http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/
I like the new names!
Or, we could simplify it and just call all of it "The Province Eleven" 😉
TNAI
Hope I can grandfather in
I would need a minimum of two licenses in these new States. Hard to have a State-specific LS exam until they figure out how many previous States fall all, or in part, in a specific new State.
I saw that a few days ago and all my comments on the subject fall in the "banned" list.
:-O
The artist did say to not burn him because it changed Texas so much. I assume your comments were along those lines? 😉
Started this thread as potential boundary layout, not political. Which I believe is taboo.
> http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/
>
> I like the new names!
That is a really really cool link.
Thank you.
That absolutely will not work. It still leaves me in the same state as Austin.
James
You're welcome.
The interesting thing is it was mathematically derived with 50 cities as the 'hold' points in the algorithm. Then the population was the determining factor on how to locate the new boundary lines. It states that the variance from the norm was , I think, less than 1% for each State. Then they picked names that were primarily from our Native American brothers (mostly). It is entirely fictional. But somehow compelling.
I'm now in Adironack which includes northern NH, all of Vermont and all the way to buffalo NY.
I am not going to admit it to be political and that Texas is the only problem with what I see
The boundaries that can be drawn to include areas of equal population are that of many solutions
Why is this the only solution to be shown?
:-X
Interesting food for thought and mostly cool new names for the states. Never could happen... just imagine the major pizzing contest that would break out trying to settle on the location of the fifty new capitals.
> Why is this the only solution to be shown?
>
> :-X
Boundaries are often along both political and geographic limitations. This was just one artist's interpretation of what it would take to equitably distribute the correct electoral votes based on the location of the population centers. As he stated they would change with each census. The boundaries in his method are kind of riparian in that sense.
But he did say he got the electoral balance down to less than 1% between the "States". That is way better then it is now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_%28Pacific_state%29
The Great State of Jefferson almost had it's day in congress. Too bad that little thing called WWII came along or it might have become reality.
I believe the California legislature and governor approved the Pico Act in 1859 splitting the state at the 36th parallel; but the vote in congress was shelved when those pesky southerners started to secede.
I've heard that when Texas joined the U. S. in 1845, it reserved the right to divide itself into up to 5 new states in the future. Don't know if that's true, but it's a good story.
It's in the news again today. I'm all for it!
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/09/04/northern-california-county-board-votes-for-secession-from-state/
Yup, cool names. I really like the part where I'm no longer associated with Phoenix.
I could answer my phone "Shiprock Surveying", assuming of course it ever rings again.
This would leave Sam Clemmons near the corner of three states. And most of Alabama would be King!
