KCRag Forum

California is voting to divide into 3 states. Have always thought MO should donate lower one third to Arkansas. Better to become a southern state, divide or donate lower third and get back to a swing state?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/proposal-spli ... ories.html

No.

No. The cities in the lower one third of Missouri provide economic value to the state. Branson is a tourist trap, Springfield has the 2nd largest university in the state, and Joplin is trying to make a comeback. Too much revenue would be lost.

earthling wrote:California is voting to divide into 3 states. Have always thought MO should donate lower one third to Arkansas. Better to become a southern state, divide or donate lower third and get back to a swing state?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/proposal-spli ... ories.html

As I understand it, doesn't California have to jump through an impossible number of hoops before this would ever happen for real? It's not like you can split your state in two and increase your national representation without national approval.

That said, there are several things about Missouri I generally hate - the dominance of St Louis, a flagship university that thinks the state is some kind of appendage of the south, and the fact that is KC treated like a poor stepchild but we'd have get state and national approval to change anything. It's a fun subject but nothing is likely to ever happen.

Highlander wrote:

earthling wrote:California is voting to divide into 3 states. Have always thought MO should donate lower one third to Arkansas. Better to become a southern state, divide or donate lower third and get back to a swing state?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/proposal-spli ... ories.html

As I understand it, doesn't California have to jump through an impossible number of hoops before this would ever happen for real?

Three steps only
1. The state needs to approve it
2. Congress needs to approve it
3. The president signs what congress does

The Revisionist History podcast episode "Divide and Conquer" covers this subject with Texas. If you're at all interested in the subject of redoing states you must listen to this episode in full. He covers the requirements and makes his point with stunning clarity.

Didn't expect to have a realistically pursuable conversation about this but MO has some issues with reasonable progress that it used consider more pragmatically in the past as a swing state. Division isn't the best answer maybe but dumping southern third of MO sure would help (and MO per capita GDP would probably improve even factoring tourism in south).

You're probably not thinking big enough. Especially west of the Appalachians, states are a construct that does not even come close to matching the economic and cultural patterns within the US. We should redo all states borders or have state constitutions redone to give more power to the county/city level.

All the state boundaries will change after CWII.

flyingember wrote:

Highlander wrote:

earthling wrote:California is voting to divide into 3 states. Have always thought MO should donate lower one third to Arkansas. Better to become a southern state, divide or donate lower third and get back to a swing state?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/proposal-spli ... ories.html

As I understand it, doesn't California have to jump through an impossible number of hoops before this would ever happen for real?

Three steps only
1. The state needs to approve it
2. Congress needs to approve it
3. The president signs what congress does

Your (2) is the reason what California is proposing is almost impossible. With 3 new states which are likely of the same liberal political leanings as the original state, there is no way congressman from right leaning states would ever approve. Even congressmen from democratic states would have to ponder whether they would want the influence of their state diluted. Maybe if the democrats owned the house and senate but it would take a huge shift to do that. Trump will be gone soon but the south, much of the west and parts of the midwest will remain staunchly republican for some time to come.

AllThingsKC wrote:No. The cities in the lower one third of Missouri provide economic value to the state. Branson is a tourist trap, Springfield has the 2nd largest university in the state, and Joplin is trying to make a comeback. Too much revenue would be lost.

the ozarks are one of the consistently poorest parts of the state...a bunch of low paying service jobs don't make up for the economic issues of the southern part of the state.

any new states that are created should be centered around the actual, functional economic spheres/hinterlands of the largest cities...which are also the primate economic engines of the state. for st. louis that means capturing some of illinois and jettisoning vast swaths of missouri. for kc its similar but kansas instead of illinois. springfield grabs a bit of arkansas, perhaps.

here's one solve for that, although i don't like the specific boundaries

mapmania.org

st. louis and (especially) kc should be centered inside their new states as the capitals.

the above map is probably a better arrangements that the current setup, though! at least both regions are fully within one state!

Siouxlanders?

I kind of like it, albeit there is a close pronunciation to zoolanders....