• EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    11 months ago

    People making these maps truly have no understanding of half of the states’ politics. There is no way Nazi Idaho is going to go with Canada, California, or Minnesota. They would literally fight to the last enslaved child soldier rather than let either of those possibilities happen. They’re going with Utah to make Deseret. Illinois is never gonna vibe with TX or PA, they’re even more likely to tie in with Minnesota than Colorado is. Michigan’s two peninsulas will absolutely end up separated, the only things unifying them are the bottle tax and pot. Pennsylvania is way more likely to split into three parts than it is to split in two.

    Breaking stuff down by state or even county is nonsensical. Urban/rural divides, cultural divisions and geographical boundaries are far more likely to factor in, and exactly zero US balkanization maps factor these things in.

    Am I gonna have to do this myself?

    • bananon [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      11 months ago

      Tbf he says at the bottom

      IS THIS LIKELY TO BE ACCURATE? Probably not, but it’s precise, and if Nate Silver has taught us anything, it’s that precision matters more than accuracy.

    • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m not convinced a balkanized US would even split along traditional state lines except in cases where the borders are rivers or mountains. The state borders are completely fictional and set up according to things like slave compromises or like treaties with France from 1740. They’d have no current geopolitical stakes.

      The only one I could see being a problem is Louisiana, because their roads are noticably worse than every other state, so they’d be more difficult to annex