Difference between revisions of "Talk:1902: State Borders"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Idaho/Montana border)
 
Line 91: Line 91:
  
 
As a Wyomingite, I strongly object to the 'Align to Grid' changes.  Not because I mind Jackson being lost, but because Idaho and Montana have been laying claim to Yellowstone for years.  We can't let them actually have it![[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.70|172.68.34.70]] 05:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 
As a Wyomingite, I strongly object to the 'Align to Grid' changes.  Not because I mind Jackson being lost, but because Idaho and Montana have been laying claim to Yellowstone for years.  We can't let them actually have it![[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.70|172.68.34.70]] 05:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 +
:The Wyoming align to grid changes move Evanston over to Utah, and Jackson Hole over to Idaho. Given that Wyoming is already the least populous state by a pretty decent margin, I think it would make sense to just split the remaining land between Colorado and Montana, continuing the arbitrary squiggle that was previously extended to remove Yellowstone. Colorado would become a much taller and slimmer state. While we're at it we could merge the Dakota's into one state as well. [[User:Stickfigurefan|Stickfigurefan]] ([[User talk:Stickfigurefan|talk]]) 16:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  
 
I think the border between Idaho and Montana is already, for the most part, an arbitrary squiggle.[[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 06:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 
I think the border between Idaho and Montana is already, for the most part, an arbitrary squiggle.[[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 06:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:56, 4 June 2019


Let's be honest- it should all be Canada. 162.158.74.123 12:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Or... Indigenous people's land? 108.162.216.232 04:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Could Arizona, New Mexico be a reference to Trump? Like, make the border straighter so it's easier to build a wall? Herobrine (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

More likely the joke is that conceding territory to Mexico is about the last thing Trump would do AnotherAnonymous (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there's a Trump joke here. Randall doesn't tend to be political. Jkshapiro (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

My first thought is to wonder if it would be possible to arrange the map such that all internal borders are "straight lines" that span the entire country, to satisfy as many criteria as possible:

  • The number of states remains unchanged
    • …and they all get to keep their capitals (probably quite difficult)
      • …or (and?) each state manages to keep either its current population, land area, or coastline length
  • Or all internal borders are parallels or meridians
  • Or all states have the same land area
    • …or population; or population density
  • Or if you're allowing more (or fewer) states than the present layout, what's the greatest number of states possible such that they all contain at least one complete city?

Which of those criteria would be the most interesting challenge? And which could you construct an algorithm to solve? I really should refrain from trying to build those algorithms, because I'm supposed to be working --Angel (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see what a map of the US would look like with each house gerrymandered by their legislative preferences... Borders everywhere, and wow what a nightmare of litigation it would generate as people cross from one district to another!
More to your query: I don't see any modifications you could make that would keep the population unchanged. Some people would inevitably end up in a different state.
How about a map where every state has an equal number of spiders? 108.162.216.232 04:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Population as in number of people; not necessarily the same people. --Angel (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh... Hm, that doesn't sound very useful or aesthetically satisfying... I think mapping the regions where various spider populations dominate might be more interesting. 108.162.216.232 10:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There are some great videos on YouTube about weird State boundaries. There are some REALLY weird oddities out there. Take for instance the "Give to Canada" piece - that's the Northwest Angle in Minnesota. It's really an accident that it ever ended up in the USA at all, and doesn't make any sense! Martini (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Martini

I wouldn't call the NW Angle an accident as much as a slightly illogical solution in order to maintain the terms of the original border agreement in the face of the Mississippi River's inconveniently located headwaters. My recollection is that it said roughly: the border goes west of <this> point until reaching the Mississippi river [which all parties assumed continued that far north]. 108.162.216.40 14:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe Randall's overall point is that though a large part of the individual United States have straight boundaries, especially in the West, or other features that are aesthetically pleasing, as in the S Carolina/Georgia/Florida coastline, there are a good number of internal inconsistencies. Many of these (most of the untagged "fixes") can be attributed to the concept that "Rivers make good logical boundaries", but even then, if you look closer, there are some really puzzling bits:

  • The "Give To Canada" bit of Minnesota is almost all Indian Reservation land, so that kind of makes sense...
  • The "Fix this thing" in Missouri is even stranger than it initially looks - while the notch in Arkansas is caused by the Mississippi River, there is a large bight of land in the middle of the Missouri-owned bit that is actually Kentucky (yes, there's an island of Kentucky that is separate from the main Kentucky state and entirely surrounded by Missouri)
  • Not edited, but equally odd is the dip Florida cuts into Georgia near the east coast - there's no apparent town or natural features there to cause that irregularity

I don't happen to think the Arizona/New Mexico bits are political commentary, just "the entire rest of the state is a box, make this a straight line, too." cleanup. I mean yes, it would make wall-building easier, theoretically, but the Chinese showed the world centuries ago that straight lines are not needed to build a big fricking wall. 108.162.238.131 14:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

- While I agree it probably isn't conscious political commentary, its interesting that there are not places the border increases; always concessions, never gains. May take into account its easier to give than take territory? --Jgt (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)--Jgt (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised Randall didn't suggest cleaning up Point Roberts as well [1]. 141.101.107.174 14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Presumably the graphic designers are okay with that, since it maintains the 49th Parallel as a nice, tidy border. Wwoods (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm shocked he didn't support fixing the Idaho/Wisconsin/Montana/Oregon border. That top part should be either given to Montana, or split between Washington and Oregon... I wonder if he left out certain things in order to avoid offending certain groups of people. Like suggesting that Rhode Island and Connecticut should probably be one state, or that Vermont and New Hampshire should be as well. Kashim (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of the suggestions are ironic, for example Michigan's upper peninsula actually used to be part of the Wisconsin territory, but it was ceded to Michigan in exchange for the port of Toledo being ceded to Ohio. "why does Florida get Alabama's coastline" is actually because Alabama got part of Florida's coastline so it wouldn't be landlocked. The bit of Nevada that he wants to fix it so Nevada has territory along the Colorado River 162.158.75.250 17:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have noticed that Delaware's curved northern border has been flattened (removing Wilmington). 108.162.238.83 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

One significant thing about this map is that, under this map, Hillary Clinton may have won the 2016 election. Citations needed, but I've seen it said that if the Upper Peninsula were moved from Michigan to Wisconsin and the Florida Panhandle were moved to Alabama, Clinton would have won Michigan and Florida, giving her an Electoral College majority. I don't think the Upper Peninsula has enough population to cost Michigan an electoral vote, and I think Florida would lose two electoral votes, putting Clinton exactly at the 270 needed to win. Perhaps the changes around Colorado and Nevada would make a difference, although there were also five faithless Clinton electors who might have voted for her if it would have made a difference. 108.162.219.4 01:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  • There's a tool out there that allows you to at least approximate these changes (you can move counties from one state to another. It's not perfectly straight lines.) http://kevinhayeswilson.com/redraw/ The changes that are potentially electorally-significant with respect to 2016 were: The Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin, the Florida panhandle largely to Alabama, the expansion of DE, expansion of RI, cleanup of WV/MD, and shifting of Long Island*. (Almost all the other changes occur in very unpopulated areas and involve states that were not particularly close in the last election.) I get a 277-261 Clinton victory on this map. As you note, the Upper Peninsula and Florida Panhandle shifts do change the outcomes in the remaining portions of MI and FL respectively. The change to WV and MD does not appear to change either state's results (I assigned Wheeling to Ohio, which only makes Ohio slightly redder). Expanding Delaware does not quite flip it red - the Maryland Eastern Shore and Virginia bay shore are not sufficient to change DE, although it became an extremely close race - Clinton won by 2,000 votes out of 1.4 million in the expanded state of Delmarva, so if Wilmington becomes part of PA, it probably moves DE and its now 4 electoral votes to Trump (273-265 in that scenario). The NYC area however is the catch here - depending on how it's sliced, it could cause Upstate New York to flip red and therefore flip the overall map back to a Trump victory. (New York north of the northern border of Westchester County is a Red State!). It doesn't appear to matter whether NYC itself ends up in CT, NJ, or divided between the two - adding a blue city to a blue state doesn't change the outcome much, aside from potentially varying the electoral vote sizes. The tool doesn't allow you to add a new state, but the State of Long Island's 2 extra EVs from a Senate seats would not change the overall outcome of the election either - if Westchester is part of Long Island State, Trump wins - if it remains in New York State, Hillary wins. As Westchester County Goes, so goes the White House --172.68.132.59 05:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


Good curve! The curve is called the Georgia Bight, or less euphoniously, the South Atlantic Bight. 162.158.63.76 03:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"Align to Grid" refers to the option to have icons snap to a grid on a Windows desktop. The idea is that the states become "aligned" like icons on a desktop. FakeCrash (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

More likely, since this has been drawn up by graphic designers, it refers to functionality in most design/drawing tools that allows you to drag elements into the drawing and have them snap to a notional grid, so that they align nicely with previously added elements.162.158.155.32 11:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be really useful if this could link to somewhere that described why the various panhandles and oddities exist. 162.158.154.247 21:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_States_Got_Their_Shapes Silverpie (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

They should be called geo-graphic designers Jaalenja (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Randall had no references to Trump here. Get over it. I mean really. Why does everybody think everything about the country has to do with Trump winning? That's right, Jacky720 just signed this (talk | contribs) 14:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

For the sentence: "Many U.S. residents will be made to live in new states, and thus be required to pay different taxes and obey different state laws, and even root for different sports teams." It should be expanded to explain that people are indeed required to root for sports teams in the state they live in⸮ --172.68.133.234 21:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The map looks great, but you didn't include all 50 states.162.158.58.123 05:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

[https://img ur.com/a/Tnjts I tried my hand at creating this map] 162.158.255.112 01:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In the "explanation" column of the grid the entry for Rhode Island says "Expanding Rhode Island eastward would reduce the number of land borders it has to two [...]" This confused me a great deal, and I triple-checked to confirm that Rhode Island currently has two land borders, so how would making it bigger reduce the number (which is currently two) to two? 108.162.237.190 04:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Original writer - my bad for poor writing. I had the fact that Rhode Island's current border with Massachusetts has two clear lines on the mind: an east-west border to RI's north and a north-southish border to RI's east, with the latter being erased under the DT's proposals.

A description of the change to the eastern Massachusetts/New Hampshire border is missing.

The border between the Province of Québec and the States of New York and Vermont should also be straightened and aligned on the 45th parallel and, while we're at it, extended all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. The Northeastern border would then be a nice straight line, like the Northwestern border. New Hampshire would lose its extreme Northern tip (not a big deal), and Maine all of its Northern territory (which is mostly uninhabited anyway).

• He missed an opportunity regarding the Erie_Triangle.

T for Texas, T for Tennessee: There is an actual [Horrors] OMISSION, given that he is correcting a surveying error in Tennessee, he should also correct the surveying error that put the New Mexico-Texas state line about 1 xkcd line-width too far west (as scaled on the map), unnecessarily expanding Texas.

With regards to the Alaskan panhandle section - to the best of my knowledge (and based on a quick online search) the capital of Alaska has always been in Juneau. It certainly has never been in Anchorage. There were several referendums over the past four decades to move the capital to Anchorage or near Anchorage; however, most were defeated. Also, the two (I think it was two?) that passed, were effectively defunded in the legislature. Also, most of us Anchoragites (damn, we need a better name for ourselves) would be more than happy to give Juneau to Canada... some of us would pay them to take it.

In the vein of "Give X to Canada," Port Roberts needs addressing. Nobody else really cares enough to make it happen. 108.162.246.239 05:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As a Wyomingite, I strongly object to the 'Align to Grid' changes. Not because I mind Jackson being lost, but because Idaho and Montana have been laying claim to Yellowstone for years. We can't let them actually have it!172.68.34.70 05:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The Wyoming align to grid changes move Evanston over to Utah, and Jackson Hole over to Idaho. Given that Wyoming is already the least populous state by a pretty decent margin, I think it would make sense to just split the remaining land between Colorado and Montana, continuing the arbitrary squiggle that was previously extended to remove Yellowstone. Colorado would become a much taller and slimmer state. While we're at it we could merge the Dakota's into one state as well. Stickfigurefan (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the border between Idaho and Montana is already, for the most part, an arbitrary squiggle.Jkshapiro (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)