US states redrawn so as to have equal populations | Hacker News Reader

US states redrawn so as to have equal populations

jamesfallows.theatlantic.com

75 pointspc34 comments

Original: http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/

Close-up of NYC area: http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/nyc/

This was probably carved out by hand. However, this would be an interesting problem to solve using integer programming, a technique that has been used to model the related problem of gerrymandering.

For some reason I find it hilarious that on the new map Staten Island is part of Jersey..

As a Brooklynite, the idea of being affiliated with Long Island rather than Manhattan fills me with horror.

On the other hand, as a resident of Michigan, there are no words, in any language on Earth, that could begin to capture the joy I feel at the idea of excising Detroit (though I fear it may have already metastasized).

This data is already 10 years old. That means Detroit has already started shrinking, and therefore the new Detroit, if kept as an independent city, would be consuming more of Michigan.

Brilliant. Even in the senate, you can argue that low-population states like Wyoming shouldn't get 2 seats, or that Wyoming needs 2 seats to maintain control of its interests. Periodically redrawing state boundaries sidesteps this whole debate/dilemma.

Can this idea be further generalized? Minorities can be oppressed or powerful; strive to so intertwine motivations that minorities are eliminated.

But with some caveats. http://akkartik.name/blog/2010-01-23-21-24-35-soc

> Can this idea be further generalized?

A silly generalization: At birth everyone draws a lot --- or throws a die with fifty sides --- to decide which state he will belong to.

And when a new state is added - free rethrows!

It looks like Washington State and Alaska are merged. That makes little sense politically or organizationally. Where's Hawaii fit into this? Assuming 50 reapportioned states that's 6 million per state, and Hawaii only has 1.3 million people.

Rio Grande State should go north with the Rio Grande and not include Arizona. That is, it should be El Paso/Las Cruces/Albuquerque/Santa Fe and up into southern Colorado. As it is, it looks like ABQ would be a border city, and that makes little sense.

Hawaii is problematic, being a significant fraction of the target population level, yet very isolated. Alaska doesn't really make sense to combine with anything either, but its population is pretty much rounding error (it's got, what, as many people as maybe three blocks of Manhattan?) so it probably wouldn't matter that much.

Though maybe it'd make more sense to just grant Hawaii independence and sell Alaska back to the Russians or something--the whole noncontiguous territory never sat well with me anyway.

Wouldn't it make more sense to sell it to the Canadians if contiguous territory was a big issue?

Only with vacant possession - you aren't getting rid of Palin that easily

"Alaska and Hawaii become part of the states of Washlaska and Coronado, respectively."

My only complaint is that they still left the UP as part of Michigan... it would look much cleaner to throw that into another piece. If you ever wondered why it became part of Michigan read up on the "War of Toledo" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_War

Having Chesapeake split by Baltimore-Washington is unfortunate too.

Well, the alternative view is that it's split by the Chesapeake Bay. It's a bit tough to tell whether it got Annapolis and the Bay Bridge, though.

It's pretty clear that both Annapolis and the bay bridge went to BW, but Chesapeake got the Bay Bridge-Tunnel which almost makes up for it.

For all the trouble it would cause, I know quite a few people who wouldn't mind parting with old Baltmo' for good.

My impression (from talking to yooper coworkers) is that it's about half Wisconsin, half Canada up there. Either way, doesn't make sense to lump them in with us trolls.

Interesting to see that Missouri hardly changes at all.

That means the MO just so happens to have roughly 1/50th of the US population.

So are the populations normalized to one Long Island?

And on a totally unrelated note, sometimes Rhode Islands are used as units of area. I knew a girl in college that told me she grew up on .53 RI ranch in Texas. I had no idea what she was talking about, then she explained to me that RI = Rhode Island. I think they used a small plane to get around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_units_of_measur...

Only change I would make: Include Santa Cruz in SF Bay state

(Attribution: I found it on Fallows's blog: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/thought...)

s/states/cities/

working link http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/thought...

Link to the creator's page, with said map: http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/

Can anyone tell how he did this? Was it through trial/error?

Probably looking at county populations

The state of Willamette would be the place to live. Nice weather, mountains, desert, ocean ... Linus.

I don't like crowded places. So when I go visit the U.S.A, the best places to stay for me are the Great Basin, High Plains, and Rocky Mountain High.

Most of Willamette is not very dense.

What happened to Hawaii?

Part of Coronado.

what's happening with HN?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com