Continental congress in togas discussing the US map with the word repairing the republic above it.

Reimagining State Borders Around Population Centers to Fix Representation

I. Introduction: A Call for a New Kind of State

  1. Context & Premise
    • Traditional U.S. state borders are rooted in 19th-century territorial claims rather than 21st-century demographics or economies.
    • Over time, these borders have led to misaligned representation—particularly as urban centers grow and rural areas feel overshadowed.
    • Recent unrest and political movements (e.g., certain Illinois counties wanting to leave the state for Indiana) highlight a structural issue: we need to align governance with the actual communities and economic networks that define our day-to-day lives.
  2. Defining the “City-State” Vision
    • The goal is not to segregate rural from urban, but to build states around population centers so that their surrounding rural areas naturally tie into that urban hub.
    • This approach still respects rural economies—agriculture, resource management, local industry—by partnering them with the nearby city that depends on those goods and services.
    • Instead of huge, sprawling states with multiple population centers competing for resources, each major population center would serve as a “capital” or hub for its surrounding region.
  3. Why Now?
    • The dysfunction of current American politics, combined with technological and economic changes, creates an opportunity to reinvent how we govern.
    • A Constitutional Convention or a series of amendments might be needed to enshrine this new state structure in law, but rethinking the map is the first step.

II. The Current Problem: Representation in Crisis

  1. Mismatched State Borders
    • Large states like Illinois, New York, California, or Texas contain multiple distinct population centers with different economic interests, geographies, and cultures.
    • Rural areas often feel that urban lawmakers are disconnected from their needs; urban voters feel they must carry the entire state.
  2. Overlapping or Ignored Needs
    • Infrastructure: Highways, rail, and shipping routes are planned along old state lines, ignoring actual economic corridors that might cross multiple existing states.
    • Climate & Environment: Water management, wildfire prevention, and agriculture differ by region; states currently straddle ecosystems in a way that leads to ineffective environmental policies.
    • Economic Development: Industry clusters and labor markets often extend across artificial boundaries, hindering regional cooperation.
  3. The Result: A Fractured Republic
    • Voters are polarized into “urban vs. rural,” even though those groups are interdependent.
    • Gerrymandering and the Electoral College compound these problems, leaving swaths of the population feeling unheard.

III. The Proposed Solution: Redrawing States Around Major Population Centers

  1. City-States as Hubs for Regional Collaboration
    • Concept: Each major metropolitan area (e.g. while staying with the Indiana-Illinois debacle, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Chicago, Peoria, etc.) becomes the anchor of a newly defined state.
    • Why it Works: The city and the surrounding counties share a common economy (commuters, suppliers, markets) and infrastructure (roads, airports, pipelines).
    • Rural Inclusion: Far from excluding rural areas, these new states would incorporate them into governance that’s closer to their needs, because each rural region is tied to one major city rather than overshadowed by many.
  2. Illustrative Examples– staying with Indiana-Illinois issue for brevity in example.
    • Central Indiana State
      • Population Center: Indianapolis.
      • Surrounding Counties: Marion, Hamilton, Boone, Hancock, etc. (plus more distant rural regions that still feed into Indy’s economy).
      • Focus: High-tech manufacturing, logistics (FedEx hub), farmland synergy, and robust water/resource management.
    • Greater Cincinnati State
      • Population Center: Cincinnati (including parts of Northern Kentucky and Southeastern Indiana).
      • Surrounding Rural Counties: Linked by the Ohio River economy, bridging multi-state lines to unify water management and commerce.
    • Chicagoland State
      • Population Center: Chicago (Cook County, DuPage, Will, Lake, etc.).
      • Outer Counties: Could extend into parts of Indiana (Gary area), Southeastern Wisconsin, and Northwest Illinois, all of which are economically tied to Chicago’s job market.
    • Peoria State
      • Population Center: Peoria, IL.
      • Surrounding Counties: Tazewell, Woodford, Fulton, etc.
      • Focus: Agricultural technology, healthcare, and Caterpillar’s industrial supply chain.
  3. The Role of Climate, Geography, and Economy
    • Climate: States that share a river system or water table can manage resources more effectively.
    • Geography: Natural boundaries (mountain ranges, river basins) can define where one city-state ends and another begins.
    • Economy: Major industrial corridors or logistical routes can be governed by a single legislative body with a unified vision.

IV. Strengthening Our Republican System

  1. Enhancing Representation
    • Smaller States: With fewer constituents per elected official, legislators are more accountable and attuned to local concerns.
    • Reduced Gerrymandering: When a state revolves around a single population center and its immediate rural outskirts, the impetus to carve bizarre districts diminishes; representation becomes geographically logical rather than politically contrived.
  2. Possibility of a New “Regional Congress”
    • Why Another Layer? Some policies—interstate highways, broad environmental regulations, national defense—cross city-state lines.
    • Regional Assemblies could coordinate multi-state initiatives. For instance, a Great Lakes Council might unify shipping regulations, or a Midwest Water Compact might unify water management.
    • This layer is supportive rather than superseding the city-states, ensuring that local representation remains strong.
  3. Constitutional Considerations
    • Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution outlines how new states can be admitted or how existing states can be divided.
    • A large-scale realignment would likely require amendments or a Convention, but it’s not unprecedented to change state lines (e.g., West Virginia during the Civil War).

V. Potential Benefits

  1. Better Alignment of Policy and Reality
    • Infrastructure: A city-state can more effectively plan highways, public transport, and broadband networks to serve its region.
    • Economic Growth: By focusing on a single hub, the synergy between urban finance/jobs and rural production gets a direct pipeline of development—e.g., local food systems feeding urban centers, with better, shorter supply chains.
    • Accountable Government: Elected officials have fewer constituents to manage but a clearer sense of who they represent.
  2. Reducing Urban-Rural Tensions
    • Shared Interests: City dwellers rely on rural products (food, raw materials); rural dwellers rely on urban markets, tech, healthcare, and education.
    • Less Political Polarization: Local issues become central—water usage, school funding, transportation—rather than the broad ideological fights often seen in large, diverse states.
  3. Encouraging Experimentation
    • With more, smaller states, policy experimentation could flourish. One city-state could test healthcare reforms, another might pilot education changes, and successful models can spread quickly.

VI. Challenges & Critiques

  1. Practical Transition
    • Legislative Overhaul: Each new city-state needs its own constitution, agencies, and judiciary.
    • Identity and Tradition: People have deep ties to existing states (“Hoosiers,” “Illini,” etc.); convincing them to adopt new identities won’t be easy.
  2. Risk of Over-Consolidating Power
    • In some areas, the city might dominate local politics at the expense of the rural minority.
    • Safeguards—like councils ensuring rural representation—must be built into each city-state constitution.
  3. Federal Structure Complexity
    • A bigger number of states could complicate the Senate, as each state is guaranteed two senators. (Suddenly there might be 80+ states!)
    • Balancing Federalism: A new framework for the Senate or a new legislative chamber might be needed to maintain a workable national government.

VII. North American Connections (Optional)

  • If the concept proves successful, why not extend it to a continental scale?
  • Cross-border metro areas: Detroit-Windsor (U.S.-Canada), El Paso-Juárez (U.S.-Mexico), Vancouver-Seattle.
  • A truly regional approach across North America could better tackle trade, immigration, and resource challenges.

VIII. Conclusion: A Bold but Necessary Realignment

  1. Revisiting the Why
    • The city-state concept emerges from a genuine need to fix representation and ensure that local and regional concerns guide governance, rather than distant partisanship.
    • With the demographic and economic transformations of the last century, our old borders simply don’t match how we live today.
  2. A Step Toward a 21st-Century Republic
    • By shrinking the scope of each state and focusing it around a single population center, we strengthen local democracy, reduce political tensions, and address real issues more directly.
    • The goal isn’t to break America apart—it’s to reimagine it in a way that preserves and enhances our republican system of government for the challenges ahead.
  3. Next Steps
    • Detailed Maps: Identify each major metropolitan region and its natural rural boundaries (based on commuting zones, watershed lines, and economic ties).
    • Policy Framework: Outline how city-states would handle healthcare, education, infrastructure, and defense in coordination with a federal or regional-level framework.
    • Constitutional Path: Explore how these new states could be admitted or recognized, and whether we need a Constitutional Convention or a series of congressional and state votes.

Final Note

This outline and narrative aim to spark discussion rather than present a final blueprint. The transition to a city-state model, while challenging, is worth exploring as a way to mend our fractured representation system, bolster local autonomy, and ensure that every region has a true voice in governance.

What the new USA might look like.

1. Pacific Northwest

  1. Puget Sound State
    • Anchor City: Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
    • Rural Regions: Olympic Peninsula, agricultural valleys (Skagit, Snohomish), parts of southwestern Washington.
    • Why? Ties together the tech-driven Seattle metro with logging/fishing on the Olympic coast and farmland in the Puget lowlands.
  2. Inland Northwest State
    • Anchor City: Spokane (WA)
    • Rural Regions: Eastern WA farmland, parts of northern Idaho (Coeur d’Alene, Lewiston).
    • Why? Shared economy in agriculture, forestry, and trade along the Spokane River corridor.
  3. Willamette State
    • Anchor Cities: Portland, Salem, Eugene (OR)
    • Rural Regions: Willamette Valley farmland, nearby mountain foothills.
    • Why? Aligns Oregon’s economic heart (Portland metro) with the fertile Willamette Valley.
  4. Eastern Oregon-Idaho Combine
    • Anchor Cities: Boise (ID), Bend (OR)
    • Rural Regions: High desert farmland, ranching areas east of the Cascades.
    • Why? Boise is the largest hub for much of the Intermountain Northwest, and Bend is rapidly growing; they share water/infrastructure challenges.

2. California & the Southwest

  1. Bay State
    • Anchor Cities: San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose
    • Rural Regions: Coastal farmland (Salinas, Half Moon Bay), North Bay wine country.
    • Why? Tech and finance in Silicon Valley merges with the Bay Area’s shipping/port economy and agricultural outskirts.
  2. Sacramento Valley State
    • Anchor City: Sacramento
    • Rural Regions: Central Valley farms, Sierra foothills.
    • Why? Political center of CA plus rich agricultural regions form a natural economic unit.
  3. Los Angeles Metro State
    • Anchor Cities: L.A., Long Beach, Pasadena, Glendale
    • Rural Regions: Nearby mountainous areas, partial desert outskirts.
    • Why? L.A. is a massive anchor with a distinct economy—entertainment, aerospace, shipping—and it already sprawls across multiple counties.
  4. Inland Empire State
    • Anchor Cities: Riverside, San Bernardino
    • Rural Regions: Desert communities, eastern agricultural valleys.
    • Why? One of the fastest-growing areas in the U.S., historically overshadowed by L.A. politics.
  5. San Diego State
    • Anchor City: San Diego
    • Rural Regions: Southern desert, border regions, coastal farmland.
    • Why? Major naval, biotech, and tourism industries with unique cross-border ties to Tijuana.
  6. Las Vegas State
    • Anchor City: Las Vegas
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding Nevada desert counties, possibly southern tip of rural Utah/Arizona.
    • Why? The Vegas metro dominates southern Nevada’s economy, tourism, and water needs (Colorado River).
  7. Phoenix Metro State
    • Anchor Cities: Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding desert, agricultural pockets.
    • Why? A sprawling Sun Belt hub, heavily reliant on shared water resources from the Colorado River.
  8. Tucson State
    • Anchor City: Tucson
    • Rural Regions: Southeastern Arizona’s ranching and border communities.
    • Why? Distinct economy and culture from Phoenix, plus a major university presence.

3. The Rocky Mountains & High Plains

  1. Wasatch State
    • Anchor Cities: Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo (UT)
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding canyons, small towns in northern Utah.
    • Why? Unified by the Wasatch Front economy and water catchment from the Great Salt Lake.
  2. Denver-Boulder State
    • Anchor Cities: Denver, Boulder, Aurora
    • Rural Regions: Front Range suburbs, foothills.
    • Why? Hub for Colorado’s tech, finance, and transit, with big rural-urban synergy in tourism (ski country) and agriculture.
  3. Southern Colorado State
    • Anchor Cities: Colorado Springs, Pueblo
    • Rural Regions: Southeastern plains, mountain communities.
    • Why? Distinct from the Denver region, with different economic drivers (military, steel, agriculture).
  4. New Mexico State
    • Anchor Cities: Albuquerque, Santa Fe
    • Rural Regions: Northern NM’s high desert, southern ranching zones.
    • Why? Cultural cohesion and tourism around Santa Fe, plus the main urban corridor along the Rio Grande.
  5. El Paso-Las Cruces State
    • Anchor Cities: El Paso (TX), Las Cruces (NM)
    • Rural Regions: Borderlands, ranching areas.
    • Why? A significant binational, cross-state economy that is overshadowed by distant state capitals (Austin, Santa Fe).
  6. High Plains State
    • Anchor Cities: Lubbock, Amarillo (TX Panhandle)
    • Rural Regions: Farming and ranching communities in eastern NM, southwestern KS, the Oklahoma Panhandle.
    • Why? Ties together the cotton, cattle, and wind-energy economies that straddle multiple current states.

4. Texas & Its Neighbors

  1. Dallas-Fort Worth State
    • Anchor Cities: Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding North Texas counties.
    • Why? One of the largest metro areas in the U.S., heavily interlinked by highways, rail, and tech.
  2. Houston State
    • Anchor Cities: Houston, The Woodlands, Sugar Land
    • Rural Regions: Gulf Coast refineries, bayous, farmland.
    • Why? Energy capital, major port, and shipping hub for the Gulf of Mexico.
  3. Austin State
    • Anchor City: Austin
    • Rural Regions: Central Texas Hill Country, smaller cities like Round Rock, San Marcos.
    • Why? Tech hub plus the seat of state government in existing Texas, with a unique culture that differs from DFW or Houston.
  4. San Antonio State
    • Anchor City: San Antonio
    • Rural Regions: South Texas brush country, farmland near the I-35 corridor.
    • Why? Large metro with a distinctive historical and economic profile (military, tourism, Hispanic culture).
  5. East Texas & Gulf Pines
    • Anchor Cities: Tyler, Longview, possibly Shreveport (LA) if rejoined
    • Rural Regions: Piney Woods, farmland, smaller oil/gas fields.
    • Why? Similar geology, agriculture, and cultural identity in the Piney Woods region that crosses TX/LA borders.

5. The Great Plains & Midwest

  1. Oklahoma Heartland State
    • Anchor Cities: Oklahoma City, Tulsa (could be separate states if desired)
    • Rural Regions: Agricultural plains, tribal nations.
    • Why? Ties the energy economy (oil, natural gas) with farmland and a strong Native American presence.
  2. Kansas City State
    • Anchor Cities: Kansas City (MO & KS sides)
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding farmland in both Kansas and Missouri.
    • Why? Overcomes the current split between the two states, uniting a significant metro region.
  3. St. Louis State
    • Anchor City: St. Louis (MO & IL side)
    • Rural Regions: Eastern Missouri, southwestern Illinois farmland.
    • Why? Another metro region straddling a state border; major port on the Mississippi.
  4. Nebraska State
    • Anchor Cities: Omaha, Lincoln
    • Rural Regions: Central farmland, part of the Platte River basin.
    • Why? Already a cohesive corridor, but could be broken further if needed (e.g., “Greater Omaha State” + “Western Nebraska State”).
  5. Iowa Duopoly
    • City-States:
      • Des Moines State (central Iowa)
      • Eastern Iowa State (Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Quad Cities)
    • Why? Splits Iowa roughly into two hubs to balance farmland, manufacturing, and educational centers.
  6. Minnesota State
    • Anchor Cities: Minneapolis-St. Paul
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding farmland, Iron Range, North Woods.
    • Why? The Twin Cities dominate commerce and culture, but you might also spin off a Duluth/North Shore state if you want finer divisions.
  7. Dakotas
    • Could each be split into two:
      • Eastern ND/SD anchored by Fargo/Sioux Falls
      • Western ND/SD anchored by Bismarck/Rapid City
    • Why? The east is more agricultural and populous, the west more ranching and resource-based.

6. Greater Great Lakes & Upper Midwest

  1. Chicagoland State
    • Anchor Cities: Chicago, NW Indiana (Gary), Southeastern Wisconsin (Kenosha, Racine)
    • Rural Regions: Collar counties around Chicago, farmland in northern Illinois.
    • Why? Chicago’s economy and commuter belt cross multiple current states.
  2. Peoria State
    • Anchor City: Peoria (IL)
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding farm counties, including Bloomington-Normal or Galesburg.
    • Why? Distinct manufacturing/ag hub overshadowed by Chicago in the current Illinois.
  3. Indianapolis State
    • Anchor City: Indianapolis
    • Rural Regions: Central Indiana farmland, Muncie, Kokomo, etc.
    • Why? A major logistical center with a clear commuter/cultural zone.
  4. Northern Indiana or “Fort Wayne–South Bend” State
    • Anchor Cities: Fort Wayne, South Bend, Elkhart
    • Why? More manufacturing-based economy, different from Indy’s service/logistics focus.
  5. Detroit State
    • Anchor City: Detroit
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding counties, portion of the “Thumb,” Monroe area.
    • Why? Automotive epicenter, cross-border ties with Windsor (Canada).
  6. Western Michigan State
    • Anchor Cities: Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Holland
    • Rural Regions: Fruit belt along Lake Michigan, farmland in southwestern MI.
    • Why? Distinct from Detroit’s economy; a strong manufacturing and agricultural corridor on Lake Michigan.
  7. Cleveland State
    • Anchor City: Cleveland (OH)
    • Rural Regions: NE Ohio farmland, perhaps part of NW Pennsylvania if Erie is integrated.
    • Why? Great Lakes shipping, manufacturing, and a large metro distinct from Columbus or Cincinnati.
  8. Columbus State
    • Anchor City: Columbus (OH)
    • Rural Regions: Central Ohio, including farmland and smaller cities like Springfield.
  9. Cincinnati State
    • Anchor City: Cincinnati (OH/KY)
    • Rural Regions: SW Ohio, northern Kentucky, parts of southeast Indiana.
    • Why? A tri-state region that’s overshadowed by separate state lines currently.
  10. Toledo-Dayton “Western Ohio” State (optional)
    • Anchor Cities: Toledo, Dayton
    • Why? Another possible partition if you really want to localize governance around each industrial/commercial zone.
  11. Milwaukee State
    • Anchor City: Milwaukee
    • Rural Regions: Southeastern Wisconsin farmland, smaller manufacturing cities (Racine if not included in Chicagoland).
  12. Madison State
    • Anchor City: Madison (WI)
    • Rural Regions: Central farmland, the Driftless Area.
    • Why? University-driven economy, distinct from Milwaukee’s manufacturing base.

7. The Eastern Seaboard & Appalachia

  1. St. Louis–Memphis (if you prefer a multi-city region bridging MO/TN/AR)
  • Alternatively, keep Memphis as its own anchor in western Tennessee.
  1. Nashville State
    • Anchor City: Nashville
    • Rural Regions: Central Tennessee farmland, small towns.
    • Why? Major hub for music, healthcare, and logistics.
  2. Knoxville-Chattanooga (Tennessee)
    • Why? Eastern Tennessee’s corridor along I-75 has a unique set of industries (automotive, tourism, Oak Ridge labs).
  3. Louisville State
    • Anchor City: Louisville (KY)
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding counties in northern KY/southern IN possibly.
  4. Lexington–Eastern Kentucky
    • Why? Different economy (horses, agriculture, Appalachia) than Louisville’s metro.
  5. Pittsburgh State
    • Anchor City: Pittsburgh (PA)
    • Rural Regions: Western PA, parts of northern WV.
    • Why? Steel/tech hub that’s culturally/economically different from Philadelphia.
  6. Philadelphia State
    • Anchor City: Philadelphia
    • Rural Regions: Southeastern PA, parts of southern NJ (if you bring Camden in).
  7. Baltimore State
    • Anchor City: Baltimore
    • Rural Regions: Eastern Shore or parts thereof, possibly shared with DC’s orbit.
  8. Washington DC State
    • Anchor City: District of Columbia
    • Surrounding Regions: Some of Northern Virginia, parts of Maryland (Montgomery/Prince George’s).
  9. Virginia Split
    • Richmond State
    • Tidewater State (Hampton Roads: Norfolk, Virginia Beach)
    • Roanoke/Western VA
    • Each region has distinct geography: coastal, Piedmont, mountainous.
  10. Carolina States (multiple)
    • Charlotte State
    • Raleigh-Durham State (Research Triangle)
    • Greenville-Spartanburg or Columbia in SC
    • Charleston as a coastal anchor in SC.
  11. Atlanta State
    • Anchor City: Atlanta
    • Rural Regions: North Georgia, outlying exurbs.
    • Why? Major national hub for business/transportation.
  12. Savannah–Coastal Georgia
    • Could be separate from Atlanta to handle port and tourism.

8. Florida & the Gulf Coast

  1. Jacksonville State
    • Anchor City: Jacksonville
    • Rural Regions: Northern FL counties, possibly parts of SE Georgia.
  2. Orlando State
    • Anchor City: Orlando
    • Rural Regions: Central Florida farmland, the tourist corridor.
  3. Tampa Bay State
    • Anchor City: Tampa-St. Petersburg
    • Rural Regions: West-central Florida counties, some phosphate mining areas.
  4. Miami State
    • Anchor Cities: Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach
    • Rural Regions: Everglades region, potentially the Keys.
  5. New Orleans State
    • Anchor City: New Orleans
    • Rural Regions: River parishes, bayou communities, coastal fisheries.
  6. Houston State (already mentioned above)
  7. Mobile–Pensacola State (straddling AL/FL)
    • Why? A coastal economy that’s overshadowed by separate states.

9. The Mid-Atlantic & New England

  1. New York City State
    • Anchor Cities: NYC’s five boroughs + immediate suburbs in NJ (Hudson County) and parts of Long Island.
    • Why? The single largest population center in the U.S.
  2. Upstate New York States
    • Buffalo/Niagara State
    • Rochester State
    • Syracuse State
    • Albany–Hudson Valley State
    • Each region has distinct industries (tech, manufacturing, agriculture).
  3. Newark–Northern NJ State
    • If it’s not merged with NYC, Newark could anchor a separate state for northeastern NJ’s suburbs.
  4. Philadelphia State (mentioned above)
    • Could also incorporate southern NJ if you want to unify the Delaware Valley region.
  5. Connecticut
    • Hartford State
    • Bridgeport–New Haven State
    • Or keep it as one smaller state centered on the I-95 corridor.
  6. Rhode Island
    • Providence State
    • Small enough to remain one entity but focuses on the Providence metro.
  7. Massachusetts
    • Boston State
    • Potentially spin off a Western Massachusetts anchor (e.g., Springfield) if you want more granular governance.
  8. New Hampshire & Maine
    • Could break further (e.g., Manchester–Nashua as one state, Portland or Bangor as others in Maine), though some might prefer they remain as is.
  9. Vermont
    • Likely remains its own small, distinct state centered around Burlington or Montpelier.

10. Wrapping It Up: A “City-State” Patchwork

  • Alaska could split into multiple states by region (Anchorage vs. Southeast vs. North Slope).
  • Hawaii could become several states (Oahu, Big Island, Maui, Kauai) or remain one.
  • Territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) might join as new states under the same logic of local representation.

In total, you could easily end up with 70, 80, even 100+ states—each one anchored on one major population center (or a cluster of smaller cities) and designed to serve the synergistic needs of the immediate rural region that feeds into that hub.

Key Takeaways

  1. Closer Representation
    • Smaller states mean fewer constituents per representative, making local voices stronger.
  2. Urban-Rural Synergy
    • Each new state unites a city and the farmland/mining/forestry communities that actually supply it, reducing the “us vs. them” dynamic.
  3. Easier to Tailor Policy
    • Infrastructure, schools, zoning, and environmental rules can be adapted to regional specifics without the tug-of-war across huge, diverse states.
  4. Challenges
    • Identity: People love their current state pride.
    • Senate Structure: Doubling or tripling the number of states means radically altering the U.S. Senate.
    • Transition: Redrawing borders, setting up new legislatures, and reorganizing everything from driver’s licenses to tax codes is enormous.

Despite these challenges, re-mapping the country around city-states (and their corresponding rural areas) is a powerful thought experiment in making America’s republican system more responsive, more local, and better suited to modern economic realities than the patchwork we inherited from the 19th century.

A breakdown of the USNA if the whole continent reorganized into city-states.

1. Canada

1A. Pacific & Western Canada

  1. Vancouver–Fraser State
    • Anchor Cities: Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, and possibly Victoria (on Vancouver Island)
    • Rural Regions: Fraser Valley farmlands, Vancouver Island coastal communities
    • Why? Tech, shipping, and tourism hub with strong ties across the Salish Sea.
  2. Okanagan–Southern Interior State
    • Anchor City: Kelowna (BC)
    • Rural Regions: Vineyards, orchards, mountainous areas east of the Coast Range
    • Why? Agricultural and tourism-based economy distinct from the coast.
  3. Calgary–Edmonton Corridor
    • Anchor Cities: Calgary, Edmonton
    • Rural Regions: Alberta’s prairie farmland and oil/gas fields
    • Why? These two metro areas form a powerful economic corridor of energy, agriculture, and tech.
  4. Saskatchewan Heartland
    • Anchor Cities: Saskatoon, Regina
    • Rural Regions: Wide expanses of farmland and ranchland
    • Why? Grain and potash economy, overshadowed in a continental system without dedicated representation.
  5. Winnipeg–Red River State
    • Anchor City: Winnipeg (Manitoba)
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding farmland, lakes, and river basins
    • Why? Historically a hub for rail and trade, bridging East and West.

1B. Central & Eastern Canada

  1. Toronto–Golden Horseshoe State
    • Anchor Cities: Toronto, Mississauga, Hamilton
    • Rural Regions: Niagara region, farmland around Lake Ontario
    • Why? Canada’s largest urban and financial center with distinct suburban and rural economic ties.
  2. Ottawa–Gatineau Capital State
    • Anchor Cities: Ottawa (ON), Gatineau (QC)
    • Rural Regions: The Ottawa Valley, smaller towns across provincial boundaries
    • Why? A binational, bilingual region with government, tech, and tourism ties.
  3. Montreal–St. Lawrence State
    • Anchor City: Montreal
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding Montérégie farmland, possibly extending along the St. Lawrence River
    • Why? Cultural and economic heart of Quebec, major port and manufacturing center.
  4. Quebec City–Saguenay State
    • Anchor Cities: Quebec City, Saguenay
    • Rural Regions: Charlevoix, the north shore of the St. Lawrence, forestry/mining areas
    • Why? Distinct from Montreal’s metro, with historic, tourism, and administrative focus.
  5. Maritime Provinces Bloc
  • Potential Anchor Cities: Halifax (Nova Scotia), Moncton or Saint John (New Brunswick), Charlottetown (PEI)
  • Rural Regions: Coastal fishing villages, agriculture, Acadian communities
  • Why? Shared Atlantic economy (fishing, shipping, tourism) with multiple mid-sized hubs.
  1. Newfoundland & Labrador
  • Anchor City: St. John’s
  • Rural Regions: Coastal fishing outports, Labrador mining areas
  • Why? Unique maritime culture and geography, historically distinct from mainland Canada.
  1. Northern Territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut)
  • Could be split into smaller entities around population clusters like Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Iqaluit if population density justifies it, or remain one or two large territories focusing on mining, Arctic logistics, and Indigenous self-governance.

2. United States

(We can’t list every potential new “city-state” again in detail, but here are some major anchor regions. You may refer to the previous U.S. breakdown for finer granularity.)

  1. Seattle–Tacoma State (Puget Sound)
  2. Portland–Willamette State
  3. Bay State (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose)
  4. Sacramento Valley State
  5. Los Angeles Metro State
  6. Inland Empire State (Riverside–San Bernardino)
  7. San Diego State
  8. Phoenix Metro State
  9. Tucson State
  10. Las Vegas State
  11. Denver–Boulder State
  12. Dallas–Fort Worth State
  13. Houston State
  14. Austin State
  15. San Antonio State
  16. Chicagoland State
  17. Detroit State
  18. Atlanta State
  19. Miami State
  20. New Orleans State
  21. Washington DC State
  22. Baltimore State
  23. Philadelphia State
  24. New York City State
  25. Boston State
    …and many others, potentially doubling or tripling the 50-state count.

(For full detail, see the prior U.S. map breakdown. You could easily reach 80+ new states.)

3. Mexico

Mexico is already composed of 32 federal entities (31 states + Mexico City). We’d reorganize them around major economic/population centers and their immediate rural hinterlands.

3A. Northern & Northwestern Mexico

  1. Baja State
    • Anchor Cities: Tijuana, Mexicali
    • Rural Regions: Baja California’s wine region, tourism coasts
    • Why? Cross-border economy with southern California (San Diego).
  2. Sonora–Chihuahua Corridor
    • Anchor Cities: Hermosillo, Chihuahua
    • Rural Regions: Desert ranching, mining communities
    • Why? Large border states with strong trade routes into the U.S. (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas).
  3. Monterrey State
    • Anchor City: Monterrey
    • Rural Regions: Surrounding industrial hubs in Nuevo León, possibly extending into Tamaulipas
    • Why? Major industrial and financial center, closely tied to cross-border trade with Texas.
  4. Coahuila–Torreón State
    • Anchor Cities: Saltillo, Torreón, Piedras Negras
    • Rural Regions: Mining, ranching, manufacturing
    • Why? Distinct from Monterrey, large corridor for automotive and steel industries.

3B. Central & Western Mexico

  1. Guadalajara State
    • Anchor City: Guadalajara
    • Rural Regions: Jalisco farmlands, tequila production areas, Lake Chapala region
    • Why? Tech hub, cultural heart of western Mexico.
  2. Bajío Bloc
    • Anchor Cities: León, Guanajuato, Querétaro, Aguascalientes
    • Rural Regions: Automotive manufacturing hubs, agriculture
    • Why? One of the fastest-growing industrial corridors in Mexico.
  3. Pacific Coast State
    • Anchor Cities: Puerto Vallarta, Manzanillo
    • Rural Regions: Coastal tourism areas, fishing communities, farmland
    • Why? Distinct economy around tourism and ports.

3C. Mexico City & Surroundings

  1. Mexico City State
    • Anchor: The world’s largest Spanish-speaking metropolis
    • Rural Regions: Suburban belt in México State, possibly parts of Morelos or Hidalgo
    • Why? A massive hub overshadowing existing smaller states in central Mexico.
  2. Puebla–Tlaxcala
    • Anchor City: Puebla
    • Rural Regions: Tlaxcala’s farmland, mountainous communities, volcanic areas near Popocatépetl
    • Why? Major automotive/manufacturing center with a strong culinary/tourism culture.
  3. Toluca–Cuernavaca (optional)
    • Could form separate enclaves if not folded into Mexico City or Puebla.

3D. Eastern & Southern Mexico

  1. Veracruz State
    • Anchor Cities: Veracruz, Xalapa, Coatzacoalcos
    • Rural Regions: Gulf coast farmland, oil/gas fields
    • Why? Huge Gulf port with a distinct cultural identity (Son Jarocho, seafood, tropical climate).
  2. Oaxaca–Chiapas
    • Anchor Cities: Oaxaca de Juárez, Tuxtla Gutiérrez
    • Rural Regions: Indigenous communities, mountainous coffee-growing areas, Pacific coast
    • Why? Shared cultural-linguistic ties, overshadowed by central Mexico’s politics.
  3. Yucatán Peninsula
    • Anchor Cities: Mérida (Yucatán), Cancún (Quintana Roo), Campeche
    • Rural Regions: Mayan communities, coastal tourism zones
    • Why? Tourism-driven economy, unique cultural heritage.

4. Central America (to the Panama Canal)

Each current sovereign nation (Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama) could be reorganized into city-centered districts. However, we must recognize the political complexity of merging these into one North American federation. Still, as a thought experiment:

  1. Guatemala City State
    • Anchor City: Guatemala City
    • Rural Regions: Highlands (Antigua, Lake Atitlán), Pacific coastal farms, Petén forest (could be separate if needed)
    • Why? Largest population center in Central America north of Panama, dominating Guatemalan politics and economy.
  2. Belize Coastal State
    • Anchor City: Belize City (possibly Belmopan as capital)
    • Rural Regions: Cayes (islands), interior jungle.
    • Why? Maritime and eco-tourism economy, overshadowed regionally but unique.
  3. San Salvador State (El Salvador)
    • Anchor City: San Salvador
    • Rural Regions: Coffee plantations, smaller coastal cities
    • Why? Dense population with an export-driven economy, strong diaspora ties to the U.S.
  4. Tegucigalpa–San Pedro Sula (Honduras)
    • Anchor Cities: Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula
    • Rural Regions: Mountains, coastal areas, the Bay Islands
    • Why? Two major population centers with distinct roles: commerce vs. administration.
  5. Managua State (Nicaragua)
    • Anchor City: Managua
    • Rural Regions: Pacific coast farmland, coffee-growing highlands, Atlantic coast autonomous regions (could be separate).
  6. Costa Rica
    • Anchor Cities: San José, Alajuela, Heredia, Cartago (forming the GAM—Gran Área Metropolitana)
    • Rural Regions: Eco-tourism zones, coastal resorts, coffee plantations
    • Why? Highly centralized country, but smaller sub-states could form around Puntarenas or Limón if needed.
  7. Panama Canal State
    • Anchor City: Panama City
    • Rural Regions: Canal Zone, Colón, interior provinces (Chiriquí, etc.)
    • Why? The canal is a global transit hub, so this state would revolve around trade, finance, shipping.

5. Observations & Challenges

  1. Vast Cultural Diversity
    • Merging or federating Canada, the U.S., Mexico, and Central America into a single system (or even a set of cooperative regions) raises linguistic, cultural, and sovereignty concerns.
  2. Sovereignty & Identity
    • Each country has its own strong national identity. A continental reorganization would require major constitutional reforms across multiple nations—or a brand-new multinational treaty framework.
  3. Practical Advantages
    • Economic Corridors: Aligning city-states with real cross-border trade routes can reduce bureaucracy and spur development.
    • Resource Management: Shared river basins (e.g., Rio Grande, St. Lawrence, Colorado) can be governed regionally.
    • Reduced National Tensions: If each city-state focuses on local concerns, you might see less “us vs. them” across borders.
  4. Political Feasibility
    • This is a massive undertaking—larger than any single Constitutional Convention. It implies either a North American Union or a series of cross-border compacts.
    • The complexities of uniting or reorganizing sovereign states are huge, but the thought experiment highlights how cities, rather than national capitals, are often the real drivers of cultural, economic, and social life.

6. Final Thoughts: A Pan-North American Patchwork

  • By doubling, tripling, or quadrupling the number of “states” or subnational entities, each centered on a major urban hub and its natural rural or resource hinterlands, we could, in theory, create a more responsive and locally accountable governance system for the entire continent.
  • Such a continental reorganization would require unprecedented political cooperation, but it offers a vision for how cultural, economic, and environmental realities might guide new boundaries rather than borders drawn by colonial or 19th-century treaties.

In short, imagining all of North America as a collection of city-centered states—from the Arctic to the Panama Canal—provides a gigantic lens on the city-state concept:

  • It underscores both the potential for more tailored governance and the challenges of melding distinct nations, languages, and histories.
  • Ultimately, it’s a thought experiment in hyper-local democracy balanced against continental-scale cooperation.

Post Views: 44
Spread the love

Related Posts

Culture Finance and Banking Government Single Payer Health Thought Experiments

Manufacturing: Solving the healthcare and child care problem.

State Fair Judge
Bridges City Skylines Man Made

Pittsburgh PA Skyline

State Fair Judge