Longtime readers of mine know that I am not particular concerned with the representation inequalities of the US Senate. One of the weak spots with it, though, are the great plains. The confluence of interests creates a degree of solidarity among its representatives that does not exist as much among the lowpop states that are separated by mountains, national parks, and culture. The population centers of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and (to a lesser extent) Kansas are all along a single freeway. There are some exceptions, like Wichita and Rapid City, but it’s really quite notable. They are also farming states with a lot of travel between them. To a much greater extent than Idaho and Montana (or even Eastern Idaho vs Northern Idaho), what’s good for South Dakota is good for North Dakota, and vice-versa.
There are a lot of oddities in how the states were drawn. There was a lot of chance involved (the border between Montana and Idaho was the product of a disgruntled judge). In some of them, there’s the question of what exactly they were supposed to do. Like Idaho, Nevada probably shouldn’t be a state because you have two cities more economically tied to their California brethren than one another, and a lot of open space. There’s no easy answer there. Combining Wyoming with Colorado or Montana would have been problematic, so what the heck are you going to do with Wyoming? Montana is kind of a mishmash of places, a confederation of small cities and country that create their own balance (assisted by the fact that the largest city is sort of removed from all of the others).
The Dakotas, however, were an unforced error. Combining them would have left a state that would have remained reasonably governable, and the separation of them left four senate seats where two might have been more appropriate. It would be large, but not too large. North Dakota and South Dakota each are population-centric in Fargo and Sioux Falls respectively, which is often problematic (having the capital removed helps, though, and SD does have Rapid City) and having the two of them live under the same tent, the same way that Montana balances its larger (small) cities with others, strikes me as beneficial.
We also might be looking at Kansas and Nebraska for potential consolidation, though the population imbalance might be a problem. I consider this less of a problem for the Dakotas. Though South Dakota is more populated by 140k or so, it is also the more geographically diverse and therefore might be less likely to vote as a single unit in the same way that Kansas might.
Note: I could be way off on this one. I sort of feel the same way about some of those northeastern statelets and have been told, by more than one person, that they couldn’t possibly live together under a single tent. They’ve got a lot of history under their belt. So, too, do the Dakotas, which would make a merger rather difficult.
About the Author
5 Responses to The Dakotas Should Be Merged
Leave a Reply to trumwill Cancel reply
please enter your email address on this page.
I bet the North and South Dakotans would get pretty mad about this. Who would benefit?
Everyone that’s skeptical of farm subsidies. Plus, every state would get a bit more senatorial representation, though that might be a bad trade for the other farm states.
I thing I will say about South Dakota, they elect attractive women to the House. She served from 2004-2011 and ended up marrying a man 18 years her senior. She is cute in that Tina Fey sort-of way. She was voted out in the Republican sweep of 2010, losing to a woman who is attractive, but isn’t really my type.
There are a lot of oddities in how the states were drawn
In 2008 History ran a special entitled How the States Got Their Shapes. I don’t think people realize the drama that went into state boundaries. After all, they were decided upon by man, not handed down on stone tablets.
Nevada probably shouldn’t be a state because you have two cities more economically tied to their California brethren than one another, and a lot of open space.
This describes New Jersey, with North Jersey being entrirely in the New York City DMA and South Jersey being entirely in the Philadelphia DMA. However, I think NJ works well as a state because we are mostly suburban. North Jersey has MUCH more in common with South Jersey than it does with the majority of New York State. Likewise South Jersey with Pennsylvania.
the separation of [the Dakotas] left four senate seats where two might have been more appropriate
obviously the issue of Senate representation is why this will never change.
In 2008 History ran a special entitled How the States Got Their Shapes.
Darn. I read the book when I could have just seen the movie.
This describes New Jersey, with North Jersey being entrirely in the New York City DMA and South Jersey being entirely in the Philadelphia DMA
Yeah, though the separation of Nevada is larger. With nothing in between. New Jersey is the size of my wife’s hospital’s call area, with lots and lots of people and (I get the sense) not much dead space.
obviously the issue of Senate representation is why this will never change.
New Jersey is the size of my wife’s hospital’s call area, with lots and lots of people and (I get the sense) not much dead space.
Oddly enough, there’s a good-sized chunk of New Jersey (the Pine Barrens) which is very sparsely populated. You can even notice this region as a big expanse of darkness from an airplane at night. Northwestern New Jersey is also quite rural in parts, though nothing like the Pine Barrens.
Southern New England, in contrast, is one region where there’s not much in the line of dead space. Some years ago I was watching a movie, can’t remember the title, about a haunted house in the Berkshires of western Massachusetts. One of the characters described the house as being “nine miles from the nearest neighbor.” Right away I knew that was ridiculous, it’s doubtful that there’s any spot in the area that’s even one mile from the nearest neighbor.