We only need one Dakota. Not two. amirite?

Keep the fanning. Ditch the Johnson . That's what I say.

by ariel84 1 month ago

Gladiator style fight to the death is the only fair way

by Anonymous 1 month ago

It's the only logical conclusion really.

by Walkeredmond 1 month ago

So... resurrect Celebrity Death Match?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Have you ever seen Johnson naked?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Yes, we've all seen 50 Shades

by Anonymous 1 month ago

I have not

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Not married eh? lol

by Unlikely_Disk_1678 1 month ago

and I agree lol

by Middle_Standard9449 1 month ago

I'd even be ok with zero Dakotas. 🤷 Make one huge Minnesota 😂

by TotalConstruction469 1 month ago

….Megasota is coming. Just wait.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

That sounds super friendly and terrifying..

by Anonymous 1 month ago

This is a take I've never really cared about, but think about it this way: if North Dakota was called Dakota, and South Dakota was called Bleepbloopbop, would anybody be calling for the two states to merge? It's literally just their names lol.

by Alfredvonrueden 1 month ago

I think we should merge a lot of states with super low population. It'll fix a lot of problems with federal representation (yes i'm bitter about california having the same number of senators as almost empty states)

by Rosiemann 1 month ago

Wow, ye_old_fartbox, this is a compelling point. I never considered this perspective. The Dakota's are remarkably unremarkable.

by PauseEducational2918 1 month ago

Yeah, merge all the states where amount of the guns are more than the population together

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Yeah my estranged sister and her husband are responsible for probably a major tenth of a positive percentage in the gun ownership stats.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

There are people and an economy in those states.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

So Midwesterners aren't people?

by Kindly-Access 1 month ago

Don't you mean "that state"?

by Few-Vermicelli5713 1 month ago

Hard pass.

by Summer37 1 month ago

Well, you're wrong - of all those states listed, only 2 have a population greater than the Dakotas combined. Vermont, however, is the second least populated state in the country. So by your logic, Vermont should have less senatorial representation than either Dakota.

by Turbulent_Spot 1 month ago

You're wrong.

by PauseEducational2918 1 month ago

NUH UH!

by PauseEducational2918 1 month ago

Agreed. And we should split California up into North and South.

by Berneicezulauf 1 month ago

So, is it Johnson or Fanning?

by Normal-Study7202 1 month ago

👏🏻

by PauseEducational2918 1 month ago

as long as there's just one, my own private, Idaho

by handzoey 1 month ago

While we're at it, let's fuse the Carolinas and the Virginias!

by zachery45 1 month ago

Don't you dare bring them into this.

by PauseEducational2918 1 month ago

I concur. Rhodeland?

by Anonymous 1 month ago

"What about this, what about that" isn't working on me, buster. No two states are as remarkably unremarkable as the two Dakotas.

by PauseEducational2918 1 month ago

No, you're taking me too literally. Sorry. I just wonder how we got two Dakotas, because from the outside, there is no discernible difference whatsoever.

by PauseEducational2918 1 month ago

Also, the representatives wouldn't change because they're based on population, which wouldn't change if you combined them, so that part doesn't make sense either

by Anonymous 1 month ago

The Dakota Territory was split into North and South Dakota in 1889 primarily for political reasons, specifically to gain more Republican senators in the U.S. Senate, and also to address the growing population and differing interests in the northern and southern regions.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

Ok you win. Point taken!

by PauseEducational2918 1 month ago

Also would proposition splitting North Florida and South Florida so we don't have to change the flag. The two regions couldn't be any more opposite.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

I remember when North Dakota wanted to change to Dakota a few years back. Cannot say I disagree. For that matter Wyoming may as well be part of Montana. I have driven 94 and 90 way too much for my own good and it is basically abandoned.

by mondricka 1 month ago

I mean, the entire area has like Mt. Rushmore, which I don't even want to see, and the Black Hills. And I just had to Google which Dakota those were in. It could all just be called "Up There" (obligatory hand wave in the direction of Up There) and it'd be fine. We'd all know where it meant. That's what I call it anyways.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

I agree. Only about 30% of the population even lives west of the Mississippi.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

So, 14 people basically. It's like they get a personal senator.

by PauseEducational2918 1 month ago

Just curious what do you have against have two dakotas? What would you want to happen to the land, besides it becoming one Dakota?

by Significant_Top 1 month ago

I have nothing against them except for their seemingly superficial distinction. I'd prefer just one Dakota. The Virginias can stay, because they're different geographically. But the Dakotas… I don't even know which one has Mt. Rushmore and I'd confidently bet few others do.

by PauseEducational2918 1 month ago

I'm involved in an organization that has local chapters and state chapters in most states....except there is a "Dakota Society", as they don't have enough members to each have their own state-level organization.

by dakota30 1 month ago

If there was one Dakota, that would be one more than there currently is. There is a "North Dakota" and there is a "South Dakota", but currently there is no "Dakota". Maybe, one day, there will be a Dakota and it will be the only one that you need.

by According_Space_2768 1 month ago

As someone who has lived in North Dakota, I agree. No reason for them to be two separate states.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

You're my hero.

by PauseEducational2918 1 month ago

So which one should we kill?

by Accomplished-Slip116 1 month ago

Unite the Dakotas!

by Anonymous 1 month ago

I know you said you're not talking politics, but as far as I can tell, that's the only reason to merge the two states. 1.7 million people in the Dakotas have twice the representation in the Senate as 39.4 million people in California. It's ridiculous.

by Dagmarernser 1 month ago

And yet we really do need two Californias.

by Miserable_Sugar 1 month ago

Too many Dakotas. Too many Virginias. Kansas and Missouri are essentially the same state. Ditto with Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are all the same state. Imagine all the money to be saved by getting rid of those redundant governors and state governments.

by Anonymous 1 month ago

It's to limit the amount of red state Senators

by Anonymous 1 month ago

There's some Maga flavored bleach challenge I'm sure they haven't tried yet. Just need to target them on TikTok.

by Anonymous 1 month ago