edit: “Balkanised” is probably the right word, partition means to divide territory between two other states. If the US did break apart in pieces (probably in some sort of dystopian/everyone is going to die world), i wonder if other countries will try to nab bits of it (e.g. Britain regaining their colonies, Mexico regaining their lost territories, Spain regaining Florida, or even Russia taking over Alaska)
note: I am not advocating for the partition of the US, it’s just fun to think about new countries! Also, I’m not American and have never been there so I have no clue about the different cultures in the different states.
If the US broke up into multiple pieces in some way or another, what new countries would you want to appear? (with and without considering for the feasibility of such new countries) What would their relations be like with each other and with other countries?
Personally, I would think New York (the city) becoming an independent microstate would be kind of cool, like the Vatican City of the stock market. The idea of “Cascadia” (which, to my knowledge, includes California, Oregon, and one other I forgot the name of. I think a bit of Canada too. The west coast, right?) could be realised, and with California, they would have a very beefy economy, as well as Silicon Valley. An independent Alaskan state could also be interesting, especially since they have a cool flag. Same goes for Texas.
How about drawing a grid on the entire country, and labelling each new square state in chessboard style? American streets try to be sensible and consistent like that, so why not just apply the same idea on a federal level too? If you’re in the state D5, you’ll know that D4 right next door.
How about dividing the US into 50 states with equal population?
So do you adjust the borders every year?
I like how Shiprock is a place no ship could ever reach.
It’s a place where you need to build your own ship from local materials. Maybe consider using stone…
Africa moment.
I mean, it’s not like the locals need to be taken into consideration in matters of government. They’re going to have their irrelevant opinions, but you can always just mow them down if you can’t stand listening to them constantly moaning their silly woes.
Why? What do you propose the point of this would be?
Logical consistency. Americans were so good at this when building the place. Look at the farm plots on a map. Streets in the city center usually form a neat grid. Even the highway system makes sense for the most part.
Meanwhile in Europe we were just winging it and letting things grow more or less organically. Has worked just fine for 1000+ years so it’s too late to change it now.
What is the practical value of logical consistency? It sounds like you are basically saying that it would look cool and satisfying on the map. But it doesn’t correspond to the political needs of the populace.
This concept specifically ignores the people and their needs. It’s a long standing tradition.
However, a consistent system is easier to navigate, so I guess that counts as one of the few actual benefits.
Jefferson has entered the chat