Maps are cool here, right?

Maps are cool here, right?
So, say Canada joins the U.S. and we take the opportunity to fix some states: How's this map?
Any additions?

Without text.

Without my additions.

NoVA would like to be its own state now, please.

Northern Virginia?
Why?
Where should the line be drawn?

This is verging on /pol/ territiory, but: it has major political differences from the rest of the state (very sharp urban/rural, liberal/conservative divide), it's culturally far more similar to DC than to the south, and NoVA's basically been propping up the rest of the state with its taxes for two decades now, so that any local project seems to cost a good 4-5x as much as it should because most of that money is getting funneled south. It's starting to piss people off.

Really, it's just that NoVA is northeastern, VA is southern. The rest of VA isn't too happy about us repeatedly swinging the state blue either.

As to where to put the divide, this looks just fine to me. Although you could maybe just up and fold DC into the new state and neatly solve the DC voting rights issue in one fell swoop.

Do you think the rest of Virginia would be fine joining West Virginia?

>Greater Alberta

off urself m8

I don't know what the official name would be.

Also, would you guys join Maryland? Would Maryland like that?

Cascadia will make the PNW great again.

Cascadia will be a shitty liberal containment state for Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver.

Greater Saskatchewan obviously :^)

:^)
Also, how do you guys like GREATER ALASKA?
It's my favorite, by far.
Makes my dick hard.

We'll build a wall on the southern border and kick out all the easterners, Cali transplants, and chinks.

Good luck with that.
Anyway, conservative Northern California(Jefferson) is to your south.

>Only addition to Alaska is a bunch of alcoholics and some trees

meh

But look how big it is!

Shut up, this map painting autism is fantasy so don't rain on mine.

Okay, I'll let you kick the liberals out.
If you want to.

The chinks too, don't forget about them.

Yeah, them, too.

You cannot split California without doing so for some completely abstract and inevitably damaging reason.

People have come up with a million different designs for it, they always have basic flaws.

Put simply, you can split the state along geographic features, resources, economics, or political lines. But you can only divide the state one of those ways, because you will inevitably end up with arbitrary and problematic borders with regards to the others. And all of the proposed divisions ignore the historical connections each part of California has to the other.

So this map I assume is trying to place Northern California with Oregon because of political reasons. This appears to be the common Cascadia-Jefferson-California model.

The problem being that (in addition to creating the poorest and least populated state in the Union), you've split the Central Valley into two. This border cuts off the Lower Sacramento river from the Upper and divides fertile farm land with no consideration for geography.

You also divide California from major sources of energy. Many in the valley use hydroelectric from the Sierras, which would be sliced up. The Bay Area uses geothermal from the hills North of Sonoma, which gets split away.

Economically, Sacramento Valley farms and ranches now have to traverse state lines to load their goods onto ships and trains. Major research universities and colleges are cut off from funding. Roads (which suffer from weathering quicker in the North) don't have a large group of people living in sunny, dry weather to help pay for maintenance, so logging and shipping suffer. I could go on.

Then there is the historical connections between these areas, which have existed since ehumans first arrived here and which is a whole other mega post.

Eh.
I want three more Republican votes, the people living there want that, too.
If it's too little-populated, it can be combined with Lincoln(Eastern Washington and Oregon).

Northern California has never shown any major political consistency in its history.

It has been Republican since Reagan, but was solid New Deal Democrat before that. That switch has less to do with some long term culture of conservativism and more to do with medium-term transactional gains: Republicans promised land-use monopoly busting when Hearst logged every hill, Dems promised electricity when there wasn't any, Republicans promised more land usage rights.

Basically the entire region is there to be won by any party, so dividing that area into a new state in the hope that you're creating some new Wyoming is a flawed plan.

Hmm.
Are you from there?

Fucking faggots go back to

This thread is Veeky Forums, and definately not worse than tons of other threads here.

From the Central Coast aka True California aka God's Own Vacation Home, but I am a history major focused on California.

Then you aren't one of them.
Anyway, if this really happened, it would need a lot more thinking-out.
I think it's fine to let the Northern Californians have their fantasy.

Also, I didn't make that part of the map, and don't really want to change it.

>not one of them

They aren't aliens, it isn't like they are some inscrutable horde living in the barbarian lands.

I didn't imply that, I just mean that your assessment of them may be a bit biased, as it would be your state they would be leaving.
Anyway, I'm not really qualified to speak on the subject, as I'm from the Midwest.

Marylander here
Cunts should've stayed with DC, and fuck off were already full of enough 'diverse' ghettos.

Canada will forever be British . God save Monarch!

>Implying America isn't British
D.C.'s too special of a case, though, to make it a part of a state.