George Etzel Pearcys 38 Staaten von Amerika (1973), überarbeitet vom Kartographen Rob Lammle

In 1973 geographer George Etzel Pearcy published a plan to re-draw the United States map to have only 38 states based on cultural and economic relation of existing regions.

>*Why the need for a new map? Pearcy states that many of the early surveys that drew up our boundaries were done while the areas were scarcely populated. Thus, it was convenient to determine boundaries by using the land’s physical features, such as rivers and mountain ranges, or by using a simple system of latitude and longitude.… The practicality of old established State lines is questionable in light of America’s ever-growing cities and the increasing mobility of its citizens. Metropolitan New York, for example, stretches into 2 adjacent States. Other city populations which cross State lines are Washington, D.C., St. Louis, Chicago, and Kansas City. The “straddling” of State lines causes economic and political problems. Who should pay for a rapid transit system in St. Louis? Only those citizens within the boundaries of Missouri, or all residents of St. Louis’s metropolitan area, including those who reach over into the State of Illinois?…*

>*When Pearcy realigned the U.S., he gave high priority to population density, location of cities, lines of transportation, land relief, and size and shape of individual States. Whenever possible lines are located in less populated areas. In the West, the desert, semidesert, or mountainous areas provided an easy method for division. In the East, however, where areas of scarce population are harder to determine, Pearcy drew lines “trying to avoid the thicker clusters of settlement.” Each major city which fell into the “straddling” category is neatly tucked within the boundaries of a new State. Pearcy tried to place a major metropolitan area in the center of each State. St. Louis is in the center of the State of Osage, Chicago is centered in the State of Dearborn. When this method proved impossible, as with coastal Los Angeles, the city is still located so as to be easily accessible from all parts of the State…*

>*-1975’s edition of The People’s Almanac*

Why not just let Hawaii keep its name?

Hawaiian’s smugly smiling in Hawaiian.

Ok I don’t know anything about Michigan, so pardon my ignorance, but if you were going to redraw boundaries, why would the upper peninsula stay with the lower state?

Oh ffs at least call it Cascadia

>Makes a state for 150k people in northern Alaska

>Doesn’t split up north and south Florida, which are both highly populated and culturally distinct

Sure, whatever

DAKOTA