Why the hell does North Dakota exist anyway? Why two Dakotas? There was one single Dakota territory before statehood. Then suddenly, when statehood became an issue, there were two. Wrote Alec MacGillis of the Wash Post over the summer:
But after the Missouri Compromise of 1820, it was clear that the battle over slavery would be fought in the upper chamber. After the Civil War, the Senate became the bastion of the GOP as the party pushed to admit pro-Republican states to the union. Nevada was admitted in 1864 to help ratify the Civil War amendments despite being virtually empty; the Dakotas joined in 1889, split in two to provide more votes in the Senate and the Electoral College; Wyoming joined a year later with 63,000 residents.
With these added votes in the Senate and the Electoral College, the Republicans dominated throughout the late 19th century despite Democratic strength in the House. High tariffs, land giveaways in the West, lax regulation of railroads and a pro-business Supreme Court were all thanks partly to the underpopulated new states, says MIT historian Charles Stewart III.
So it was just a political scam. At least with my home state, there's a reason: West Virginians split off from Virginia during the Civil War over money, slavery and representation in Richmond. But two Dakotas? A political artifact. And now, the 650,000 people of North Dakota have the same power in the US Senate as the 37 million people of California. It's insane.
So here's my idea. Let's split the big blue states into some pieces. Let's have six Californias. Four of them would still be blue most of the time. And two New Jerseys, which would both probably be blue. Three New Yorks, two of which would be blue. Two Pennsylvanias, each anchored by Pittsburgh and Philly, and therefore likely blue the majority of the time.
Let's go for 65 states. Or 75. One -- one! -- of which should be: Dakota.