them together to form one state, or perhaps breaking California in half to form two different states. If you could ignore any sort of domestic opposition, what changes would you make?
Upon what bases would you start chopping up and re-combining states? In the real world, how would you ever be able to ignore domestic opposition?
 
Sep 2006
1,453
Korea (but I'm American!)
Upon what bases would you start chopping up and re-combining states? In the real world, how would you ever be able to ignore domestic opposition?
We do it with voting districts in states, so this is just a grander scheme. The basic question is, do you think the US is fine the way it is or should it be rearranged in some way?
Take New York for example. The vast majority of the population is in NYC and the surrounding area. If your living in upstate New York, you know that NYC is where all the state governments attention is going to. The people living there are basically controlling who becomes Senators or Governor of your state. I know there have been people who want to seperate New York from New York City. In Korean, rather than having the very large cities as being a part of any province, they are called special administrative areas, whereby the city is it's own political entity.
I suppose Illinois has a similar situation with Chicago.
Look at California. It's got 55 electoral votes. Should the State be broken up so that the votes depend on more than winning LA, San Diego and San Franscisco?
 
Feb 2007
538
Ohio
We do it with voting districts in states, so this is just a grander scheme. The basic question is, do you think the US is fine the way it is or should it be rearranged in some way?
Take New York for example. The vast majority of the population is in NYC and the surrounding area. If your living in upstate New York, you know that NYC is where all the state governments attention is going to. The people living there are basically controlling who becomes Senators or Governor of your state. I know there have been people who want to seperate New York from New York City. In Korean, rather than having the very large cities as being a part of any province, they are called special administrative areas, whereby the city is it's own political entity.
I suppose Illinois has a similar situation with Chicago.
Look at California. It's got 55 electoral votes. Should the State be broken up so that the votes depend on more than winning LA, San Diego and San Franscisco?
Ah, I see what you're saying! Here in Ohio, we've got a similar problem with our state-wide politicians only ever listening to the three C's (Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati) and ignoring the rest of the state. On the other hand, what other considerations do you want to take into consideration? Should each new state, after the breaking up/re-combining, have exactly equal populations? If all states had equal populations, could we abolish the Senate? Or the House of Representatives? How many states should we have? Fifty? More? How many more?
 
Sep 2006
1,453
Korea (but I'm American!)
Well, we've gone through about a dozen different US flags, so why not another one? I'm sure people living in 1800 would be quite taken aback at seeing that we have 50 states. And we even admitted two states that aren't contiguous, plus considered adding Puerto Rico. Then there was that whole thing about combining with Canada if Quebec becomes its own country.
We can't possibly believe that the map of the US will never change. Every map changes. Will Cuba be a state in the future? Who knows? They all seem to want to come to the US, so why not just make it a state after the communists are long gone?
Basically I think that there are a few cities that need to become special districts. It's nothing new.ie "The District of Columbia." Why not?
New York, Chicago, and LA should be Districts and not part of any state.
No, all states should not have equal populations, but at the same time, can you imagine if in 2050, California had 120 electoral votes? That would be ridiculous. I think there is some sort of danger in having the 6th largest economy in the world under the power of 1 governor along with about 1/8 of the population. That's make the governor almost like another President. I think California should be cut between North and South and LA should be a special city.
Also. Out in the great plains we have a lot of states that have virtually no population. Should they really be getting 3 electoral votes and 2 senators each? North Dakota and South Dakota should be Dakota. There's no reason for them not to be. I can't see the legitamcy of any opposition to that. Likewise, Montana and Idaho could be put together with little fuss. Perhaps even with Wyoming. I can understand why Utah would stay seperate from everyone else. Nevada is almost all government land, so it can stay seperate. Oklahoma shouldn't be combined with Texas because Texas doesn't need to be any bigger than it is.
Just be prepared for some changes after I win the 2032 Presidential Election:eek: .
 
Jul 2006
613
Virginia
I would definitely split California in two (Divying the population 50/50 as nearly as possible) 55 electoral votes is just way too much for one state to have.