« Investor Class Fun | Main | Beyond Hawks and Doves »

State Boundary Reform

Robert Farley has an idea: "My favorite option would be to cut both Oregon and Washington in half, call the west half (now having Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Vancouver, Portland, Salem, and Eugene) Cascadia, and the other half (with metropolitan areas like Spokane and Pendleton) Idaho II: Revenge of the Rednecks." Technically, though, Vancouver isn't located in Oregon or Washington. There's also the small matter of the U.S. Senate to consider. Nevertheless, a tempting joke.

February 27, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8342287b753ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference State Boundary Reform:

» Corrections Department from Lawyers, Guns and Money
In fairness to Matt, it's easy to miss a city of 152000 when you live in New York. And, as they say, any publicity is good publicity. [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 28, 2005 12:32:30 AM

Comments

I think he means Vancouver, Washington (as opposed to the more famous one in British Columbia).

Posted by: beowulf | Feb 27, 2005 8:07:01 PM

May I point out Vancouver, WA.

Posted by: ladder | Feb 27, 2005 8:08:03 PM

There is a Vancouver, Oregon, I believe, just across the river from Portland. Not to be confused with the one in Canada.

Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Feb 27, 2005 8:08:06 PM

I think he's talking about the OTHER Vancouver.

Posted by: Chris | Feb 27, 2005 8:08:44 PM

Damn, gotta be faster on the comment trigger-finger.

Posted by: Chris | Feb 27, 2005 8:09:23 PM

Oops, and I guess I meant Washington. Whatever...

Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Feb 27, 2005 8:11:00 PM

As several other commenters have already pointed out, he meant Vancouver, WA (which is located between Olympia and Portland, in the order he gave). My husband's birthplace, by the way.

Posted by: Rebecca Allen, PhD | Feb 27, 2005 8:16:10 PM

It makes more sense to split California in half...perhaps just north of San Luis Obispo, Buellton (where Sideways was filmed) and Santa Barbara, and south of Monterey and Carmel.

Posted by: Deborah White | Feb 27, 2005 8:17:31 PM

It's clear that Farley really does mean Vancouver, WA, since he lists the cities from north to south, and Vancouver, WA is between Olympia and Portland.

Posted by: Walt Pohl | Feb 27, 2005 8:19:15 PM

And I missed my chance to yell FIRST!
:o)

Deborah is right, California is just so ridicilously big (in terms of population), it should be split up into two or three states.

Can a state legislature do that on its own, or does it require a federal statute as well?

Posted by: beowulf | Feb 27, 2005 8:27:47 PM

Hey Matt, he means Vancouver, WA. In case you hadn't heard.

Posted by: Toadmonster | Feb 27, 2005 8:31:10 PM

And I missed my chance to yell FIRST!
:o)

Deborah is right, California is just so ridicilously big (in terms of population), it should be split up into two or three states.

Can a state legislature do that on its own, or does it require a federal statute as well?

Posted by: beowulf | Feb 27, 2005 8:33:42 PM

Hey Matt my unnamed source, Deep Troll tells me that THEY meant Vancouver WA. THEY are monitoring these comments and our lives are in danger, please be careful.

Posted by: Give Up | Feb 27, 2005 8:38:26 PM

Isn't it time to consider splitting New York into The City and Upstate? This was proposed back in the 60s, but the idea is still good. Of course, I'd like to see each borough broken out as a state so that New York City folks get some representation in the Senate.

Posted by: Kaleberg | Feb 27, 2005 8:45:21 PM

I think the eastern half of the two states should be combined to form one state, with the western halve staying seperate, since they have more of the population anyway.

Posted by: Ivan | Feb 27, 2005 8:47:11 PM

OK, I actually live in Oregon and have heard these rumors. No, I don't think its Constitutionally possible for a state to divvy itself up into two states. But rearranging two states to make two state might be doable.

The advantage as I see it is that more of my tax dollars ($400,000,000 more) would stay in the metro area, the farm belt, and the Oregon costal areas rather than being spent in back country desert Oregon for "eddycatin" their red state leaning offspring, coyote abatement, and roadkill cleanup (could show those Baghdadis a thing or two).

The great divide in Oregon is along the high Cascades which seem to divide us geographically as well as culturally and politically. Major divide guys. We're talking Oceania v East Asia. I mean really! The last time I was in an Eastern Oregon "city" I had to step over cow poop walking through the vacant lot between the "Dew Drop Inn" and "Elmers groceries and hardware." In the Portland metro area we only risk the dogcrapping our shoes at the parks, now that most of the parks have been converted into free-ranging dog runs. And don't get into talking freely about how you despise Bush because in the Oregon backcountry Bush is considered God, and you will be castigated as an apostate and run out of town (if you're lucky). So as you can see, even the bluest of the blue states have large patches of redweed, and the only practical difference in divvying us up along a North South axis is that the federal government gets to assume the responsibility of redistributing our blue state wealth to our new red state neighbor. That and two rightwing Republicans in the Senate. A small sacrifice I'm sure.

But I would miss the Oregon high desert. Peaceful country with lots of wildlife and sparsely populated. Maybe they would still let me come and visit if I promised not to stay too long.

Posted by: James Emerson | Feb 27, 2005 9:42:36 PM

But we wouldn't at all mind adding Vancouver BC to Cascadia :)

The question is, should all of Cascadia join Canada, or should Vancouver BC join Cascadia US?

Posted by: CaseyL | Feb 27, 2005 9:48:09 PM

I can think of several cases in which state fusion, rather than state fission or recombination might be called for. The following fusions may or may not be good for the people in the fused states themselves, but nobody in any of the other states would even notice the changes:

Carolina

Kanbraska

Alassippima

Rhodicut

Dakota

New Mexizona

Wyorado

Maryware

Posted by: Dan Kervick | Feb 27, 2005 9:58:14 PM

"There's also the small matter of the U.S. Senate to consider."

Okay. Consider this: Western WA and OR merge into Cascadia. Eastern WA and OR... merge with Idaho. Now we're minus a state, which leaves room to subdivide California and still keep an even 50.

Posted by: Grumpy | Feb 27, 2005 9:59:37 PM

What Dan Kervick said: and Montidahona while you're at it.

Posted by: C.J.Colucci | Feb 27, 2005 10:07:13 PM

Let's keep in mind that Washington and Oregon -- as a whole -- are among the eight (that's 8) states that have been Blue in all of the last five elections. We really can't afford to keep cutting off chunks of our base. (On the other hand, if they and Kerry's other states want to secede as a whole from "Jesusland" and join the United States of Canada, as suggested by some wags, I'll have no objection -- except for my fear of all those ICBMs in the Plains states.)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Feb 27, 2005 10:07:15 PM

Grumpy

"Consider this: Western WA and OR merge into Cascadia. Eastern WA and OR... merge with Idaho. Now we're minus a state, which leaves room to subdivide California and still keep an even 50."

If keeping 50 senators is important, why not leave California alone and give DC two senators (and a rep too).

Given that DC has more people than Wyoming, I don't understand why DC advocates don't start a campaign to repeal Wyoming's representation in Congress, if only to highlight their own plight.

Posted by: Mike T | Feb 27, 2005 10:07:31 PM

I vote to invade Vancouver,Canada as MY here recommends. On Oscar night we announce our claim to our outsourced movie industry.

California, to make any sense, needs to be split vertically. My redistricting suggestion always has been to split the nation in 435 vertical strips.

As far as Texas goes, I officially announce our secession, and return to independent nation status. Yeah, sure y'all cheer now, but wait til you start missing your....the....I am sure there is something you yankees need Texas for.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Feb 27, 2005 10:18:00 PM

You think it's a joke?http://altacolumbia.com/pages/autonomy.html

Somebody proposed doing more or less this in a book that came out in the 70s, only he called the state "Ecoptopia"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553348477/qid=1109562331/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-6065019-7723058?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

We discussed the book in my mandatory middle school Washington State history class in 1989, where we also learned that Washington staters originally wanted to name the state Columbia, but were afraid people would get it confused with the District of Columbia. heh heh.

Posted by: Adam M | Feb 27, 2005 10:47:20 PM

I was at a party in Seattle once in the late 90s where people were talking about splitting off Western Washington and becoming Cascadia. Has a nice ring.

Posted by: Robin the Hoodlum | Feb 27, 2005 11:07:03 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.