Thursday, July 06, 2006
I love this sort of thing. In 1973 C. Etzel Pearcy, geography professor at California State University, Los Angeles drew this map to illustrate his proposal that the political boundaries of the states be re-drawn to be more economically efficient. Here in Buffalo we'd be in Mohawk, along with Rochester, Syracuse, Utica and Southern Tier cities like Ithaca, Binghampton, Elmira and (maybe) Scranton. Looks like Albany would be part of Hudson. It makes a certain kind of sense, as the article lays it out (although I agree that I'm not crazy about some of the names).
It is interesting to think about what it would take to do this. I'm not so sure there would be any political mechanism sort of outright dissolution and reformation that could accomplish this plan. It is also interesting to think about which states would be red, and which would be blue. Professor Pearcy's inclination is to have urban areas as the center of each new state: the effect of this is, I think, to make each of the states more urban than they are at present. Bighorn, Bitterroot, Bonnieville, Cochise-- these all still look pretty red to me. Would this eliminate the need for a bicameral legislature, since it is population balanced? Probably not, is my guess. (Via Flutterby!)
It is interesting to think about what it would take to do this. I'm not so sure there would be any political mechanism sort of outright dissolution and reformation that could accomplish this plan. It is also interesting to think about which states would be red, and which would be blue. Professor Pearcy's inclination is to have urban areas as the center of each new state: the effect of this is, I think, to make each of the states more urban than they are at present. Bighorn, Bitterroot, Bonnieville, Cochise-- these all still look pretty red to me. Would this eliminate the need for a bicameral legislature, since it is population balanced? Probably not, is my guess. (Via Flutterby!)
Post a Comment