Ideal Western States Map
MojaveNC
Comments? Questions?
robert cruickshank
MojaveNC wrote:
>
> http://Mojave.tripod.com/westmap.html
>
> Comments? Questions?
Where'd you get the map base? I was looking to do something along those
lines when we were discussing this a week or so ago but couldn't find
anything good.
Comments, by proposed states:
San Gabriel:
Southern California's really not going to go for abandoning the name
"California". To put it in a crass, consumer way, "California" is one of
the best brands in the world. Any splitting of this state between
SF/Central Valley and LA will result in a North and a South California.
Nobody will go for calling it "San Gabriel" although it's not a bad name
really.
I like the touch of putting the state capital on Catalina. Perhaps the
name "Catalina" for this state wouldn't be so bad, but still, it would
be known as South California.
You have Imperial County in orange yet I don't see what's new about it.
Splitting up LA, Riverside, San Berdoo, and San Diego counties were all
brilliant ideas. However, I'd choose different names. Coachella ought to
be Joshua Tree. Instead of Rincon...San Onofre.
Good of you to put SLO and Kern counties with 'North' California.
Evidently there's some bad blood between northern and southern Santa
Barbara counties (gee, you'd think that ranchers and coastal snobs would
get along), so you could split the county along the mountains north of
Santa Barbara and make a Santa Maria County for 'North' California.
You might want to move the San Gabriel/California (North/South
California) state line to the Tehachapi Mountains. Eastern Kern County
is largely desert and should be in Mojave County in San Gabriel (South
California).
Mojave County's county seat ought to be Barstow or Victorville, as it's
more centrally located.
'North' California:
Fine as is. Perhaps split Humboldt County and give the southern portion,
Redwood County, to the rump 'North' California state with a county seat
at Garberville. Oh, and the split of Santa Barbara and of Kern Counties.
Nevada:
Some of the people might prefer Jefferson as the state name, given their
historical aspirations for this. Move the capital to Redding or
Susanville (centrally located is always good, IMO). Both of these would
be effectively killing off the state of Nevada, but to me, that's no big
loss.
Why did you rename Lassen County "Roop"?
Why is Mono County renamed "Inyo"? Might as well leave it alone,
especially as there'd be another Inyo County right across the state
line.
Good of you to give the northern portions of Washoe to Modoc and Roop
counties.
Mojave:
Are those portions of southern Utah going to be willing to break of from
the motherland and go with Vegas?
I VERY MUCH like the name you have for the western shore of Lake Mead:
Roosevelt County. This goes back to the politics surronding Boulder
Dam's name, which was Boulder Dam until Republicans grabbed control of
Congress in 1946 and renamed it after Herbert Hoover, in a slap at the
15+ years of the New Deal.
Smart politics to split the area west of Vegas into the three counties
you have there.
I suppose Havasu ought to be its own county. Have a drink, have a screw,
Havasu.
Utah:
The LDS theocracy expands its reach once again...
(Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Mormons. Some of my best
friends are Mormons. But let's face it. Utah is a theocracy.)
All in all: Great job, Nick.
I am reminded of the People's Almanac, which came out sometime in the
mid-70s. I recall they had a map where they totally redid the US states,
coast to coast. If I can find it, as it should be around the house
somewhere, I'll scan it and have one of you all post it on a site.
--
Robert I. Cruickshank
roadgeek, historian, progressive
Chris Lawrence
<ri...@washington.edu> wrote:
> I VERY MUCH like the name you have for the western shore of Lake Mead:
> Roosevelt County. This goes back to the politics surronding Boulder
> Dam's name, which was Boulder Dam until Republicans grabbed control of
> Congress in 1946 and renamed it after Herbert Hoover, in a slap at the
> 15+ years of the New Deal.
In point of historical fact, the dam was proposed even before the great
depression started, and was named Hoover Dam until after FDR took office.
Even then the name was never officially dropped; it just went into the
memory hole until things were settled once and for all.
See http://www.hooverdam.usbr.gov/History/naming.htm
Chris
robert cruickshank
I had thought that might have been the case. I didn't mean to
misrepresent the history of the dam's name.
MojaveNC
Mental error. Forgot that imperial county existed.
<< Splitting up LA, Riverside, San Berdoo, and San Diego counties were all
brilliant ideas. However, I'd choose different names. Coachella ought to
be Joshua Tree. Instead of Rincon...San Onofre. >>
When I think San Onofre, I think nuclear power plant. Being from where I'm
from, that's not the best thing to think of.
<< Good of you to put SLO and Kern counties with 'North' California.
Evidently there's some bad blood between northern and southern Santa
Barbara counties (gee, you'd think that ranchers and coastal snobs would
get along), so you could split the county along the mountains north of
Santa Barbara and make a Santa Maria County for 'North' California. >>
Why bother? They ranchers and coastal snobs have gotten along for 70 or so
years...
<< Some of the people might prefer Jefferson as the state name, given their
historical aspirations for this. Move the capital to Redding or
Susanville (centrally located is always good, IMO). Both of these would
be effectively killing off the state of Nevada, but to me, that's no big
loss. >>
At least the name fits, finally. What in Nevada is snow-capped?
<< Why did you rename Lassen County "Roop"? >>
Roop County is an interesting chapter in western history. Nevada established
government for Roop County, working out of Susanville, gave it legislators,
etc, until California came in and said "wait a minute...that's not in Nevada!"
A survey crew came out, and were like..yup...that's definitely not in
California. No sense in having a county for Gerlach and Empire and a few
indians, so Washoe County absorbed it.
<<
Are those portions of southern Utah going to be willing to break of from
the motherland and go with Vegas? >>
The population grows older, more retiree oriented, and Saint George is the only
part of the region outside Clark County and Pahrump that are in the Las Vegas
TV market.(Bullhead and Kingman are in Phoenix', Needles is in L.A's, as is
Tonopah, Death Valley, Bishop). As St George grows, it grows more closely
oriented to Las Vegas. Their upper-tier medical care, their air travel, their
shopping, is all done here. Kanab will love the excuse to get out of Robert
Redford's state after Grand Staircase-Escalante.
<< I VERY MUCH like the name you have for the western shore of Lake Mead:
Roosevelt County. This goes back to the politics surronding Boulder
Dam's name, which was Boulder Dam until Republicans grabbed control of
Congress in 1946 and renamed it after Herbert Hoover, in a slap at the
15+ years of the New Deal.
>>
Roosevelt isn't recognized enough. Hamilton was an attempted murderer, for
cryin out loud...put Roosevelt on the 10. Or 50, getting rid of the lush... and
of course start naming counties after him. Too many Lincolns, Washingtons,
Jeffersons, Clarks..
<< Smart politics to split the area west of Vegas into the three counties
you have there. >>
Especially in terms of the unincorporated towns in the Valley. Splitting them
will force the towns to incorporate, IMHO. Plus, it works out well in terms of
the legislature. I'd always picture the legislature looking like this- the
legislature works like the US Congress, in that counties have to work together
in "legislative districts." Roosevelt, Clark, and Hughes make up their own
legislative districts. King, Bullhead, Topock, and Havasu counties are clumped
together into another one, and Amargosa, Bullhead, Inyo, Nye, Lincoln, Grand,
Whitney, and Kane are another. The populations work out to close to even
between them. Even if the three Vegas counties have a half million each, you
can give them each two senators, and the other two LD's one. Or four and two.
It works out as close to fair.
<<
The LDS theocracy expands its reach once again...
>>
One of the reasons I left Moronism is because of the way they've handled Utah.
It is truly a theocracy. It disgusts me, frankly.
<< I am reminded of the People's Almanac, which came out sometime in the
mid-70s. I recall they had a map where they totally redid the US states,
coast to coast. If I can find it, as it should be around the house
somewhere, I'll scan it and have one of you all post it on a site.
>>
Scan it scan it!
<<
Why is Mono County renamed "Inyo"? Might as well leave it alone,
especially as there'd be another Inyo County right across the state
line.
>>
Another accident.
Jon Enslin
> One of the reasons I left Moronism is because of the way they've handled Utah.
> It is truly a theocracy. It disgusts me, frankly.
Freudian slip or intentional misspelling....
Jon
John David Galt
> San Gabriel:
>
> Southern California's really not going to go for abandoning the name
> "California". To put it in a crass, consumer way, "California" is one of
> the best brands in the world. Any splitting of this state between
> SF/Central Valley and LA will result in a North and a South California.
> Nobody will go for calling it "San Gabriel" although it's not a bad name
> really.
There are already two states of "Baja California". How about "Upper" and
"Middle" California, which also gives us two-letter abbrevs that don't
conflict with the Carolinas.
> I like the touch of putting the state capital on Catalina. Perhaps the
> name "Catalina" for this state wouldn't be so bad, but still, it would
> be known as South California.
Any state capital which isn't in the largest metro area is a Bad Thing,
IMO, because it makes it more difficult for most people to get involved in
state government (whether by petitioning, picketing, or going to public
hearings). Fortunately, if we ever split, Sacramento will be part of
metro San Francisco by then.
robert cruickshank
John David Galt wrote:
>
> robert cruickshank wrote:
>
> > San Gabriel:
> >
> > Southern California's really not going to go for abandoning the name
> > "California". To put it in a crass, consumer way, "California" is one of
> > the best brands in the world. Any splitting of this state between
> > SF/Central Valley and LA will result in a North and a South California.
> > Nobody will go for calling it "San Gabriel" although it's not a bad name
> > really.
>
> There are already two states of "Baja California". How about "Upper" and
> "Middle" California, which also gives us two-letter abbrevs that don't
> conflict with the Carolinas.
I was thinking today about this whole state-name things. If you were to
split California into North California and South California, what does
that mean for the state university system? What would you rename UCLA
to, since it would no longer be part of the University of California
system? The University of South California? Which would make UCLA
into...USC!
Though I do recall that there was a provision in recent proposals to
split California for whatever number of states are created to share the
cost of supporting the University of Californa and California State
University systems, which would remain named as they are.
And another thing...state route markers?! The southern California,
Mojave, Arizona, and Nevada would all need new markers.
> > I like the touch of putting the state capital on Catalina. Perhaps the
> > name "Catalina" for this state wouldn't be so bad, but still, it would
> > be known as South California.
>
> Any state capital which isn't in the largest metro area is a Bad Thing,
> IMO, because it makes it more difficult for most people to get involved in
> state government (whether by petitioning, picketing, or going to public
> hearings). Fortunately, if we ever split, Sacramento will be part of
> metro San Francisco by then.
Hadn't thought of that. The last thing we need is to have our government
26 miles offshore. It's inaccessible enough as it is.
MojaveNC
>Hadn't thought of that. The last thing we need is to have our government
>26 miles offshore. It's inaccessible enough as it is.
So keep the state offices in Long Beach. I already have the capitol pictured:
Built right along the east shore, both chambers facing towards the ocean, their
walls made of glass. Legislators ferry to and from the capitol for the session
every day.
Why not?
>> There are already two states of "Baja California". How about "Upper" and
>> "Middle" California, which also gives us two-letter abbrevs that don't
>> conflict with the Carolinas.
>
I was thinking about this too. Baja's bad enough: (North Lower California and
South Lower California are the translations...). How about Alta California
Norte and Alta California Sur(would anyone notice it was in Spanish?)
>What would you rename UCLA
>to, since it would no longer be part of the University of California
>system?
UACSLA ;)
No, it'd be simple with the new states, the marquis universities would take the
state's name. UNLV would become University of the Mojave; UCLA would be Univ
of Alta California Sur/Univ of San Gabriel/Univ of California/Univ of South
California/whatever, UNR would be University of Nevada, University of
Jefferson, etc.
Interesting note- the NPR affiliate out of Southern Oregon University in
Ashland is "Jefferson Public Radio."
robert cruickshank
MojaveNC wrote:
> << Splitting up LA, Riverside, San Berdoo, and San Diego counties were all
> brilliant ideas. However, I'd choose different names. Coachella ought to
> be Joshua Tree. Instead of Rincon...San Onofre. >>
>
> When I think San Onofre, I think nuclear power plant. Being from where I'm
> from, that's not the best thing to think of.
That's true but I think we should keep the Spanish missions in place
names as much as possible. Rincon is Spanish for...umm...something or
other...but anything with a 'San' or 'Santa' is good.
> << Why did you rename Lassen County "Roop"? >>
>
> Roop County is an interesting chapter in western history. Nevada established
> government for Roop County, working out of Susanville, gave it legislators,
> etc, until California came in and said "wait a minute...that's not in Nevada!"
> A survey crew came out, and were like..yup...that's definitely not in
> California. No sense in having a county for Gerlach and Empire and a few
> indians, so Washoe County absorbed it.
That is interesting. I also recall hearing that they once screwed up the
part of the California/Nevada boundary that runs from Tahoe to the
Colorado. The original survey was off by a couple of degrees and by the
time the state line reached the Colorado there was a 50-mile
discrepancy.
> Are those portions of southern Utah going to be willing to break of from
> the motherland and go with Vegas? >>
>
> The population grows older, more retiree oriented, and Saint George is the only
> part of the region outside Clark County and Pahrump that are in the Las Vegas
> TV market.(Bullhead and Kingman are in Phoenix', Needles is in L.A's, as is
> Tonopah, Death Valley, Bishop). As St George grows, it grows more closely
> oriented to Las Vegas. Their upper-tier medical care, their air travel, their
> shopping, is all done here. Kanab will love the excuse to get out of Robert
> Redford's state after Grand Staircase-Escalante.
True. Also, with putting Elko and White Pine counties in Utah, what of
the gambling resorts in towns like Wendover? Would the theocrats in SLC
make an exception to their anti-gambling laws for Wendover?
> << I VERY MUCH like the name you have for the western shore of Lake Mead:
> Roosevelt County. This goes back to the politics surronding Boulder
> Dam's name, which was Boulder Dam until Republicans grabbed control of
> Congress in 1946 and renamed it after Herbert Hoover, in a slap at the
> 15+ years of the New Deal.
> >>
>
> Roosevelt isn't recognized enough. Hamilton was an attempted murderer, for
> cryin out loud...put Roosevelt on the 10. Or 50, getting rid of the lush... and
> of course start naming counties after him. Too many Lincolns, Washingtons,
> Jeffersons, Clarks..
I've always thought that the wrong Roosevelt was on Mt. Rushmore, but
then TR wasn't such a bad guy. That and the monument was begun 10 years
before FDR became President. If Grover Norquist can spend all his waking
hours trying to get Congress to put Ronald Reagan's name on everything
in sight, including the $10, why can't we launch our own FDR crusade?
Then again, he's got the dime...
I was working in downtown San Francisco for the last year, on the corner
of Sansome and Bush Streets. I thought that Bush Street would be a prime
candidate for a renaming (and several pranksters did just that, changing
all the Bush Street signs to read "Puppet Street" the night before
Bush's inauguration). Roosevelt Street would have made a good
replacement for Bush Street, I thought.
> << I am reminded of the People's Almanac, which came out sometime in the
> mid-70s. I recall they had a map where they totally redid the US states,
> coast to coast. If I can find it, as it should be around the house
> somewhere, I'll scan it and have one of you all post it on a site.
> >>
>
> Scan it scan it!
Until I do find it, perhaps this map of California's original (1850)
county configuration will suffice:
http://www.csac.counties.org/counties_close_up/county_history/county_maps/1850.html
Wild.
My girlfriend's uncle has a map of the Spanish/Mexican ranchos in LA
County on his wall. If anyone knows where I could find a map of all
California's ranchos, I'd appreciate it if you'd point me in that
direction.
William Lynch
Chris Lawrence wrote:
It would be interesting to see if a larger document search could
be accomplished. A program that runs frequently on The History
Channel paints a somewhat different portrait, and both accounts
are a little short on the verification.
According to THC, the dam, when proposed somewhere around
1927-28 (before Hoover was elected), was originally called 'Boulder
Dam' in all official documentation. The name change in the web site
was an attempt by the administration to up the ol' approval ratings,
which at the time were the lowest ever. After taking office FDR
ordered a reversion to the original name, and congression GOPs
bided their time until they had a majority, to restore Hoover's name
on it.
IMHO, there are elements of truth in both stories, but the real
truth is still out there . . .
MojaveNC
>make an exception to their anti-gambling laws for Wendover?
It's the theocrats that proposed giving the rest of Wendover to Nevada...like I
said, go Hong Kong on Elko and White Pine-50 years of gambling....then buh
bye.(Unless the theocrats come out of power by the end of 50 and allow the
gambling to stay)
William Lynch
MojaveNC wrote:
> >
> >Hadn't thought of that. The last thing we need is to have our government
> >26 miles offshore. It's inaccessible enough as it is.
>
> So keep the state offices in Long Beach. I already have the capitol pictured:
> Built right along the east shore, both chambers facing towards the ocean, their
> walls made of glass. Legislators ferry to and from the capitol for the session
> every day.
>
> Why not?
One reason is that island has a drinking water problem with the tiny
population already there.
I think that the capitol there should be out of town simply because
LA traffic can't handle much more. What about near the Camarillo
state hospital site (which itself is slowly becoming CSU Channel
Islands)? *Lots* of available land, ocean, spectacular mountains,
already a reputation for craziness, everything you need.
>
>
> >> There are already two states of "Baja California". How about "Upper" and
> >> "Middle" California, which also gives us two-letter abbrevs that don't
> >> conflict with the Carolinas.
> >
>
> I was thinking about this too. Baja's bad enough: (North Lower California and
> South Lower California are the translations...). How about Alta California
> Norte and Alta California Sur(would anyone notice it was in Spanish?)
How many people know that 'California' is spanish?
Perhaps we should retire the name California, and call the southern part
'Catalina', and the northern 'Tahoe'.
>
>
> >What would you rename UCLA
> >to, since it would no longer be part of the University of California
> >system?
>
> UACSLA ;)
>
> No, it'd be simple with the new states, the marquis universities would take the
> state's name. UNLV would become University of the Mojave; UCLA would be Univ
> of Alta California Sur/Univ of San Gabriel/Univ of California/Univ of South
> California/whatever, UNR would be University of Nevada, University of
> Jefferson, etc.
UNLV becomes UMLV, using Catalina keeps UCLA unchanged.
William Lynch
robert cruickshank wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Though I do recall that there was a provision in recent proposals to
> split California for whatever number of states are created to share the
> cost of supporting the University of Californa and California State
> University systems, which would remain named as they are.
This actually makes a lot of sense. It's one thing to divide nine UC's
or 23 CSU's, but how would you handle the 109 community colleges?
>
>
> And another thing...state route markers?! The southern California,
> Mojave, Arizona, and Nevada would all need new markers.
And by the dawn of the fourth millenium, there should be proclamations
from politocos about how this project should be completed shortly.
>
>
> > > I like the touch of putting the state capital on Catalina. Perhaps the
> > > name "Catalina" for this state wouldn't be so bad, but still, it would
> > > be known as South California.
> >
> > Any state capital which isn't in the largest metro area is a Bad Thing,
> > IMO, because it makes it more difficult for most people to get involved in
> > state government (whether by petitioning, picketing, or going to public
> > hearings). Fortunately, if we ever split, Sacramento will be part of
> > metro San Francisco by then.
>
> Hadn't thought of that. The last thing we need is to have our government
> 26 miles offshore. It's inaccessible enough as it is.
Catalina would be OK if John & Jane Q. could get there by undersea
trains or something.
William Lynch
John David Galt wrote:
> robert cruickshank wrote:
>
> > San Gabriel:
> >
> > Southern California's really not going to go for abandoning the name
> > "California". To put it in a crass, consumer way, "California" is one of
> > the best brands in the world. Any splitting of this state between
> > SF/Central Valley and LA will result in a North and a South California.
> > Nobody will go for calling it "San Gabriel" although it's not a bad name
> > really.
>
> There are already two states of "Baja California". How about "Upper" and
> "Middle" California, which also gives us two-letter abbrevs that don't
> conflict with the Carolinas.
This reminds me of that hilarious parody of 'Lord of the Rings', set
in 'Lower Middle Earth'.
William Lynch
MojaveNC wrote:
> http://Mojave.tripod.com/westmap.html
>
> Comments? Questions?
Hopefully this stuff has not been covered yet. In
no particular order:
As long as we are tinkering with every county around,
the following consolidations should be considered:
Amador into Calaveras, Nevada into Placer and Colusa
into Yolo. I'm not sure that the 10,000 person county
has a place here anymore. And while we are at it, the
north part of Santa Barbara should move up to SLO.
For Rincon County, I propose the other names Santa
Ysabel, La Jolla (both from local mexican homesteads)
or the original indian tribe for the region, Chemehuevi.
Once again a big chunk of current Nevada (Elko and
White Pine counties) are placed with Utah. Wouldn't
the likelihood it be somewhat stronger for parts of
current Utah to defect outward, as you have happening
in the southern part of the state?
Why do you modify the borders of Klamath, Modoc
and Siskiyou counties? This could effect dozens of
people.
And still no Jefferson. Your name is mud among
the world's lumberjacks.
This map just reinforces my feeling that the new state
of Mojave will have a stranglehold on the hydroelectric
resources of the region.
Los Angeles, San Diego and Clark counties are divided,
satisfying some real needs, but Maricopa county and
Arizona needs some revision. From the obvious point
of intrusion by Pinal county, have a line going NW to
Yuvapai, roughly bisecting the county. The new one
could be called 'Palo Verde'.
Primarily, though, this is a hell of a job. Well done.
Perhaps at some point you could write a short 'making
of' piece.
Chris Lawrence
<moja...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://Mojave.tripod.com/westmap.html
>
> Comments? Questions?
So long as none of the new states have provisions for popular initiatives
in their constitutions or laws, it's fine by me :-)
Realistically, California's main problem is the initiative power.
Without it, California wouldn't be the schizo mess that it is today. The
lines on the map aren't the problem; 50%+1 for any harebrained scheme is.
Chris
MojaveNC
Why do you modify the borders of Klamath, Modoc
and Siskiyou counties? This could effect dozens of
people. >>
There's probably about 5,000 people that live in the Tule Lake basin along CA
138. Currently it's split between Siskiyou and Modoc counties. Those who live
in Siskiyou county would have to drive across 161 about 20 miles, then down 97
another 50 miles to Weed(hehehe), then back up I-5 another 30 miles to Yreka to
get to their county seat...those on the Modoc side have to drive roughly 60 to
Alturas. The area is more culturally linked to Klamath...
<<
And still no Jefferson. Your name is mud among
the world's lumberjacks. >>
Eh, merge Jackson and Josephine counties and name it Jefferson. ;) He doesn't
deserve a state, anyway.
<<
This map just reinforces my feeling that the new state
of Mojave will have a stranglehold on the hydroelectric
resources of the region.
>>
US Interior->Reclamation handles the hydro output of the dams...
<< Los Angeles, San Diego and Clark counties are divided,
satisfying some real needs, but Maricopa county and
Arizona needs some revision. From the obvious point
of intrusion by Pinal county, have a line going NW to
Yuvapai, roughly bisecting the county. The new one
could be called 'Palo Verde'. >>
I don't know enough about Arizona politics to suggest a modification. It seems
to function fine as one county. My philosophy on that:
Urban Las Vegas only has three incorporated cities: Las Vegas, NLV, and
Henderson. Clark County is in control of the towns of Paradise(150,000),
Sunrise Manor(130,000), Spring Valley(125,000), Winchester(35,000),
Whitney(30,000), and Enterprise(15,000), not to mention outlying towns like
Laughlin, Moapa Valley, and Sandy Valley. Splitting up Clark forces some of
these to incorporate, others will be better served by smaller county
governments that are still large enough to provide the same level of service.
With the California Counties, I'm thinking in terms of outlying areas served by
the same DA. You get arrested in Lancaster, then what? AFAIK, you go to jail
in LA, correct? But with Phoenix, there's really not much in Maricopa County
outside of the Phoenix urban area, and there aren't any uninc towns in Phoenix
except Paradise Valley. Why bother with the split?
<< Primarily, though, this is a hell of a job. Well done.
Perhaps at some point you could write a short 'making
of' piece. >>
I'm mentally formulating it...I started coming up with this idea in 9th grade
:)
robert cruickshank
While I'll completely agree that the initiative process has caused some
serious problems, and has become basically a tool for special interests,
let's be honest here. Californians are always going to be a schizo group
of people. We want everything and want to pay for nothing. The ballot
initiative just gives us one outlet for that psychosis, but even without
it, we're always going to be doing some nutty things. Which is why I'm
really going to miss it here.
Wait...you say that Washington state has the initiative process? And as
a result of some idiotic ballot proposals, they're facing a major
revenue shortfall too? Ahhh...just like home. =)
MojaveNC
> Without it, California wouldn't be the schizo mess that it is today. The
> lines on the map aren't the problem; 50%+1 for any harebrained scheme is. >>
How does Cali handle initiative power? In Nevada, to get something on the
ballot, 10% of the registered voters in EACH county must sign petitions. This
really helps because people in Mineral County pride themselves in not signing
petitions that have ANYTHING to do with Clark County.
PRDem3
version....
robert cruickshank
Just get an arbitrary number of people (a certain percentage of the
state's registered voters) to sign petitions and it's on the ballot.
What winds up happening though is that you get well-endowed special
interest groups or corporate lobbies paying people to round up
signatures. Few if any initiatives these days are ones put together by
'regular' people, though that was the intention behind their creation.
And in the end, nearly all ballot initiatives get tied up in courts, so
that little more than half ever actually become law.
I don't personally oppose the initiative system, but I am saddened to
see that it's been bastardized in this way and has led to such disasters
as Prop 13, Prop 21, and Prop 22 to name a couple. But then it's also
brought us 5 and 1A (indian gambling), 215 (medical marijuana) and 36
(drug treatment instead of jail time) so it has it merits. And there's
always Prop 187, an odious proposal, which had the pleasant side effect
of dooming the GOP's chances of ever winning a decent percentage of
Hispanic votes.
ObRoads: The initiative process applies to counties as well, and many of
the special sales taxes that have rebuilt roads in places like Alameda,
Orange, and San Diego counties were the result of the ballot initiative,
as well as endless measures dealing with the planned El Toro airport.
Mr. Mojave
> http://Mojave.tripod.com/westmap.html
>
> Comments? Questions?
Version 1.1 is now up... No big changes. Fixed Mono county's name,
combined a few random California counties(too lazy to look at which
ones I combined), fixed Imperial's color.
William Lynch
"Mr. Mojave" wrote:
A definite improvement of an already spectacular project.
I like the lakes used, but Lake Mead should be added,
due to it's significant location. Research has shown to
me that you were correct about the Klamath County/
Tule Lake area. I am working on a more detailed proposal
for Maricopa County (if any). The eastern half of Kern
County should still go to Mojave. And Elko and White
Pine Counties should be returned to Nevada.
This single map is making me get off of my duff and
replace my color cartridge in the printer.
William Lynch
PRDem3 wrote:
> Great Job! This has inspired me to maybe start a Western Great Lakes
> version....
Good luck. But, the bar has been set rather high . . .
MojaveNC
County should still go to Mojave >>
County or state?
<< . And Elko and White
Pine Counties should be returned to Nevada. >>
I still believe that they'd be better served by Salt Lake...more Mormons than
cowboys.
<< A definite improvement of an already spectacular project.
>>
Thanks much. Seriously. Too bad it's just a bunch of Roadgeeks that are
debating this and not the halls of Congress ;)
William Lynch
MojaveNC wrote:
> << The eastern half of Kern
> County should still go to Mojave >>
>
> County or state?
County. Sorry.
>
>
> << . And Elko and White
> Pine Counties should be returned to Nevada. >>
>
> I still believe that they'd be better served by Salt Lake...more Mormons than
> cowboys.
Neat. *Another* research project. . . . sigh . . .
>
>
> << A definite improvement of an already spectacular project.
> >>
>
> Thanks much. Seriously. Too bad it's just a bunch of Roadgeeks that are
> debating this and not the halls of Congress ;)
Who knows what evil lurks amongst us in the newsgroup . . .
BWWAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!
Jon Enslin
> Great Job! This has inspired me to maybe start a Western Great Lakes
> version....
I would like to see a proposal and ability to comment upon that before
you draw up a map.
Jon
Rob
"Michael G. Koerner" wrote:
> I remember several years ago listening to a late-night radio discussion
> of a book titled 'The (xx, I forgot the exact number) Nations of North
> America'. It was on the same subject, except the author divided ALL of
> North america into regional 'nation-states' that represented areas of
> common interest, economy, mores, etc. IIRC, one was 'Ecotopia' (the
> Left Coast from San Francisco to at least Vancouver, BC), another was
> 'Foundary' (the US/Canada Greast Lakes industrial 'Heartland'), etc.
>
> I wish I had sought out and bought that book (I don't know if it is
> still in print or not).
>
The nations are:
Ecotopia (left coast from about Santa Barbara north)
The Empty Quarter (great basin and most of Canada)
The Breadbasket (the plains)
The Foundry (great lakes and mid-atlantic)
Dixie (what you'd expect)
New England (what you'd expect + the Canadian maritimes)
Quebec
Mex-America (Mexico + the southwestern US)
The Islands (South Florida + the west Indies)
It's a 1981 book by Joel Garreau entitled "The Nine Nations of North America." It's
currently not in print. More information is available at:
http://www.harper.cc.il.us/mhealy/g101ilec/namer/nac/nacnine/na9intro/nacninfr.htm
--
___
/ --___
( \_
/- \
/| | \
/ |/ |
/ |
\ _/
/ "The" / ___
\ Rob | / \
\ McCaleb \_/ |
| |
| |
/ * _/
/ /
/ Haslett, MI /
/____________-------/
Michael G. Koerner
of a book titled 'The (xx, I forgot the exact number) Nations of North
America'. It was on the same subject, except the author divided ALL of
North america into regional 'nation-states' that represented areas of
common interest, economy, mores, etc. IIRC, one was 'Ecotopia' (the
Left Coast from San Francisco to at least Vancouver, BC), another was
'Foundary' (the US/Canada Greast Lakes industrial 'Heartland'), etc.
I wish I had sought out and bought that book (I don't know if it is
still in print or not).
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Regards,
Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI
***NOTICE*** SPAMfilter in use, please remove ALL 'i's from the return
address to reply. ***NOTICE***
____________________________________________________________________________
MojaveNC
I wish I had sought out and bought that book (I don't know if it is
still in print or not). >>
My dad owns it, I bought it for him at Christmas. The Nine nations of North
America. I'll try and get the author for you.
mwalcoff
> http://Mojave.tripod.com/westmap.html
>
> Comments? Questions?
Cute.
I love brainstorming up this kind of stuff. I've thought about
how silly the state of Ohio is, since it really lacks any demo-
graphic, economic or political cohesiveness. Southeastern Ohio
can become part of West Virginia; Southwestern Ohio part of
Kentucky; Western Ohio part of Indiana; Northwest Ohio part of
Michigan; and the Columbus area its own little fiefdom. North-
east Ohio can also become its own state -- the settlers called
it "New Connecticut" -- or it can go back to being part of the
Nutmeg State, as it was in the 18th century. It would not work
as part of Pennsylvania, since we Northeast Ohioans don't talk
like people from Pittsburgh, and the land does not look anything
like Western Pennsylvania, despite its proximity.
Of course, the chances of anything like that ever happening are
smaller than the Planck legnth*. It's amazing the degree to
which inertia attaches Americans to what are really just the ter-
ritory of general-purpose government: states, counties, cities,
etc. Even something that seems to be a completely bureaucratic
creation, like a heterogenous, uncentralized township around a
city, can become sacred once someone considers merging it with
a neighbor or changing its boundaries. In Britain, by contrast,
the national government regularly messes with the boundaries of,
or even eliminates, entities that date back to the Middle Ages.
A historical note: If you are American, you should remember from
school that at the Constitutional Convention, the big states
wanted legislative seats to be apportioned to states by popula-
tion, while the smaller states wanted each state to have equal
representation, regardless of population. Unable to accept either
proposal as fair, Delegate David Brearly of New Jersey said the
only possible solution was to redraw the map of the country,
creating 13 states of equal population. James Wilson of Pennsyl-
vania called Brearly's idea "desirable, but evidently and total-
ly impracticable." Two days later, Ben Franklin and Connecticut
delegate Roger Sherman proposed the famous compromise: Senate
seats would be equal among states and House of Representatives
seats based on population.
*The legnth below which principles of physics no longer work. It's
1.6160x10^-35 (a really, really small number) centimeters.
Matt
N.W.Perry
in NY can go to PA, everything west of the Connecticut in MA can come into
NY, and heck, pretty much all of VT, too. Long Island is absorbed into CT,
although a few of the eastern islands could maybe go to RI, Rockland County
goes into NJ, Fairfield County comes into Westchester, NYC becomes an
autonomous district not unlike Columbia but more desirably
administered...oh, and Erie County, PA comes into NYS as well, but we'd have
to rename it. I propose Perry County! :-)
"mwalcoff" <mwal...@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:820fd90d.01062...@posting.google.com...
robert cruickshank
It's all politics. Washington DC should be and would be a state, but the
Republican Party can't stomach the idea of adding two liberal Democrats
to the Senate. That and the fact that you'd need to amend the
Constitution to make DC a state helps to complicate matters.
But to make any other new states all you need to do is get the people in
the states affected to vote for it (or their legislatures, I forget how
the Constitution reads on this matter). Not as hard. Once someone
decides it is in their political interest to split the Southwest up (and
I think it might be in the GOP's interest), then that map of yours might
not just be a pipe dream.
Michael G. Koerner
It is simpler than that.
With the exception of DC, according to Article. IV, Section. 3., "New
States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State
shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;
nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts
of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States
concerned as well as of the Congress."
According to that, the President is not required to sign a statehood
admission bill, either.
John David Galt
> How does Cali handle initiative power? In Nevada, to get something on the
> ballot, 10% of the registered voters in EACH county must sign petitions. This
> really helps because people in Mineral County pride themselves in not signing
> petitions that have ANYTHING to do with Clark County.
In CA it's a certain percentage of the total number of people who voted in
the last election for governor. (0.5% or 2%, depending on whether your
initiative would change the state constitution or is just a regular law.)
It doesn't matter where in the state that percentage comes from.
Requiring a certain percentage in each county would give a few people veto
power, because of counties like Alpine (which is nearly all national forest
land and has only a couple of hundred residents).
Mike Petrucci
Hey, I'm from Fairfield County, and I wouldn't care! But can we go into
Putnam, instead? It would be a good idea, but New York would laugh at our
roads (sorry Kurumi, I guess u can call me a rebel cause I like NY's roads a
lot better than CT's). I-84 could become part of the New York Thruway System
(the rest in NY is owned by NYSTA anyway). Then maybe we could actually get
some work done on that overhaul I've been talking about!! We can throw a SPUI
into exit 5, dump 6, put a CD-road between 7 and 8, and straighten the road out
from there to Waterbury so there arent so many accidents!!!
...Then the most populous County in Connecticut (Fairfield of course) would
march up with torches to CT's capital and burn it so NY could come in and take
all of it over! Or they can ceede to Mass. (they'd welcome us with the way our
roads are--we'd be role models for them)...
Then, I wake up. It's all a dream, but it'd be really cool if it would
happen!!
-M I K E
Danbury, CT--"Where hicks and homies unite!!"
William Lynch
John David Galt wrote:
Just as an FYI, Alpine is up to 1,208, which makes them # 3,103 on
the list of the 3,141 counties listed by the Census Bureau.
peacock
PRDem3 wrote:
>
> Great Job! This has inspired me to maybe start a Western Great Lakes
> version....
Carpe diem, PRDem3! I'll do a Michigan one once I get a scanner…
--Bobby