What would happen with California under this proposal? If I'm understanding correctly, it seems like it would be carved into a noncontiguous, massive expanse of relatively unpopulated regions. Florida also seems like it would be left in a bad situation. I think this plan would need some tweaks to make these edge cases work.
Perhaps I should have made it more clear in the article, but the map is a map of all MSAs. It is not a map of how the states would look if my proposal were implemented. Since MSAs are determined by county lines, they include alot of sparsely populated rural areas. Under my proposal, the new states would be about one-quarter of the geographical size.
Under my proposal, the following California metros would become their own states:
SF Bay Area
Los Angeles/Riverside
San Diego
Sacramento
At least 80% of the current California land area would remain in California and it would be contiguous. The big black area in inland southern California is mainly sparsely-populated deserts that would remain in California.
As for Florida, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami would all become separate states, but Jacksonville would not because it is not over 2 million people. All the new states would be much smaller than as represented on the map.
By the way, I am not trying to make state lines aesthetically pleasing. People live where they live.
I had a similar idea to be implemented in my present country of residence - Australia. The state borders all seem stupid since there designed for an agrarain age. Plus the amount of power rural voters have over federal politics is insane. 40% of Australians live in 2 cities and 80% live in a coastal city. As the mining wealth from coal dies out in the next ten years there will be a massive shift in political economy in Australia.
Yes, I think the general idea of entire metro areas becoming states/provinces/regions with a significant amount of autonomy over domestic policy works in many different types of nations.
I am skeptical but willing to try to learn more. I believe some level of partisan tension and competition is needed and valuable to bring the better ideas and policies to the fore. Hopefully this and related Substack efforts will bear fruit in that direction.
But until you can explain how this enhanced federalism can be brought to bear (or brought into existence) against the overweening federal state we have now -- and the (now rather) extraordinary Left - Right division we have right now (and from my view mostly Left, but not totally so) -- I have a sense of hope over experience.
I can think of a few problem areas in trying to reconcile the existing social and governmental obligations and practices between rural Redish and urban Blueish domains. With more time I might find a rather larger number. Maybe whatever ideas you have now or discover later about upward mobility will prove to be helpful in Promoting Progress, with or without this metro based federalism.
You may recall that was the impetus for me reading your Substack. I am still willing to learn.
I think that we are already seeing movement from the local level at shift state boundaries. Most counties in Oregon have voted in county referenda to join Idaho. The Idaho state legislature has already agreed, and it is pending a decision by the Oregon state legislature. They have an incentive to agree as it will make the state more Democratic. I am not predicting success, but it is a real possibility.
If this partisan divide keeps accelerating, I believe that there will be more and more grass-roots movements to split off Blue metros from the rest of the state. I believe all it will take is for one state to successfully do so, and then it will happen all across America. It will probably work out very different from my proposal, but I think something like might well happen.
And I plan to start posting on Upward Mobility within a few weeks.
That's a well thought out concept Michael. The idea of federalisation is really good,except for the people in smoke filled homes, whom would somewhat be more important. Improtant people become megalomaniacs and tend to start wars.
Billy Hicks ( aka Alex Jones)has been talking against Maga Cities and federalism as far as 15 years ago (That's when I stopped listening to fear porn)
But if trade was not affected, Maga Cities would be a good idea .
I believe that we'll see a nationwide skisim no matter what ,so how to avoid it and encourage progress? Certainly better minds would have to be in charge than now.
What would happen with California under this proposal? If I'm understanding correctly, it seems like it would be carved into a noncontiguous, massive expanse of relatively unpopulated regions. Florida also seems like it would be left in a bad situation. I think this plan would need some tweaks to make these edge cases work.
Thanks for the comment:
Perhaps I should have made it more clear in the article, but the map is a map of all MSAs. It is not a map of how the states would look if my proposal were implemented. Since MSAs are determined by county lines, they include alot of sparsely populated rural areas. Under my proposal, the new states would be about one-quarter of the geographical size.
Under my proposal, the following California metros would become their own states:
SF Bay Area
Los Angeles/Riverside
San Diego
Sacramento
At least 80% of the current California land area would remain in California and it would be contiguous. The big black area in inland southern California is mainly sparsely-populated deserts that would remain in California.
As for Florida, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami would all become separate states, but Jacksonville would not because it is not over 2 million people. All the new states would be much smaller than as represented on the map.
By the way, I am not trying to make state lines aesthetically pleasing. People live where they live.
OK, that makes sense. I had interpreted the map as if it had reflected your proposal.
Great. By the way, I just added a list of the new states at the end of the article in response to your comment.
I had a similar idea to be implemented in my present country of residence - Australia. The state borders all seem stupid since there designed for an agrarain age. Plus the amount of power rural voters have over federal politics is insane. 40% of Australians live in 2 cities and 80% live in a coastal city. As the mining wealth from coal dies out in the next ten years there will be a massive shift in political economy in Australia.
Yes, I think the general idea of entire metro areas becoming states/provinces/regions with a significant amount of autonomy over domestic policy works in many different types of nations.
I am skeptical but willing to try to learn more. I believe some level of partisan tension and competition is needed and valuable to bring the better ideas and policies to the fore. Hopefully this and related Substack efforts will bear fruit in that direction.
But until you can explain how this enhanced federalism can be brought to bear (or brought into existence) against the overweening federal state we have now -- and the (now rather) extraordinary Left - Right division we have right now (and from my view mostly Left, but not totally so) -- I have a sense of hope over experience.
I can think of a few problem areas in trying to reconcile the existing social and governmental obligations and practices between rural Redish and urban Blueish domains. With more time I might find a rather larger number. Maybe whatever ideas you have now or discover later about upward mobility will prove to be helpful in Promoting Progress, with or without this metro based federalism.
You may recall that was the impetus for me reading your Substack. I am still willing to learn.
I think that we are already seeing movement from the local level at shift state boundaries. Most counties in Oregon have voted in county referenda to join Idaho. The Idaho state legislature has already agreed, and it is pending a decision by the Oregon state legislature. They have an incentive to agree as it will make the state more Democratic. I am not predicting success, but it is a real possibility.
If this partisan divide keeps accelerating, I believe that there will be more and more grass-roots movements to split off Blue metros from the rest of the state. I believe all it will take is for one state to successfully do so, and then it will happen all across America. It will probably work out very different from my proposal, but I think something like might well happen.
And I plan to start posting on Upward Mobility within a few weeks.
That's a well thought out concept Michael. The idea of federalisation is really good,except for the people in smoke filled homes, whom would somewhat be more important. Improtant people become megalomaniacs and tend to start wars.
Billy Hicks ( aka Alex Jones)has been talking against Maga Cities and federalism as far as 15 years ago (That's when I stopped listening to fear porn)
But if trade was not affected, Maga Cities would be a good idea .
I believe that we'll see a nationwide skisim no matter what ,so how to avoid it and encourage progress? Certainly better minds would have to be in charge than now.