34 NEW STATES: Why Every Major U.S. City Should Be Its Own State, But Never Will Be
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- Listen to the companion podcast episode here: linktr.ee/geographyiseverything
💬 Instagram: / geographybygeoff
💬 Threads: www.threads.net/@geographybyg...
🌎 Podcast: www.spreaker.com/show/geograp...
🌳 Linktree for everything: linktr.ee/geographybygeoff
Hawaii was the last state to be admitted to the Union, all the way back in 1959. But since then the country has grown by more than 150 million Americans, the vast majority of which have migrated to the major cities of the country. Because of this, I frequently get comments that suggest that this city or that city should be broken away from its current state and/or made into its own state altogether. So I opted to make every major city with more than 2 million people in its metro area, it's own full state. Here's why it actually makes a bit of sense, but also why it'll absolutely never happen.
Stock footage is acquired from www.storyblocks.com.
Animation support provided by DH Designs (needahittman.com) - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
You could argue that Rhode Island is the one city-state in the US, the entire state (and a little of MA, but we’ll ignore that) is considered the Providence metro and Prov very clearly dominates the state economy. You can also travel through the entire state in under an hour
Agreed
Rhode Islanders DO NOT consider the rest of the state to be a suburb of Providence.
@@turdferguson3475 i mean, i’m from Rhode Island myself,, but i’m just going by what the interwebs considers the metro area
Where are you from RI? because Their a massive difference between Prov and Cranston(Population)@@turdferguson3475
@turdferguson3475 exactly living in providence but golfing in foster two totally different types of places In a very small geographical area.
I grew up in New York City, and I've always thought that the 5 boroughs of New York City along with Long Island and Westchester County should be their own state because of the cultural and political differences from the rest of New York state.
Not necessarily. I grew up in Suffolk county and it’s usually red and conservative out here. The rest of the area yes, even though Nassau is even starting to go red again. People are tired
Yeess
It is also a perfect demonstration why these places should not be states.
@@biggmike1293 Staten Island is like that too.
@@sapinva majority should win.
Having lived in northern NJ and upstate NY, i think your idea makes lots of sense. Downstate NY has far more in common with NJ, CT, and surroundings than it does with upstate NY. It sways every NY election. Upstate would be very “red” with the exception of a few old Rust Belt cities. I know politicians would rather be downstate than in Albany (“Smallbany”).
upstate would be a swing state
As long as upstate keeps Buffalo, it will be a swing state ala Pennsylvania.
The entire country outside of cities is basically red.. what's a Democrats are trying to do right now is a disgrace
@@jonathanbowers8964I agree. I’m from the lower Hudson valley and we’re purple. Voting for both Trump and Biden in 16’ & 20’ all local elections swing red aside one popular democratic senator. Further you go up the more solid red it gets. But I now go to school in Buffalo and this place is insanely blue by comparison.
I just think it would be a bit big
My policy professor this quarter at UW told us that back when he was in our master's program, there would be at least one paper every year in each section about legalizing weed and the professors would make fun of the students openly, saying it could never happen. He graduated five years before recreational became the law.
Never say never, especially not in policy spaces.
That's way different than splitting up a state which requires both sides to agree before congress would then have to approve it.
Was your professor referring to legalization on a federal level?
@@viggler no, the school is a top ranked program but policy schools primarily are designed for state and local government training. The students back then were discussing state-level work and getting laughed out, within five years of what they recommended coming to fruition.
@@benjaminsteele13 kinda surprised the prof would say it would never happen in 2007 wa unlikely maybe but never gonna happen just kinda seems like an old person stuck in there ways that's being said the hippies there were talking about it since the 60s so he might have just seen it as a pipe dream
There would not be 168 senators, but only 166 senators. You added 34 new states, but lost NJ. So the net gain would be 33 states (or 66 senators).
I think it would have been 35 new states minus New Jersey, for a net total of 34. I’m not sure though because he kept saying 34 new states and 84 states total.
33 is such a great number 😂
how would adding more politicians that can be paid off: help the corruption?
Wouldn't Alaska still be the largest original state (because it remains untouched, no breaking away points)?
I think he meant largest population after the break up
He was sorting them by population, not size.
Hawaii and alaska are left out of a lot of things.
Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Sitka
It's by population. Texas alone has 5 cities with larger populations than Alaska. Although this video lumped Dallas and Fort Worth together because they're one metroplex.
Alaska is large, but mostly uninhabited.
South Korea has city-states, called Province-level Cities. After a metro area gets to 1 million people, it can apply to become a Metropolitan City, and is treated like the other provinces. Today there are 8 Province-level Cities, including Seoul and 6 Metropolitan Cities, plus Sejong, a government city.
That’s a lot of work you did for this episode. Fascinating thought exercise. Thanks for making something a little different!
What if only the big 3, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles become states?
@Geoff please do this video this is actually realistic to happen within a few decades.
@@kingjt1086agreed.
@GeogrphybyGeoff please make this video.
Anyone else agree?.
Agreed this is more of a likely scenario.
@@classic.cameras
and would be a video his audience wants cause getting rid of only these 3 would change politics on the Federal level to majority republican.
This change would allow us a fighting chance in congress and senate at Changing the polices in all republican states and most swing states, colleges, and urban area's legally.
@@kingjt1086 Jesus, are you people for real this delusional? No, it’s not realistic. It’s a fun thought experiment but holy hell y’all are batshit
your videos are really great, and so is your work. they provide very interesting content! i wish you good luck on this journey and thank you for the amazing videos!
A fascinating scenario. I appreciate the effort and detail you cover in your videos.
Rockingham and Hillsborough counties in NH would go to war to *not* become a part of Boston.
So would new Bedford & Fall River
NH can keep them😂😂
@bretsk2500 I was thinking this exact thing. I like visiting Boston, but I do NOT want to become part of it. I'm good living over the border.
The political consequences depend on if you lump the suburbs into these new states. For example most of the political power of Detroit comes from the metro area not the city itself. If you leave the suburbs not much would change.
Fun thought experiment. Great graphics. Love your videos
Hi, really enjoy your channel !
This episode is Brilliant.... the amount of work that went into this was truly epic.
You rock Geoff😊
loved the video. The same movement as "Greater Idaho" but from the polar oposite side. Mostly the powerfull citys due not feel persucuted by the rural counties and so have no movement to break away. Would love to see a video about what would happen, good & bad, if rural counties that feel they have no representaion could vote to join a more rural adjoining state and the law was such that they did not need the vote of their states legislatures or of the federal goverment. I think the changes would be fasinating and very different for differnent areas of the country.
This would be beneficial for Missouri, where the state government is essentially at war with Kansas City and St. Louis.
Really?? I’ve never heard of that before
Oh yeah. The state government is solidly red and works for rural interests. But KC/STL/Columbia/Jeff City are solidly blue. But the state government is so conservative that it feels like it doesn't represent the will of the average city/suburbanite as it does the racist/backwards hillbilies.@@mitchellty
Awesome video! Great graphics!
Probably your best video
Thanks
I had this idea some years ago after seeing voting patterns by county rather than state. It would make a great deal of sense since looking at the county maps the cities were one color while the rest of the state were the other. It comes down to the two cultures and the rules people wish to live under (whether it is a real difference or not - another much longer discussion). Would be interesting to try.
It would only make sense for those who ended up in power. More likely, it would only start a war leading to the breakup of the US.
It would provide a platform to give 3rd parties an actual chance to win elections and have a voice. Right now all cities nationwide have to be as lockstep as possible with eachother for simple survival, but it feels like trying to cram a size 14 foot into a size 7 shoe.
This is fascinating
Hmm interesting angle. Thanks, for the video. 👍
I'm about to watch for the first time. But my first thought is knowing here in Eastern Washington, we'd have to pay 33% higher taxes to cover what we'd lose from Seattle and King County. I'm interested to see what this video is getting at.
At least you're smart enough to realize. The politicians who haven't decided to split the state despite stoking the divisiveness probably do too, but as long as they get paid, who cares if everybody hates each other, right?
This video captured a significant part of my brain. 😂 Thank you! I think about this far too often.
Very interesting vid! "I'm from Jersey" and just want to say you are spot on splitting NJ between "the city" and Philly. We've always been pulled in one direction or the other, yet weirdly unified in that. If put to a referendum, I think everyone would agree it made perfect sense and yet not actually want to do it.
I don't think this would shift the country one way or the other politically. Yes, city states would lean heavily left, but many of the rural states would lean right, including Northern California. It would really help the cities themselves to be able to raise financing independently of the surrounding state. Cities could concentrate on their own needs and services
Just think. The 35 million people in rural America would always have 100 out of the 168 Senate seats. The other 300 million people would only have 68. Kinda like now.
@bigmonmagoomba9634 It's messed up but really what can you do?
The whole point of this whole conversation is to show that states shouldn't be ruled by a single city. The city has its own needs, everyone else has their own needs.
But how can you possibly apply this on a country scale? If we went by popular vote only cities would matter and everyone else be damned.
Should we break up the entire United States of America so each new nation can better address their needs? If we just go by popular vote then a MAJOR minority of people will have no say in anything.
It's ridiculous being a two party state. A nation with more parties could probably he better.
@@baronvonjo1929 I mean there are plenty of groups or identities that have this apply "go by popular vote then a MAJOR minority of people will have no say in anything". I'm not saying you are one of these people, but I do find it funny that so many people who complain about a silent majority, the will of the voters, and courts protecting minority rights are also the ones that use this argument for this specific group of people (rural people). There are plenty of similarly sized "minorities" and I also don't know if the size of the identity/group makes it more deserving of special rights or not. This says nothing of the fact that people living in rural or urban areas might not identify with said politics of the area nor are people themselves monolithic.
If anything, I feel like the solution is to make rural voters protected under the Voting Rights Act. That way they have the same rights as other minorities, no more, no less. Otherwise it seems like some for me and none for thee.
Separately I agree that having a proportional, multi-party system would probably be better.
@@bigmonmagoomba9634 I'm fine with that lol
That's awesome thinking here! A parliamentary system with a larger number of parties would necessitate coalition building and moderate the extremes in the legislative process. So yes the cities over 2 million (NYC, LA, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, Phoenix, etc.) would go far left while the primarily rural states (now eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, eastern California, central NY state, rural Ohio, rest of non-ATL Georgia, all of Mississippi, etc.) would become conservative hotbeds. Thing is some states would be more moderate or middle of the road being that still would have fairly large cities in sufficient numbers like NC (Raleigh, Greensboro, Durham, High Point, Wilmington, Winston-Salem, etc.) and even my home state of Virginia (Richmond, Lynchburg, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Roanoke, Chesapeake, etc.). They still would, of course, be more conservative, but they still would have to work together and with a parliamentary system and not a two-party winner-take-all then the system would be extremely moderating. If only the idea and sense of being "American" were such a strong, resilient crucible to sustain a sense of nation through such a pupae metamorphosis that the process didn't completely destroy what we have as it's reorganized to create a "more perfect union", as some would attempt to gainsay advantages to the complete detriment of successful self-governance... What a fun mental floss set of moments...
On the positive side, I think one of the great strengths of the USA is that it is decentralized. Most other countries have all their political corporate power concentrated in one city--London, Paris, Moscow, Tokyo, Mexico City, Buenos Aires--with very little input from the other regions. The USA has several corporate, cultural, and political capitals (Texas itself has 2 or more) that cause some tension but also aid in stability. There isn't just on elite deciding everything for everyone, and you can move to somewhere that more fits your outlook...Also, in our current system, the rural and resource-producing areas have more political power proportional to their importance to the economy, and that's a good thing, even when I don't agree with everything coming out of Red state politics.
There isn't just one elite deciding everything for everyone? Literally the two parties' headquarters in the suburbs of DC make every choice and hand them down as mandates to the state and local parties, who don't fund your campaign if you're not on board. Imagine how you'd get funding as a pro choice Republican.
@@doomsdayrabbit4398 it’s not all top down in politics. It’s a mixture. There are a lot of pro choice republicans in blue states and pro life democrats in red states that are still funded by their parties. Same with gun control and other similar issues. Often times ideas make it to the platform from a mixture of successful top down ideas already put in place somewhere, original to candidate ideas put in place at a state level, ideas pushed up from college groups, and ideas inferred from voters by interest groups.
@@doomsdayrabbit4398 , are you saying states like Texas and California have no power in the US?
@@megakevin49 Unless the politicians from them are buddies with the powers that be in DC, no.
84 states?!?! Won't somebody please, think of the Star Spangled Banner? Betsy Ross is gonna go nuts!
Right. Because fundamental question of political fairness should be decided based on how many stars you can cram onto a flag. Got it.
@@Dr.Schlitz Hey, I don't make the rules.
I can’t help laughing! This is a great joke that should not be taken seriously.
I love how that's actually legitimately used as an excuse against granting statehood to the six territories there are today.
Once we have enough states we could expand the blue area of the flag downwards to give ourselves more room for stars.
You should make more videos like this one looking into more natural subdivisions of North America! Of cause, as you said, it is impossible to do anything with statehood or any border changes with the current political climate, but it is interesting to imagine optional states/countries.
I have sometimes thought that USA and Canada should have been divided differently. Here is my suggestion to how to mix up and divide USA and Canada in four similar size countries based on current state borders, geographic areas, and cultural divisions:
Atlantic-Arctic: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Brunswick, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, population 101 mill, area 6.4 mill.sq.km.
Midwest-Prairies: Alberta, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Manitoba, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Saskatchewan, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Wyoming, population 88 mill, area 4.9 mill.sq.km.
Pacific-Mountain: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, British Columbia, California, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Yukon, population 79 mill, area 5 mill.sq.km.
South-Gulf: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, US Virgin Islands, population 103 mill, area 1.8 mill.sq.km.
great video! I bet people will still comment and complain about cities and states though 😅
It won't work well. I think the 2nd largest city that each metro leaves behind in each state would develop rapidly forming their own urban cities and new metros, while the original separate metros themselves might lose population.
Why would that be the case?
@@lumenox8541 Cities are economical centers, so the states that would lose metro is forced to seek an economic center for their own, without relying on the neighboring state( new metro in our case). Also these states concentrate more on this 2nd largest city, previously the largest metro would have received all fundings and attention. Eventually more people would come to live there, attend university etc. and the new city looks promising and appealing. This might attract immigrants from the separated metro, which are often too expensive, congested and crime laden. For example, if Detroit becomes separate state, then Grand Rapids, MI would develop a lot without the negatives of Detroit. So, Detroit might lose population to Grand Rapids
I doubt it. It’s not the 1800s anymore. The states that loose cities will still be economically tied to those now out of state cities. A logger in say cascadia will still need to do business with Seattle to find a seller who will ship his logs abroad and pay him. Companies aren’t just gonna stay in the second biggest metro because they want to do business in a single state, they’ll do business where it’s cheapest and most profitable.
@@yucol5661 It’s not 1800s anymore but people are still free to move. Why Florida overtook New York in population? People would move away from expensive crime laden congested metros if they could to the newly emerging population centers
@@yucol5661 Then by your definition which relies entirely on coastal access, Indianapolis, IN should not exist, Minneapolis should not exist, Denver should not exist. If Indiana and Illinois were a combined state, I’m pretty sure Indianapolis would be a lot smaller than now it is and Chicago would still receive all attention from the state. I’m pretty sure Spokane will develop a lot without Seattle.
Honestly, I've argued-- theoretically-- that this would be advantageous for us to do, though I know it will never work. But...I think major cities should control their own affairs more closely, and I think rural places are so different from major cities in so many ways culturally and ideologically that it might be better to let each police their own needs. The fact that rural places could then compete in their own way would make them not feel so subservient to city politics. Politicians could then more accurately, hopefully, fight for needs that are specific to their region
One reason stated by a group that wanted to carve up California was that the counties have to collect taxes on behalf of the state but we’re not getting the money back in proportion. This means they are sending money from the county to the state but are not seeing the money coming back to them. The larger counties, namely Los Angeles, were getting the majority of the money.
good editing
Cool video, Geoff!! Interesting idea and it would remedy several problems, not the least of which is the perception of many people that their representatives don't really represent them or their interests left, right, and center. It might even cool some of the secession fever which flares from time to time. It would also address the serious (and growing) large urban and NOT-large-urban divide. However, like you, I don't see this happening soon unless some unusual leadership is able to sell the idea to the American public. I have also wondered about the urban megaregions becoming states rather than just the city-states. I could see where that could be a bigger challenge as many of these places don't yet identify as united regions and the fact you are just dealing with many more people. But who knows what the next decades will bring.
I wouldn't say that they should be made into entirely new states. But maybe there should be like some new status for them like "Sector of New York" or "Metropolis of Los Angeles". Then the cities can have their own rules and regulations apart from the rest of the state. But I don't see every big city getting this type of status, I would say NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Miami getting it, those cities are famous for being economic, political, and cultural hubs in the US.
That’s a much better idea
Many places in the world use this for their biggest cities like Paris, London, Dubai, or Shanghai
Yes something like those.@@nickzz12
@@jlm3744 I'm not disagreeing with your metrics you use. It has to have a cutoff somewhere. But I'd include places than have a CSA/metro of one million.
@nickzz12 It's fine, I didn't take it as that. I agree. And actually I forgot to put that part in my comment. There does need to be a cutoff, I put it in my comment now. I said that not all big cities are going to become special zones, I was thinking like maybe only NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and some others, giant cities that are like big economic, political, and cultural hubs. But cities like Portland or Baltimore, no not them.
This could be interesting !
This is a surprisingly good idea
Ngl, while I am a big fan of this channel, considering how vicious and extremist the two parties are, radically redistributing the borders of the states to favor either party would be an incredibly bad idea.
I 100% agree
Only one party is vicious and extremist. The democrats are literally center right conservatives by the standards of the rest of the world… the republicans are a few ticks left of the nazi party
This would be the start of a horrible civil strife conflict
one issue is they already heavily favor one party. but any system that isn’t one person, one vote is likely to do that.
What this actually does is allow the rural regions a vote in accordance with their rural values without being overwritten by the urbanites.
It's a fascinating solution that would be neat to see play out
Would it be possible for you to share a map of the states, or at least list the cities that are split off?
Great video, but House seats aren’t proportioned based on an “average” amount. You would have to recalculate how the 435 House reps would be apportioned using the Huntington-Hill method.
I support county breakups. So Clark County, NV which is 3/4ths of state doesn’t have too much power. Many cities can also be counties like found in VA
This is tyrannical. Land doesn’t vote, people do. The reason this country is such a shithole is we give too much power to backwaters where nobody lives, allowing well backwards conservatives to rule over a much larger liberal majority
Fantastic analysis! Well done. Can't tell you how much I enjoy your episodes.
Yes I agree, give Puerto Rico full statehood along with the benefits and responsibilities therein.
With DC......I don't know.
Best regards.
Ideally, most of DC should be given back to Maryland with the federal buildings (Capitol, White House, etc.) being part of no state. This would probably have bipartisan support, since Democrats would likely gain an extra seat in Congress but will lose a net 2 electoral college votes (+1 for solid blue Maryland getting larger and -3 for solid blue DC no longer existing).
The follow-on is likely that the whole political setup would be reformed into something else, we might also imagine that the rump rural statelets would join up with other rural statelets, and the combination would make at least multi-party democracy with leveling seats essential, otherwise the rural states would consistently be underrepresented. I think this is one of the three big things that would make the U.S. Much bigger than it currently is, another would be doing either NAWAPA or GRAND, and the third would be building out large vacuum train connections between the big urban region states.
Very well laid out thought processes. Geographically this premise is highly logical but as you demonstrated within the electoral college votes, equal representation throughout the nation would lean heavily towards urban centers. Thus illustrates the geniuos of the electoral college that distributes equal representation nationally. Very good video. Very thought provocing and insiteful!
America should already just realize and embrace the fact that city dwellers and rural folk dont mix politically or financially and learn after the german systems of city states and the autobahn
Another complicating factor is how to divide up the state's obligations. They would argue about how pension and debt obligations are handled.
we should also make them like tokyo. tokyo has different wards, which operate like completely independant cities under a provincial (or, for the US, state) government. ofc US cities have a lot more crime, homelessness, pollution, etc than tokyo but splitting metro areas like this seems to have worked there.
I love Geography ❤
I completely agree with cities becoming individual states. Trouble is that cities are NOT terrorized by rest of the area state, the rural areas are terrorized by the cities.
If you're in Pennsylvania, you will feel like you're being terrorized by the state if you live in Philly or Pittsburgh.
This could only work if we changed the Federal Union to be more of a federation than a central government. Senators would be more like delegates or ambassadors than lawmakers. The states would need more self-rule being in essence independent countries united into a federation. Similar to the European Union or the United States under the Articles of Confederation.
The problem with the Senate is that it retains too much power, allowing a single individual to block any and all legislation with a simple email.
You forgot the most important detail. Which states would NOT shrink as you brought the 2mln. threshold LOWER?
This would tell you in what states the maximum of population density is low, i.e. which states are against cities, period.
I would offer that the states are held hostage by the major cities within them. This is why counties in California and Colorado have talked about session from their respective states.
You forgot Milwaukee and Salt Lake City.
2.8 million live in the Provo-SLC-Ogden Metro. They consider SLC and Provo 2 different metros but they blend together now. Driving north on I-15 the metro starts in Payson and doesn’t end until you’re past Ogden… roughly 160 miles of bumper to bumper traffic. Outside of the Boston to Washington DC corridor it’s the longest metro I’ve ever driven through. Everyone is crammed between the mountains to the east and 2 lakes to the west(Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake). Logan is cut off from the metro by a few miles but it’ll blend into everything in the next 20 years. Most people have no clue how huge the SLC area is and how fast it’s grown since the Olympics.
Milwaukee metro is 2.1 million. Madison metro of 900,000 touches Milwaukee’s metro so call it 3 million… and since they both touch the Rockford metro and Chicago metro that totals 13,000,000 million.
You're not wrong about Milwaukee touching the Chicago metro. I used to drive from Chicago to see friends in Milwaukee and it is solid development all the way between the two cities. Kenosha is part of the Chicago metro, with commuter rail going from Kenosha to the Chicago Loop, but it's less than an hour from downtown Milwaukee as well.
Man’s forgot a lot FR. Major lapses of judgement
I mean it was just a fun exercise. I don't think he forgot, more that he literally just used the metro areas. It becomes to arbitrary to use csas in some instances but not for others. Many CSAs have parts that blend into each other in terms of urbanized/developed areas. It would be a nightmare to try and decide when CSAs should be used and when MSAs should be used.
I don't think it's a matter of people knowing or not knowing how big metro areas are. Nor do I think its a value statement or judgement by him nor anyone else. Literally is just statistical areas based on commuting patterns. You could argue whether that was the right metric, but not that he "forgot" areas when a simple search shows that neither SLC nor Milwaukee's metro areas don't make the cut, and it's not by a small margin.
@@ericburton5163 bro he highlighted Fargo and then just skipped over 3 million people along the Wasatch front and Milwaukee
@@ericburton5163Milwaukee/Madison/Chicago being separate makes sense because they’re major cities. SLC/Provo/Ogden are one nonstop city now and the CSA should be changed to 1 MSA. Salt Lake City is only 200,000 so it’s tough to call it a major city but Provo and Ogden are most definitely not major cities requiring their own MSAs.
He wrapped Providence into Boston so he used the CSA for that.
Geoff tends to use the metro population when talking about a specific city. He should stop doing that as it creates a lot of confusion to younger kids interested in city data.
New York is not 19 million people.. it’s 8 million and change(and shrinking quickly). Los Angeles is not 13 million… is 3.8 million. He’s using his platform to teach and to have fun with statistics. Which is cool… but he’s also causing kids to argue about their cities population because that’s what kids who are into statistics do. lol
City States would be neat
I can't say for sure if it would be better, but if I had the power to snap my fingers and make this happen I would
Hi Geoff, I moved to Dallas nearly 5 yrs ago from Atlanta. There is an influx of mostly Floridians & Californians moving to this city. CA is a liberal, democratic state. FL is a conservative, republican state. Rent and mortgages have skyrocketed. Additionally, jobs are requiring more skills and paying less. How do you think the differing political stances of CA & FL will redevelop Dallas in the next decade or two?
I wish this was true for Sydney Aus. More focus would be put on rural areas while Sydney could have the same attention it had before + more.
I don't like throwing the whole county into the city's metro areas. I know that east King and Pierce county in the Seattle Metro area don't align with those in the city at all and there has been a push for east King county dividing away from the more developed west side
Interesting.
I can imagine the mass shifting of residents to align with their life.
🙋🏼
Raleigh-Durham is now over 2,000,000 people.
Memphis is the transportation hub of the entire country, and the urban area of Memphis has a bigger population than urban Nashville. Memphis is extremely important and should be listed in this as well. Not just Nashville.
Crazy!
Question, is this problem with states only a US problem, or could most other countries do this as well with urban areas. For example, should Toronto separate from Ontario or Munich separate from Bavaria or Shanghai separate from Jiangsu? But similar to the US, capitals often form their own territory.
It feels wrong that Riverside CA would get a whole state, but Jackonsville FL wouldn't- the Duval county region alone has 1 million, and if you counted outlying areas in St. Johns, Nassau, and Clay counties it should easily hit the threshold. It's very much so the central driver of economic activity in Northeast Florida.
Riverside is huge for a county. Its bigger than 8 states.
No, the entire SMA 5 county area is only 1.6 million. Jax is really not a major city.
And if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon.
Ngl it never felt like you reached the meat of the video and just skimmed it. Especially for multi state cities and their benfits. Or how you got rid of new jersey
While locally this would be liberating to rural people on the state level, it would be cripeling on the federal level adding senator and congressmen. There are pros and cons.
I do think the US should be more flexible on adding or splitting States though.
I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand. I can state for a fact that although the Detroit metro area didn't meet your 2 million threshold, the majority of us in western Michigan resent the sway Detroit area politics has on the entire state.
they should take the whole karen belt too (the 96 corridor, Detroit, lansing, ann arbor, kzoo, and GR)
Seems to me that the high population cities rule over the rest of the state. This has led several counties to romote the idea of becoming their own states. Similar but different. Examples California Washington state and Colorado
See this the type of video I wish Raleigh-Durham was 1 metro It should be not the split 😭
Completely agree!!!
I stand with working with what we got instead of trying to break it up. as said, doing this kind of thing would split the country even more in a negative way. It would overshadow the few virtuous positives.
I mean as it is we’re often living under minority rule from a party committed to abolishing democracy and checks and balances. Things are pretty damn bad given that in the last 20 years we we have spent 12 living under governments which did not win their elections, while in many states gerrymandering is the deciding factor in elections for state government
@jtt8237 both are at fault of this.
@@JerEditzliterally how. the democrats don’t need gerrymandering or the electoral college to win.
I imagine this would be similar to the map that would result from the civil war that tim pool is always saying is coming anytime now
They could start with San Francisco, Broomfield, Denver, and I forget which the 4th City/County cohabitation are. These could become City States. They are the most logical choices.
Being from Spokane Washington, I have to agree. I think Seattle and Olympia, and all those big cities on that side of the state should be their own state. It’s literally like from one side of the cascade mountains to the other. We don’t really see Eye 2 Eye
Make the case for DC to become a state or retrocess back into MD. Pls.
Trust me when I say. The current state of Illinois would love for the entire Chicago area become their own state. They have nothing in common with the rest of the state
Those 34 new states are looking at years, maybe decades of legal battles.
The battles just to secure water in the West alone would be epic. The federal government would be completely consumed with refereeing these battles; The US would almost have to recede from the world stage in many significant ways. Unless, of course, some ante-separation prenuptial agreements were reached that either had predetermined break-ups of utilities servicing now common areas or power-sharing of their respective governing/regulatory agencies.
The highways would have to be nationalized because the smaller states wouldn't be able to fund their necessary expansion. The remaining Virginia and NC could given funding mechanisms that are in place, but I couldn't see rural Ohio, eastern California, eastern Washington, central NY being able to keep up the large swaths of highways they have in them... The logistical, financial, organizational challenges among so many others would be a blast to work through. This change would stress or emphasize our federal system in ways that are papered over with the states in their current form. Oddly enough this separation could foster more togetherness than what one would initially presume.
Especially 8:38 between San Francisco and Sacramento areas if it was their own states. The State of San Francisco and the State of Sacramento would have territorial disputes on who gets Solano County, CA. The Area is both on the Sacramento Valley area and North East end of the Bay Area. If you live in Solano County, CA it needs to back both Sacramento and Bay Area at the same time when it comes to water rights.
Each state gets an EC per senator, and then the rest is based on population. So each state always has at least 3
The total would actually be 83 because while you're adding 34 city-states, then New Jersey ends up going away. Though I guess the 84th state would be Puerto Rico because they should be a state.
Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state. They get a lot of benefits for being a Territory without any of the drawbacks of being a State.
They can be city states, fantastic idea. however I believe it should only include the city boundaries and not the metro area boundaries, there is still an obvious urban/Suburban divide.
No there's not most people who live in the suburbs work in the city make most of money in the city and spend a lot of money in the city. They go to the city to actually be able to have fun they still have friends who live in the city who haven't settled down in some Suburbia yet. Suburbs are way more tied to cities than they ever would be rural areas
@Lucas_Antar not as much as they would there is offices in the suburbs so many people live in one suburb and work in another suburb, alot of these people also make an effort to stay away from the city due to their own paranoia.
The states would likely need ro even further divided for efficiency.
I could see Northern California and Southern California.
North Florida and South Florida
Most rural areas rely on the major metros to sustain them fiscally. If that Seattle state ever formed, the remaining Washington would have a hard time keeping the roads maintained. Much as the rural areas denigrate the cities, they are the hubs of economic activity and revenues.
My first point exactly where would funding come from, I don't think some of these city can sustain themselves
@PatrickMazza7055,
Your point is how the current Commonwealth of Virginia governs itself. Northern Virginia, the far and away wealthiest region in the state pays out more in taxes than it gets back in benefits; It subsidizes nearly all of rural Virginia save the enclaves of the rich and famous around our wine country, Virginia is just now reckoning with building better school buildings in a very piecemeal way unlike in Ohio where the state offered to pay half. Some wealthier Ohio localities opted out still while those less well off obviously took the money and ran. Again proving your point--even though urban areas took the money too. Right now many poorer rural areas don't know how they're going to pay for their new buildings as Richmond has said "Don't count on us."
@@tarik4684the cities are the productive part of the country. They literally fund the rest of the state. In the same way that blue states fund most red states
Wrong way around.
The cities need the rural areas for their 'stuff'.
'Funds' are just inedible pieces of paper.
'Economic activity' when confined to a city is simply pushing paper and numbers around.
If the non-city areas created their own currency, the cities would be in dire trouble .. just stinky hives of greedy mouths with nothing to offer.
@@jtt8237rural areas produce a great deal also, namely everything that you eat, the fuel for your car, furnace, and etc, the cotton for your clothes. Rural areas get funding for garbage they don’t want or need, and would have far more funding available to them if not for the lunatic greenies hamstringing every important industry
if major cities would be states then what would their major city be?
I don’t think the people of Illinois would agree that Chicago is held hostage by the state.
Video title is "Why Every Major U.S. City Should Be Its Own State" but the conclusion is the exact opposite of that.
As a philadelphian I support this plan however, on behalf of all Philadelphia we don't want any part of new jersey they can do their own thing.
America is a huge and diverse country. that is to say, every state,region and its people are completely different. the Pacific Northwest region and the Deep South region are two totally different regions, so are the people there, and every state and region have its own history,laws, climate, economy,you name it.
What’s the name of the song used in the video ?
The problem with this is that states use cities to pay for the standard of living in rural areas. The individualistic mindset of rural people and major news outlets only focusing on crime and violence helps them live in a delousion of not needing their states cities even if actual crime statistics are lower than the national average.
I've said for a while the best way to reform the US senate would be to give the Top 10 or 20 cities a senator specific to them. Throw that in with uncapping the US house and instituting the Wyoming rule for allocating Representatives and that would make congresses better reflect the country as a whole and not give huge amounts of power to empty land
I guess by that saying then you are wanting a popular vote. Those empty lands have property owners while a lot of the larger cities are renters. How fair is that.
Amen brother! I would argue that entire metro areas should be their own states.
Slightly unrelated - How about using a lottery system to decide the order of the Presidential primaries? For an entire year, it's Iowa, Iowa, IOWA! Then after that, each state gets an average of about 2 days for candidates to visit before their citizens vote. This is CRAZY!!!
Would southern NH be part of the state
of Boston?😮
Germany has three cities like this: Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg. Only Hamburg is successful to have enough income to not get further and further into debt - the huge international maritime port is the reason for that. The others have the problem that industries do not want to be in a city as land is expensive and you need truck roads to bring in material and get the products to the customer. So a city alone will struggle.
I'd say it's less the cities being held hostage by the rest and more the opposite way...
I'd love to see Indy metro, Louisville Metro ,and Cincinnati metro to form triangle area that'd bring about 7 million population ,but I know this won't happen. Oh, if you form state that comes from Appalachia regions then it'd have 28 million population and has 210k square miles. Appalachia state would be 3rd behind California and Texas when comes to population while it also would be 3rd for largest land area behind Alaska and Texas. Of course, Appalachia state would be most poorest state.
In ohio Cleveland would get akron, canton and Youngstown added to its state. Cincinnati would get dayton, Springfield, and likely Lexington and Louisville and parts of southern Indiana. Detroit would get toledo. West Virginia would get parts of southeast ohio along thw ohio river
11:58 - supposing Washington, D.C. should become a new state, instead of being reabsorbed into Maryland. Where do you propose we situate the new federal district and capital?
Washington DC was designed as a federal designated property. If everything were to change would the same issues be moved to a new location.
Being born and raised in (southern) New Jersey, north jersey and south jersey are already pretty much two different states entirely so no one would miss it anyway 😅
king county needs to be downsized to be closer to the city center of seattle, and a new county witch i would call Cascadia as we are along the cascade mountains needs to be formed. i don't want Issaquah to be part of a seattle city state =(....if this were to ever happen
I think that if any state borders change soon, it’s gonna be the greater Idaho idea
The cost to the new state is estimated to be over $10 billion.