Western Maryland asks West Virginia to 'consider adding us' to their state(msn.com)
msn.com
Western Maryland asks West Virginia to 'consider adding us' to their state
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/western-maryland-lawmakers-ask-west-virginia-officials-to-e2-80-98consider-adding-us-e2-80-99-to-their-state/ar-AAPNBZz
112 comments
Yet people regularly try to push these ideas, from the earliest days of the Union when part of New Hampshire wanted to secede and join Vermont or form a new state in the Connecticut River valley (https://www.flowofhistory.org/the-rebellion-in-western-new-h...)
More recently, there was that expensive California idea pushed by Tim Draper, as well as a new country in the Pacific Northwest including parts of Canada and the U.S.
More recently, there was that expensive California idea pushed by Tim Draper, as well as a new country in the Pacific Northwest including parts of Canada and the U.S.
Killington (located pretty much dead center in VT) has been trying to seceede into New Hampshire recently[1] - so these sorts of border flipping movements aren't as rare as you might assume. It was doing this, of course, purely for tax reasons because the town is mostly composed of several large corporations.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killington,_Vermont_secession_...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killington,_Vermont_secession_...
I think of it as Fantasy Cartography, or maybe Fantasy Nation State-Building.
Frequently, but not exclusively, found among those who enjoy feeling historical grievances.
Frequently, but not exclusively, found among those who enjoy feeling historical grievances.
or when part of Massachusetts did spin off and become Maine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Maine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Maine
Massachusetts claim to Maine in the first place was opportunistic and tenuous to begin with whereas the borders of WV and MD (or many of the other states people want to rearrange) have been where they are now for 100+yr.
I strongly believe we only really think that in retrospect because the borders changed long before any of us were born.
Additionally, while splitting off Maine was for a good cause - it was essentially just a hack to keep the senate balanced in the lead-up to the civil war.
Additionally, while splitting off Maine was for a good cause - it was essentially just a hack to keep the senate balanced in the lead-up to the civil war.
Maine brook off because during the War of 1812 England conquered a huge chunk of Maine and the good people of the rest of Massachusetts were too cheap to do anything about it.
The Cal 3 proposal actually made some sense as it would have given the people living there more representation in congress in the form of 4 new senators, as well as more local control. You would think that there would be broad support for the proposal considering a lot of people in these large left-leaning states often complain that their vote is not "worth as much" as a vote in a less populated state.
> The Cal 3 proposal actually made some sense
Not really, even on the scale of “crazy proposals to divide California into multiple states” , of which there have been a couple hundred since it was admitted to the union.
> it would have given the people living there more representation in congress in the form of 4 new senators, as well as more local control
Sure, and Cal58 (each existing county as its own state) would give them 114 new senators, and even more local control, by the same standards. Cal3 retained the main “problem” most recent “split California” proposals aim to fix, the perceived representation problem (particularly in the statewide executive and U.S. Senate) resulting from the deepest red parts of the State (which are on par with some of the deepest red parts of the country) being diluted in a big blue state. Two of the three Cal3 states (NorCal, Cal) would have been solid blue, including the one with the reddest parts of the existing State (Cal), and the other (SoCal) would have (at least, from the political state at the time) been fairly competitive (though also pretty solidly blue, in Presidential terms, if 2016 and 2020 worked out the same way by county.)
It also would have turned a lot of broad issues in the State, which cross the proposed borders, into potential federal issues, reducing local control (and also reducing the possibility of any favorable action in the presence of federal hostility – common given the structural rightward tilt of federal representation [which, while it would help a tiny bit with, it wouldn't neutralize] – or deadlock.)
> You would think that there would be broad support for the proposal considering a lot of people in these large left-leaning states often complain that their vote is not “worth as much” as a vote in a less populated state.
You would think that if you were thinking shallowly about that one complaint, and not the whole host of issues involved in splitting up an existing state.
Not really, even on the scale of “crazy proposals to divide California into multiple states” , of which there have been a couple hundred since it was admitted to the union.
> it would have given the people living there more representation in congress in the form of 4 new senators, as well as more local control
Sure, and Cal58 (each existing county as its own state) would give them 114 new senators, and even more local control, by the same standards. Cal3 retained the main “problem” most recent “split California” proposals aim to fix, the perceived representation problem (particularly in the statewide executive and U.S. Senate) resulting from the deepest red parts of the State (which are on par with some of the deepest red parts of the country) being diluted in a big blue state. Two of the three Cal3 states (NorCal, Cal) would have been solid blue, including the one with the reddest parts of the existing State (Cal), and the other (SoCal) would have (at least, from the political state at the time) been fairly competitive (though also pretty solidly blue, in Presidential terms, if 2016 and 2020 worked out the same way by county.)
It also would have turned a lot of broad issues in the State, which cross the proposed borders, into potential federal issues, reducing local control (and also reducing the possibility of any favorable action in the presence of federal hostility – common given the structural rightward tilt of federal representation [which, while it would help a tiny bit with, it wouldn't neutralize] – or deadlock.)
> You would think that there would be broad support for the proposal considering a lot of people in these large left-leaning states often complain that their vote is not “worth as much” as a vote in a less populated state.
You would think that if you were thinking shallowly about that one complaint, and not the whole host of issues involved in splitting up an existing state.
What are some of these broad statewide problems in California?
Nobody on either side liked the Cal3 proposal because it just turns one California into three Illinois.
You'd still have major urban areas mostly controlling each state but fighting the rest of the state every step of the way. It works from a "keep the number of red and blue senators" fairly constant perspective but it doesn't actually solve anybody's complaints about lack of self-government.
You'd still have major urban areas mostly controlling each state but fighting the rest of the state every step of the way. It works from a "keep the number of red and blue senators" fairly constant perspective but it doesn't actually solve anybody's complaints about lack of self-government.
[deleted]
These stories are also a reminder that dissolution is an ever present mechanism to overcome gridlock. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing radical proposals to break the deadlock in the US Senate start to gain steam.
There is no mechanism for dissolution.
Well there is war, but the last guys who tried that picked the wrong side of morality and furthermore lost badly. Since then, no one thinks secession is very credible in the USA.
Plus there's a huge amount of power that comes with being part of the United States. Imagine having to renegotiate every treaty from scratch.
> This issue is one of the many defects in democracies: your power sometimes rests in the way somebody drew a border a long time ago.
If you have the power to move to the other side of the border, then that at least limits the difference between perfect democracy and reality. Admittedly the costs involved in moving does make this option similar to a poll tax, though.
More generally, though, I wouldn't phrase things in terms of "defects in democracies" but rather "examples of how some implementations of political systems fall short of the goals of democracy". Other examples would be lax campaign financing rules, non-proportional voting systems, and gerrymandering (which is the opposite problem, i.e. someone drawing a border very recently).
If you have the power to move to the other side of the border, then that at least limits the difference between perfect democracy and reality. Admittedly the costs involved in moving does make this option similar to a poll tax, though.
More generally, though, I wouldn't phrase things in terms of "defects in democracies" but rather "examples of how some implementations of political systems fall short of the goals of democracy". Other examples would be lax campaign financing rules, non-proportional voting systems, and gerrymandering (which is the opposite problem, i.e. someone drawing a border very recently).
I could see Congress going along with this in exchange for DC statehood.
But, while we're talking about things that won't ever happen, we should also combine the Dakotas into one state. Lot of government administrative resources wasted for very few people actually living there. And we're paying for four senators, where two is way more than necessary to represent that population.
But, while we're talking about things that won't ever happen, we should also combine the Dakotas into one state. Lot of government administrative resources wasted for very few people actually living there. And we're paying for four senators, where two is way more than necessary to represent that population.
Population of California: 39,656,838*
Population of North + South Dakota: 1,645,198*
Persons per senator in California: 19,828,419
Persons per senator in the Dakotas: 411,300
Getting highly-overrepresented people to give up their overrepresentation is a hard ask.
*latest US Census figures
Population of North + South Dakota: 1,645,198*
Persons per senator in California: 19,828,419
Persons per senator in the Dakotas: 411,300
Getting highly-overrepresented people to give up their overrepresentation is a hard ask.
*latest US Census figures
It's not over-representation, as the senate was never supposed to represent citizens, it was supposed to represent the states. At the time of the declaration of independence, there were some states much larger than others; Virginia had a population of ~747k, and Delaware was at ~59k.
Okay, but the division of the Dakota Territory into two states was done, at least in part, to game the system and secure more seats for the 1870s Republican party. It's not just a matter of "well, there turned out to be two states, and so they just happen to get two sets of representatives and senators" - the causal arrow points in the other direction.
The senate was also originally chosen by the state legislatures, the federal government wasn’t able to levy income taxes, DC wasn’t given federal representation, etc.
It can both be true that the senate was “designed” to represent different interests and at the same time we can critique it and say that certain states are “over represented” as the society the senate was originally designed for no longer exists. we have different needs and values than we did in 1789 and the system we live under today is already radically different than the one that existed in say 1800.
It can both be true that the senate was “designed” to represent different interests and at the same time we can critique it and say that certain states are “over represented” as the society the senate was originally designed for no longer exists. we have different needs and values than we did in 1789 and the system we live under today is already radically different than the one that existed in say 1800.
I certainly agree that this disparity exists by-design. We can disagree on the word used to describe it, but the fact remains: For every person in a state represented by a senator's vote in the Dakotas, there is nearly 50 people in the state of California. This is ~400% the disparity you cite between Delaware and Virginia. Certainly that growth in disparity is not entirely unforeseeable by the founders. The system is functioning as intended. My point was that you aren't likely to get people to voluntarily choose to have less power.
State governments are supposed to represent the people of the state. The people who designed the system just didn't trust the masses. And people can disagree with the design.
That would make sense if senators were appointed by state governors and not by by elections.
Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop.
Today's representation carries that legacy, where new states are not allowed unless they preserve the status quo.
Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop.
Today's representation carries that legacy, where new states are not allowed unless they preserve the status quo.
>"Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop."
Senate representation was one of many bulwarks against majoritarianism, which was one of the founders' principal concerns, for a variety of reasons.
Senate representation was one of many bulwarks against majoritarianism, which was one of the founders' principal concerns, for a variety of reasons.
But that’s my design. Senators were never supposed to represent population proportionally. That’s what congressman are for, senators represent a state.
If you want pure proportional representation then you need to dismiss senate, and change congressional election to nation wide proportional system. Afterwards you wouldn’t even need states anymore.
If you want pure proportional representation then you need to dismiss senate, and change congressional election to nation wide proportional system. Afterwards you wouldn’t even need states anymore.
And, folks often forget, the fact that the states exist and have control of their elections is part of what helps with the incorruptibility of the system.
States do a lot more then just vote for Federal legislators. We could have a federal election system that didn't take states into account but still had independent state laws, governors, police forces, etc.
Senators nowadays represent voters in their state, and not the state itself. The governor doesn't tell their senators how to vote
The house represents people, the senate the states.
Hence why senators are elected for 6 years, because states interests don't change that often and the house every 2, in order for the people to have as much influence as possible.
Same reason all tax bills have to start in the house, why senators weren't elected by popular vote.
Hence why senators are elected for 6 years, because states interests don't change that often and the house every 2, in order for the people to have as much influence as possible.
Same reason all tax bills have to start in the house, why senators weren't elected by popular vote.
Doesn't the state's interests change during every state election?
Given the geometries of modern gerrymandered borders, maybe it's not so bad to rely on borders drawn a long time ago.
I don't know that I'd say highly unlikely. That kind of thing has happened several times. Unusual, yes, but not wildly so.
Fun fact: they would be moving from the state with the highest median household income to the state with the lowest. I suppose this would only make Maryland richer by that metric.
Personally, I’d rather cut my own foot off with a rusty steak knife than live in West Virginia, which has basically nothing going for it except some decent wilderness. It doesn’t help that I have relatives there who love the confederate flag and decorate the back of their truck with a few iron crosses. Maybe they’d fit in among the residents of western Maryland.
Personally, I’d rather cut my own foot off with a rusty steak knife than live in West Virginia, which has basically nothing going for it except some decent wilderness. It doesn’t help that I have relatives there who love the confederate flag and decorate the back of their truck with a few iron crosses. Maybe they’d fit in among the residents of western Maryland.
Western Maryland has a pretty low cost of living. I live in the Baltimore/DC area and have co-workers who live in Frederick because they could get a large house for cheap (and 3 the counties being discussed in the article are to the west of Frederick).
If the counties were able to succeed and join WV, I wonder how many Marylanders would move out there for the low taxes.
If the counties were able to succeed and join WV, I wonder how many Marylanders would move out there for the low taxes.
The Post had a cover story a few years ago on people moving to cheaper cities in the region. I still love living in the District, even though it's not cheap.
My genetic grandfather live in West Virginia, i'd say it is way more diverse than you think it is. I depends where you go though. People who live there are great, i thought at the time i met the only true left candidate in the US (It was before Bernie was a thing).
Back-to-land'er hippies communities are a joy to frequent: they play music every time they're not hiking, brewing, building their home or tending their garden. They also tried to do their own festival. If you want to met some of them, you have to try producer markets and talk to the guys there, or just go to a bar where music is played and talk to the musicians.
You can also participate in a home brew contest, you'll taste horrible stuff, pretty good stuff, and meet wonderful people..
Back-to-land'er hippies communities are a joy to frequent: they play music every time they're not hiking, brewing, building their home or tending their garden. They also tried to do their own festival. If you want to met some of them, you have to try producer markets and talk to the guys there, or just go to a bar where music is played and talk to the musicians.
You can also participate in a home brew contest, you'll taste horrible stuff, pretty good stuff, and meet wonderful people..
I drove through rural West Virginia about 6 years ago. Along the road I spotted a broken down van, and I pulled over to see if they needed help. There were three of them, and they were each twice as big as me, and I’m 120kg. I gave a ride to one guy who barely fit in the passenger seat. We got to talking, and he was a retired coal miner. Super friendly. About 30km down the road, he asked me to drop him off at a tiny grocery store so he could walk around and find his preacher, who also happened to be the local tow truck driver.
All the wealth in Maryland is concentrated around DC, so western Marylanders probably don't feel much connection at all to easterners. I'd imagine it is similar elsewhere - people in upstate NY probably feel a stronger connection to Vermonters than they do to NYC folk.
Tangential, but instead of making DC into a new state, why not just absorb it into Maryland? Virginia already absorbed the part of DC rhombus west of the Potomac.
DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state).
National Democrats would also like two more Senate seats (and both DC and Maryland are predominantly Democratic, DC absurdly so) while national Republicans are happy enough with the status quo, giving DC no voting representation in Congress at all. So there's no strong momentum for movement on any side except DC's (who don't have the power to do anything about it by themselves).
National Democrats would also like two more Senate seats (and both DC and Maryland are predominantly Democratic, DC absurdly so) while national Republicans are happy enough with the status quo, giving DC no voting representation in Congress at all. So there's no strong momentum for movement on any side except DC's (who don't have the power to do anything about it by themselves).
By these arguments nearly every sizable city in the country should be its own state.
>DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state).
>DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state).
> By these arguments nearly every sizable city in the country should be its own state.
I think that's worth considering. It would get rid of a lot of the left/right gridlock at state levels. Cities would be mostly free to do as they wish without rural areas holding them back and rural areas would be free to do as they wish without cities holding them back. This would also greatly reduce the amount of BS that needs to get done at the federal level because a ton of that stuff is not interstate issues but an end run around the fact that the blue team and the red team can't do what they want at the state level so they try and get the feds to do it to the whole country.
And before anyone says "but money" I would like to remind them that freedom isn't free.
I think that's worth considering. It would get rid of a lot of the left/right gridlock at state levels. Cities would be mostly free to do as they wish without rural areas holding them back and rural areas would be free to do as they wish without cities holding them back. This would also greatly reduce the amount of BS that needs to get done at the federal level because a ton of that stuff is not interstate issues but an end run around the fact that the blue team and the red team can't do what they want at the state level so they try and get the feds to do it to the whole country.
And before anyone says "but money" I would like to remind them that freedom isn't free.
I mean, maybe? Bremen, Hamburg, and Berlin are Länder (the German equivalent of states). You could certainly make an argument for, say, NYC being its own state; it'd be bigger than Delaware. But a lot of these things are historical accidents: West Virginia only exists because of the Civil War, California would certainly not be one state if founded now, while DC isn't a state at all. And given that the boundaries of the states are entrenched by the constitution there's a heavy status quo bias as to what might happen in the future.
Isn't Bremen, Hamburg, and Berlin's "statehood" because of their former membership in the Hanseatic League?
Berlin is a state because (esp West-)Berlin kind of had to be one in the restructuring after WW2.
Bremen and Hamburg both were Free Cities in the Holy Roman Empire. More importantly, they were among the very few Free Cities that retained this status until and past the end of the HRE (1806). Being in the Hanseatic League helped establish their importance, but the League wasn't actually a major concern at that time anymore, and hadn't been for over a century, but they certainly played to that history (and e.g. added "Hansestadt" to their names, long after)
Bremen and Hamburg both were Free Cities in the Holy Roman Empire. More importantly, they were among the very few Free Cities that retained this status until and past the end of the HRE (1806). Being in the Hanseatic League helped establish their importance, but the League wasn't actually a major concern at that time anymore, and hadn't been for over a century, but they certainly played to that history (and e.g. added "Hansestadt" to their names, long after)
I think honestly when the 3 largest cities in the us each have more people than the entire United States did at independence it is worth asking what sort of political reforms are possible
Which strikes me as a good idea. Particularly since DC retrocession and merging low population states (also elegant) have no legs.
Every metro with population above median or average of existing US states should have the option of forming a new state. Seems to work for Berlin/Bremen/Hamburg in Germany, and various metros in other countries.
Every metro with population above median or average of existing US states should have the option of forming a new state. Seems to work for Berlin/Bremen/Hamburg in Germany, and various metros in other countries.
China treats its major cities (and the nearby area) at the province level: Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing. So it's not unprecedented among governing systems. And given the size of those areas, it is a pragmatic approach.
A lot of people in those areas would agree with you.
Yes this would be ideal
Every sizable city that isn't already part of a state.
DC statehood is all about tipping the scale to the Democrats in the Senate. Retrocession of DC doesn’t allow that.
Because one party wants two more uncompetitive senate seats.
And the other party doesn't want people having representation at all.
For the record, the popular vote percentages for the Democrats in the past 3 senate elections were: 53.0%, 58.2%, and 47.0%. That averages 52.7%, so gaining an extra two senate seats would still mean the Democrats were under-represented.
(I know that the purpose of the senate is not to represent each citizen equally, I just thought it was worth pointing out which parts of the country have the most grounds for complaint).
For the record, the popular vote percentages for the Democrats in the past 3 senate elections were: 53.0%, 58.2%, and 47.0%. That averages 52.7%, so gaining an extra two senate seats would still mean the Democrats were under-represented.
(I know that the purpose of the senate is not to represent each citizen equally, I just thought it was worth pointing out which parts of the country have the most grounds for complaint).
The purpose of the senate is to make sure that low population regions have a voice, and that majority interests don’t trample minority interests.
To say that one party doesn’t want people to be represented at all is a ridiculous straw-man.
To say that one party doesn’t want people to be represented at all is a ridiculous straw-man.
The senate exists because 13 formerly independent, sovereign political units decided to form a United federal superstructure above them. Some of these states had land claims that went out to Pacific Ocean at the time and it wouldn’t have made any sense to enter into a union with states that would be wildly out of proportion in potentially a very short time.
Since then 37 more states have joined, almost all carved out of territory formerly owned by the federal government itself, settled largely by people from other states and immigrants under the direction of said federal government. They were never independently sovereign units yet we all live under the political bargains that were struck to reach an agreement with the original 13.
The system was not designed with this reality in mind, it was a pragmatic decision dressed up with the political theory of the time. If “protecting minority interests” were that important, there are much better systems designs that actually are tailored to fit the political realities of America in 2021.
Since then 37 more states have joined, almost all carved out of territory formerly owned by the federal government itself, settled largely by people from other states and immigrants under the direction of said federal government. They were never independently sovereign units yet we all live under the political bargains that were struck to reach an agreement with the original 13.
The system was not designed with this reality in mind, it was a pragmatic decision dressed up with the political theory of the time. If “protecting minority interests” were that important, there are much better systems designs that actually are tailored to fit the political realities of America in 2021.
I mean, it isn't? If DC voted Republican then they'd be totally in favour of making it a state. It's not a secret that is the reason why DC statehood has no traction in Congress. You can make a case for retrocession, but the other arguments are understood by everyone to be a fig leaf.
The same was true in the past: Alaska and Hawaii were admitted essentially as a two-for-one deal because Alaska was reliably Republican and Hawaii reliably Democrat. If both had been one or the other they might have had to wait a long time. And the arguments would have been facially plausible (but not real) here too: the importance of territorial contiguity, the low population of Alaska, the difficulties of establishing effective transportation links, whatever.
The number of people who are for (small-d) democratic advances regardless of whether they benefit their own party is (in my view depressingly) low.
The same was true in the past: Alaska and Hawaii were admitted essentially as a two-for-one deal because Alaska was reliably Republican and Hawaii reliably Democrat. If both had been one or the other they might have had to wait a long time. And the arguments would have been facially plausible (but not real) here too: the importance of territorial contiguity, the low population of Alaska, the difficulties of establishing effective transportation links, whatever.
The number of people who are for (small-d) democratic advances regardless of whether they benefit their own party is (in my view depressingly) low.
New Mexico had to wait quite a bit due to having too many brown people.
> and that majority interests don’t trample minority interests.
By ensuring (by overrepresenting the same interests overrepresented in the House by a smaller margin, and in the electoral college by a margin in between that of the two Houses of Congress) that a particular minority will reliably be able to trample the interests of the opposing majority.
By ensuring (by overrepresenting the same interests overrepresented in the House by a smaller margin, and in the electoral college by a margin in between that of the two Houses of Congress) that a particular minority will reliably be able to trample the interests of the opposing majority.
[deleted]
>The purpose of the senate is to make sure that low population regions have a voice, and that majority interests don’t trample minority interests.
Isn't DC a low population region? Then why does one party not want them to be represented at all?
Isn't DC a low population region? Then why does one party not want them to be represented at all?
No, that's the point of guaranteeing two seats in Congress.
If that's the point of the Senate, those states should be sharing 1 congressional seat amongst multiple states to match their population
If that's the point of the Senate, those states should be sharing 1 congressional seat amongst multiple states to match their population
Most of the people living in DC work for the federal government either directly or indirectly. That represents a huge conflict of interest, and was the reason DC was created in the first place. No one lived in DC before it was created, so the people that have put down roots there did so knowing they wouldn't have representation in the federal government.
Not true, most of the federal workers living in the VA and MD suburbs.
>Only about 1 in 6 of the 1.87 million civilian full-time federal employees live in the Washington, D.C. metro area, which includes Northern VA
>Only about 1 in 6 of the 1.87 million civilian full-time federal employees live in the Washington, D.C. metro area, which includes Northern VA
I don't think there is much of an ethical point to "Yeah you're disenfranchised but it was your great great great granddaddies choice!"
Because Maryland doesn't want DC and DC doesn't want Maryland.
Do either of them want to be together?
Same kind of thing happened in Virginia last year. But if this had happened (somehow) then Virginia wouldn't have a competitive campaign for governor this year
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/09/politics/west-virginia-republ...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/09/politics/west-virginia-republ...
This type of stuff happens all the time- Northern Colorado has asked to join Wyoming, there have been various schemes to join parts of Appalachia together, etc. It all comes down to rural areas trying to combine with other rural areas, or occasionally, urban areas trying to expand.
"Western Maryland lawmakers have periodically raised concerns in the Maryland General Assembly that their part of the state is different from the rest of the state, with a more conservative political outlook"
this type of political huckstering happens periodically between US states, most famously the exhausting routine of Californian politicians demanding the state be carved into a north and south (with Los Angeles curiously a northern city in most maps.)
When your brand of political ideal is so toxic or disinteresting to a state that you seek to bifurcate the state itself, you're missing the point of political discourse and abdicating the role of statesman.
this type of political huckstering happens periodically between US states, most famously the exhausting routine of Californian politicians demanding the state be carved into a north and south (with Los Angeles curiously a northern city in most maps.)
When your brand of political ideal is so toxic or disinteresting to a state that you seek to bifurcate the state itself, you're missing the point of political discourse and abdicating the role of statesman.
Yeah east Germany had free housing right? I don't get why people were always trying to cross the Berlin wall.
I am not sure I understand the goals here. Gerrymandering 2.0?
WV lost a seat in the 2020 census. Would move seats from Maryland to WV. From Blue to Red.
I like to idea just to square off WV's eastern panhandle. It would look nice on a map with a flat top.
WV lost a seat in the 2020 census. Would move seats from Maryland to WV. From Blue to Red.
I like to idea just to square off WV's eastern panhandle. It would look nice on a map with a flat top.
The article lists several reasons: culturally they feel closer to WV, they want to be able to do things like fracking that MD has outlawed, they don't feel heard by the MD government on issues like gun rights and taxes. Essentially they have a cultural divide that has grown deep enough that they want to secede. It's unlikely to happen while Joe Manchin is in office, though; he would likely pitch a fit and get Democrats in the Senate to kill it.
If there are natural resources that can be extracted, taxed, and create jobs in those counties and WV already supports the avenue of fracking, I'm not entirely sure Manchin would immediately shut down the idea. I'm sure WV would rather have Frederick county MD to extend state boarders closer to DC and grow the state economy from there.
It surprises me though that citizens in those counties would want to have the state shift below their feet to WV, one of the poorest states in the union. Maybe taxes are cheaper which would be good for them?
It surprises me though that citizens in those counties would want to have the state shift below their feet to WV, one of the poorest states in the union. Maybe taxes are cheaper which would be good for them?
I would have guessed the seat in western MD is already Red, but it turns out that it's grouped in with Potomac and is D+8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_congressional_dis...
Maryland has very aggressive gerrymandering
This is pretty common in a lot of blue states. It's been a thing in Illinois for years, and it's been getting louder for the last year and a half. The gist is the rural area's feel underrepresented compared to the metropolitan area's. So in Illinois case, the rural area's feel like the state puts more focus on Chicago.
Why shouldn't the state put more focus on Chicago? The rural areas are a net drain on state finances and are kept afloat by the "liberal hellhole" that they hate.
Rural IL would say that is only by design, pointing to better-run neighboring states that have implemented reforms, which are impossible to pass in IL, in addition to the financial benefits to the public of smaller, more transparent state and municipal governments.
I don't know... maybe because the rural areas grow their food?
Furthermore, I'm not sure your conjecture is even correct. Subsistence farming supported people for centuries before our megalopolises existed.
Furthermore, I'm not sure your conjecture is even correct. Subsistence farming supported people for centuries before our megalopolises existed.
Western Maryland, like most states, is already gerrymandered and that is likely their key complaint. It wouldn’t make much of a difference if it wasn’t gerrymandered, but I am sure it feels like they lack a voice politically.
Fracking is likely the real motivator. There is rich natural gas reserves that were being fracked in Western Maryland before the state banned it.
Fracking was absolutely causing local environmental harm, but it was also bringing in jobs and tax revenue and people vote with their wallets.
Fracking is likely the real motivator. There is rich natural gas reserves that were being fracked in Western Maryland before the state banned it.
Fracking was absolutely causing local environmental harm, but it was also bringing in jobs and tax revenue and people vote with their wallets.
My assumption is that some rural Marylanders want to live in a red state without having to move.
That's true with rural minded people everywhere. All of them dislike their nearby major city and paint it with the same brush, the same exact talking points whether they are describing Los Angeles or Atlanta, even if they visit once in a blue moon to drive to a baseball game. I think people might be surprised how conservative the rural areas of states are that are commonly considered deep blue politically.
> a media market based in Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA? On a map the western parts of Maryland seem vaguely as close to Pittsburgh as they are to Baltimore. Even if they were closer to Pittsburgh, PA why would media in Pittsburgh, PA cover events in western Maryland (since it's still kind of far away and Pittsburgh isn't that big a city)?
I also don't know what they mean by "media market" being in Pittsburgh, again, if they mean PA.
I Google and can't find a Pittsburgh, MD so I assume they are talking about PA. But I'm still confused.
Pittsburgh, PA? On a map the western parts of Maryland seem vaguely as close to Pittsburgh as they are to Baltimore. Even if they were closer to Pittsburgh, PA why would media in Pittsburgh, PA cover events in western Maryland (since it's still kind of far away and Pittsburgh isn't that big a city)?
I also don't know what they mean by "media market" being in Pittsburgh, again, if they mean PA.
I Google and can't find a Pittsburgh, MD so I assume they are talking about PA. But I'm still confused.
Yes. The westernmost county in MD is considered part of the Pittsburgh PA media market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Media_Market
> definition of the reach of the Pittsburgh television and radio media as defined by Nielsen in a prime sense
Ah. I never understood anything to do with Nielsen. Makes sense.
Ah. I never understood anything to do with Nielsen. Makes sense.
It's probably the reverse direction of what you're thinking, it's not that events of western Maryland would be covered by neighboring cities, more that western Marylanders would be more likely to subscribe to Pittsburgh media than Baltimore. Media that comes to mind include radio, bbroadcast TV and advertised events in local papers.
Using Google Map's measuring tool, Garrett County is 115km from Pittsburgh, PA, 231km from Baltimore, and 207km from DC. It'd make sense that news from Pittsburgh would be more relevant to the area.
Also, according to Wikipedia, Garrett County is part of the Pittsburgh Media Market:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Media_Market
Also, according to Wikipedia, Garrett County is part of the Pittsburgh Media Market:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Media_Market
Pittsburgh is much more culturally rural-white than Baltimore
Interesting you had to use a throwaway for that comment. Pittsburgh has changed a lot in the last 20 years. The grouping of western MD counties in the Pittsburgh media market is purely one of geography.
This is my standard account. I live in Baltimore and have visited Pittsburgh many times. Baltimore is a black city with a much different culture than western Maryland or Pittsburgh
[deleted]
Currently, Texas could split into five states. But this would require a cooperation between the two states and congress. It could happen, but not easy
Everything west of 522 should be WV and everything east should be Maryland.
Anyone got a mirror? The Baltimore Sun is one of those US local media outlets that block Europeans because of how much they "highly value" them.
EDIT: It's syndicated to msn: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/western-maryland-lawmakers...
EDIT: It's syndicated to msn: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/western-maryland-lawmakers...
Ok, we've changed to that from https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-western-md-w.... Thanks!
“The legislature, in cooperation with the properly constituted authority of any adjoining state, is empowered to change, alter, and redefine the state boundaries, such change, alteration and redefinition to become effective only upon approval of the Congress of the United States.”
Essentially they’d need approval from WV, MD, and an act of Congress. Highly unlikely.
This issue is one of the many defects in democracies: your power sometimes rests in the way somebody drew a border a long time ago.