Would it be better if the Dakotas merged???

[SmileyBoy]

I've been thinking about it a lot lately, and I'm starting to think so. You see, back in 1889 when they granted statehood to the Dakota Territory, they split the territory/states into north and south. People back then had no idea that not many people would live in those states 115 years in the future. They did that with the mindset that both states would boom for decades to come due to agriculture. But North Dakota's population topped out in 1930 at 680,845, and South Dakota stayed stagnant in growth until around 25 years ago.

Think about this: According to the 2000 census, North Dakota has 642,200 people, and South Dakota has 754,844 people. If you merged them together, you'd have a state that has a population of 1,397,044 (currently probably over 1.4 million) people that's almost exactly the size (area-wise) of New Mexico.

Now here's the benifits to this idea: If the Dakotas merged, that would mean more political power for the region. There would be three representatives and two senators. Initiatives in Washington that would benefit the region (wind power, agricultural support) would be listened to more. We'd have more political clout. We'd also recieve more money from Washington for different initiatives. Dakota would be more liberal as a whole state than just the current North Dakota, because South Dakota usually is a bit more progressive than us folks up here.

But for the question of where to put the state capitol: I think the state capitol would be Bismarck, because it's closer to the center of the two states, and it's much larger in population (6 times as many people live in Bismarck-Mandan) than Pierre. Also, Bismarck has a much larger capitol building, and could better handle the increased number of legislators. Also, a town of 14,000 people like Pierre couldn't handle being the capitol of a state of 1.4 million people.

The only problem is that if we merged North and South Dakota, there would be 49 states. But I think this is something that if it ever came up, that the people here would have to decide. And I believe that I would vote yes on such a proposition.

What's your opinion on this??? Any North and South Dakota DUers responses would be awesome.

[LynneSin]

1. Actually no - we'd lose 2 democratic senators

Can you imagine that those 2 states each have democrats for their senators

Mind Boggling!!

[SmileyBoy]

4. But there would probably be three democratic representatives.

You really couldn't gerrymander a large state with three representatives. There would probably be the eastern half of the stte split into two districts, and the western half of the state being another one. I know that there's a big democratic stronghold in Fargo and Sioux Falls, and the reservations out west always vote dem.

[JailForBush]

11. I'm from West Dakota.

The two states should be divided along the Missouri River into East Dakota and West Dakota.

[Robb]

Got me.

I thought I'd click on this post to learn there were two strippers named Dakota. Boy is my face red! :evilgrin:

[onebigbadwulf]

2. It'd be better if california split

[camero]

3. They have 4 senators now

How would that increase political clout?

[SmileyBoy]

6. We'd get more money from Washington, more representatives...

State taxes would probably be lowered, more money for the large universities here, etc...

[camero]

8. I see your point

It would eliminate parochialism in the Dakotas but the risk of losing Dems may be greater than you think. Isn't the Black Hills area pug country? Excuse my ignorance. I haven't been there in quite awhile.

[SmileyBoy]

10. Yes, but all the reservations are staunchly dem.

Add that to liberal strongholds in Sioux Falls, Fargo and Grand Forks (all these cities are at least 50/50 democratic/repube), and you have a better chance of the democratic candidate winning 5 more electoral votes.

[camero]

12. Could be possible

The only other snag would be the state legislatures merging and the appropriation of funds to the various counties. Might be a good idea.

[SmileyBoy]

7. Also, here's a question for you:

Would you rather have a 100 percent chance that six electoral votes will go to the republican presidential candidate, or have a very good chance that five electoral votes will go to the democratic candidate???

At least there would then be a legitimate reason for candidates to campaign in one merged Dakota (5 electoral votes up for grabs).

[camero]

9. If those 5 went dem, yeah.

I'm just not certain they would.

[hlthe2b]

5. Well, Wyoming has less than 500,000 population. Yet, between Cheney

and former Senator Alan Simpson, they've had a disproportionate amount of political clout in recent decades. As an example--more highway dollars/populace than any other state-- but one small example of the political clout that can come out of proportion to population and representation numbers.