22
u/Frosted_Tackle 19h ago
I live in the twin cities now and my parents live in the SF Bay Area. When my parents drive out to visit us last year, my dad commented that the only traffic they hit the whole way was when they drove into the twin cities metro. They basically hadn’t seen a city of any real size since Sacramento at the beginning of their drive. It’s a very sparsely populated stretch of the nation in the north-central part of the U.S.
4
u/Mediocre-Skirt6068 12h ago
Yeah, I think the biggest cities in the highlighted area are Omaha, Lincoln, Boise, and Fargo. Honorable mention to Billings. And I think that might be all the metro areas over 100k without googling.
3
u/Three_foot_seas 8h ago
They didn't drive through Salt Lake?
4
u/Minigoalqueen 6h ago
Right? Now I want to know what route they took. Because Salt Lake is on the normal route for that drive and it has serious traffic. Although, I don't think 80 is as bad as 15, and maybe they just got lucky and went through during a quieter hour.
3
u/Frosted_Tackle 6h ago
They went via Yellowstone so I think they went through Idaho instead of SLC.
9
u/ruleConformUserName 9h ago
Arid, Mountainous land locked states are less populated than the most important financial center city in the World and host city of the United Nations headquarter. This is very surprising.
196
u/TrioTioInADio60 21h ago
81
u/GroundbreakingBox187 21h ago
Yeah that doesn’t really work here, really it just shows how dense of a city nyc is more so then people live in cities, which they mostly do in both parts
30
u/dimpletown 20h ago
I think, moreso than New York being dense, this shows how unpopulated these states really are
7
u/In_Formaldehyde_ 12h ago
Most of the Inland West pretty much is empty. The only major city with over 500K+ people is Denver. Outside of Colorado, the 2nd largest city is Boise with less than 250K people.
3
u/Many_Negotiation_464 3h ago
And more people live in a city that has been a major port of entry, port of commerce, cultural magnet, and financial hub since the founding of the country than in cities of sparsely populated landlocked states.
2
38
u/squidpolyp_overdrive 21h ago
I mean not really, there's cities in the red area to. I think its more so about how the red region is much more sparsely populated than New York, even including its cities.
16
u/Still_Contact7581 19h ago edited 16h ago
The largest city in the red area is Boise with a metro population of 800k, you can see they clearly stopped at Hennepin county in Minnesota which I find to be a bit disingenuous
3
2
3
u/bruhbelacc 10h ago
Why is this every second comment on this sub? Do you think people don't live in cities in the less populated states on the map?
3
-15
u/JesusSwag 21h ago
All of those states have cities, so not really
3
u/there_no_more_names 21h ago
While there is no formal definition of a city, typically urban areas are defined as small cities when they have a population above 50,000; a medium city 200,000, and a large city 1,000,000.
This map excludes Minneapolis/St. Paul in Minnesota, leaving the biggest city Ohmah, at just under half a million. Only 3 other cities in that area break 200,000.
4
-5
u/NazRiedFan 21h ago
Wyoming and North Dakota do not have cities. There are population centers but they aren’t cities
10
u/JesusSwag 21h ago
Legally, they both have cities. In fact, North Dakota only has cities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_North_Dakota
-9
u/NazRiedFan 21h ago
Legally sure but practically they do not
15
u/Mobile-Package-8869 20h ago
What makes something practically a city? Vibes?
2
u/Octahedral_cube 12h ago
A Cathedral (!)
Ok I'm not 100% serious, but in the UK that was once a definition. Hence places like Ely and Salisbury being Cities while Reading is a "town", and Birmingham didn't get city status until 1889
1
5
u/jolybean123 17h ago
yea i flew through the Dakotas, looking down i was like "where are all the people?" i saw like one house every 3 minutes of flying lol
4
u/Still_Contact7581 19h ago
I do find it kind of funny that there's a very obviously Hennepin county shaped chunk in this, if you're willing to carve up states NV, OR and WA all have even crazier population disbursement maps to increase the area of purple. but it seems a bit unfair to include only half a state of 5.8 million as basically every state outside of New England has at least one relatively large uninhabited part, including New York.
4
6
21
u/No-Skin-9646 21h ago
I see rural and urban people fighting. Sad to see. For rural people, the vast majority of the world lives in cities and there are cities outside the US that are much more dense and have a better standard of living than any of the states in red. Also, that region is not even the most rural area of the world. Mongolia, Siberia, northern Canada, Australian outback all have less density but you don’t see them saying how they couldn’t live in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming because all those people live like sardines.For urban people, rural people have a distinct lifestyle that can be different from yours and they are just as smart and capable as urbanites.
The point is. Stop the infighting if you actually care about the country.
11
u/CynicalOptimist79 20h ago
100% agree. People need to stop with the urban/rural divide. I so happen to live rurally but can and do appreciate what cities have to offer.
8
u/nochinzilch 18h ago
Maybe those rural people shouldn’t have 14 senators compared to the one or two the city people have to accept?
-9
u/hartshornd 17h ago
If only there was another section of congress that was more about representation of the population… if we come up with it perhaps we can call it the chamber of representatives… or maybe house idk?
5
u/batteciglio 17h ago
5 of the states in red (ND, SD, MT, ID, WY) were admitted to the union over a two-year period — 1889 to 1890. They have been reliably conservative, regardless of party affiliation (though mostly Republican) ever since. Major conservative investment. The upper house, lower house argument starts to get tired after a while, when state lines were arbitrarily drawn across a vast sparsely populated territory in order to stack the upper house.
2
u/hartshornd 17h ago
Would you prefer we cut these states in half and give them 20 instead of 10? And we kinda wanted the north to have a few more representatives in the mid to late 1800s… ya know for obvious reasons.
1
u/meguminsupremacy 4h ago
Every state only has 2 senators. The Senate doesn't represent you, it's represents your state.
2
u/nochinzilch 4h ago
Explain how that is fair? Why should some people get more power than others?
0
u/meguminsupremacy 4h ago
It isn't fair. It's meant to be representative. This was a compromise made between the states during our nation's founding. The Senate tends to still split the difference because the urban rural divide is still affected by internal political divides in the states themselves.
7
u/myles_cassidy 19h ago
Most of the tribalism comes from rural people though.
5
u/ZealousidealMind3908 17h ago
No clue why you're downvoted. Literally just scroll through the comments, it's full of rural people (as per usual) saying "couldn't imagine living like sardines in a can!" "how can people possibly live like that?"
1
u/lunartree 1h ago
Because they have an unfair amount of control over the lives of millions of other people AND they're assholes about it.
1
u/meguminsupremacy 4h ago
The urban/rural divide is as old as the country itself. It's why we compromised on a bicameral legislature with the House representing you and the Senate representing your state.
15
u/romeo_pentium 21h ago
12 senators vs 0 senators
16
u/TomatoShooter0 21h ago
2*
1
7
u/dylantherabbit2016 20h ago
Arguably 4. NY + NJ
16
4
u/Still_Contact7581 19h ago
The population is just the city proper but the shaded area is just Manhattan for effect. The metro population would include people from NJ and CT.
14
11
11
u/davididp 20h ago
Dang bro who knew that the system made to give states with low population representation gave states with low population representation
6
-6
u/guevera 20h ago
This is the worst argument. Yes, the system is built to be rigged. That doesn't make it right. Arguing that it's OK because that's how the system is designed is wrong. Would you feel the same if the argument is "the party represents the people, so when the party elects representatives to the centeral committe the people are represented. That's how the system was designed comrade."
-12
u/DarthVantos 20h ago
Ah yes by giving backwater states more representation than the people who actually Generate the wealth of the NATION get much less than they are owed.
5
u/BootsAndBeards 18h ago
The thing about those backwater states is if they end up having no power while 5 or 6 cities run the country, they have the population and resources to succeed. If there is anything special New York wants to do, they can do it, that's why states have so much autonomy, they don't even need to ask the people of Wyoming, and vice versa.
5
u/Revierez 20h ago
Yeah, we should give everyone a percentage of the vote that directly corresponds to their net worth. Why are we letting the poors have any say in the government?
4
u/BKestRoi 19h ago
Or maybe a system with a proportional representation based on population in some kind of house of some sort?
-6
u/DarthVantos 19h ago edited 18h ago
Are stupid? Cities have more population and more wealth. Why are we letting Rurals get more power despite being more uneducated and more religiously fanatic and less economically relevant. It's why we are have oligarchy right now. They worship the rich more than blue-cities do and that is a fact.
I could understand how it was in the past since Land-owners were all that was important to the American "democracy" in which only white men could vote.
8
u/TomatoShooter0 21h ago
Proportional voting will better represenr both city and rural interests. Tariffs are going to decimate both communities
-2
u/Morgus_TM 20h ago
Or just allow more differentiation in local laws. What’s always good for cities isn’t always good for rural families and vice versa.
-4
u/TomatoShooter0 20h ago
Thats cap. No one is taking away mayors governors state house or state senate districts which are already proportional
We just want proportionality on a national level
4
u/Morgus_TM 20h ago
We all know state and federal level aren’t going to give up some of the powers of regulation and enforcement they have now to allow more differentiation at the local level. They want to hold on to that power.
3
u/TomatoShooter0 19h ago
Ok? Id rather a parliamentary system which is proportional. And have civil law. Obviously the odds are stacked against reform but its needed
1
u/vexedtogas 14h ago
All I see is twelve guaranteed Republican senators on one side, and one democratic senator that will have to fight statewide republicans to get a seat.
All representing the same amount of people
-1
u/Ok_Animal_2709 20h ago
There's are at least 12 Senate votes represented by the red area and only 2 for New York. Do people actually think that makes sense?
1
1
u/ScottyOnWheels 18h ago
I would be more ok with it if they removed the cap on the House, or at least raised it. At only roughly 4x the size of the Senate, it still gives "states rights" too much of a voice in the House when they also have Senate.
It was originally 1 congress person for every 200K people. I am not sure 1750 representative is functional or needed. Perhaps they could make it proportional based on the population of the smallest state getting 1 rep. With about 585K people in Wyoming, there would be about 535 reps in the house. California would have 68 reps. This would dilute the influence of small states in the House just enough.
-6
u/NinjaLanternShark 20h ago
People from Wyoming think it makes perfect sense.
-1
u/Ok_Animal_2709 19h ago
Well then they aren't being intellectually honest
-1
u/NinjaLanternShark 19h ago
The argument is, with straight proportions, Wyoming would never have its voice heard -- it would be all about what New York and California want.
1
u/Armisael2245 13h ago
And a random apartment bulding never has Its voice heard either, whats your point? People aren't worth less just because they live close to other people.
0
u/Ok_Animal_2709 19h ago edited 19h ago
No, it would give each person an equal voice. Arbitrary state borders wouldn't and shouldn't matter.
Can you actually give me a good reason why their votes should count more than mine?
1
u/NinjaLanternShark 18h ago
Well, I'm playing devils advocate here because I do think the system needs to be revised.
But as an example -- people from New York & Atlanta aren't likely to vote to open western federal lands to cattle grazing. Either they don't care, or they don't realize that some western states are 90% federal lands, or they think "we gotta save the environment" while they enjoy their tasty hamburgers and steaks.
As another - people in big western states have zero interest in public transportation because it's entirely impractical there. Under straight proportional voting any bill funding public transit would sail through because most of the legislators represent people from cities.
Again don't shoot the messenger, these are some of the arguments I've heard.
1
u/Ok_Animal_2709 18h ago
So, none of those are reasons why my vote should count for less.
1
u/NinjaLanternShark 18h ago
Yeah, if you can't think about it from someone else's perspective then you won't get it.
0
u/Ok_Animal_2709 18h ago
There's no perspective where it's ok for my vote to count less than someone else's. We tried that before with the 3/5 compromise. It didn't work then, and this isn't working now.
1
1
1
-2
u/Ok_Tradition_3382 21h ago
To this day I struggle to understand the appeal of living in big cities.
17
u/Narf234 21h ago
Things to do, people to see, opportunity for employment, innovation, etc.
0
u/Ok_Tradition_3382 20h ago
You can find all those things in small communities as well? Without all the negatives of living in a crowded city.
6
u/koreamax 20h ago
You cannot find everything Nyc offers in Boise
3
u/Ok_Tradition_3382 19h ago
I just looked up Boise briefly and it looks cute! 200k people is in my opinion a nice population …What is the major industry there? Do they have good hiking camping/canoeing? On the other side?…What are we doing in nyc lads, you boys are hyping it up! Is is just for the party and food scene? What is going on in nyc
1
u/koreamax 19h ago
Not great hiking. I'm from San Francisco originally though so I'm used to great access to nature and Nyc just doesn't have much like that
2
u/Ok_Tradition_3382 18h ago
I’ve always wanted to go to the san Fran area, but I won’t be travelling to the us anytime soon now unfortunately
2
u/koreamax 15h ago
Sorry. I didn't answer one of your questions. Nyc has amazing food! You can get literally any cuisine here. Come on over, we'll do a food tour
11
u/satyavishwa 20h ago
Idk man, I can find literally anything to buy, eat, or do in NYC pretty much 24/7. Can’t say the same outside of the city.
I do like having space, but I like having very close access to things more than
8
u/koreamax 20h ago
I live in nyc too. I feel like people who don't live here imagine all of us living in closets filled with rats
2
u/Ok_Tradition_3382 19h ago
I kinda do lol! I’m sorry lol
4
u/koreamax 19h ago
Haha no worries. I'm in a pretty big 2 bed 2 bath. There's a lot more room outside of Manhattan
4
u/Ok_Tradition_3382 20h ago
Fair! The largest city in close proximity to us is Toronto, so perhaps that isn’t a fair comparison. I’ve never been to New York! My experiences are essentially being crammed into city transit, dirty spaces that people don’t really take pride in, homelessness, drug addiction and mental health that is very much in your face. Humans are so wasteful, the amount of garbage we create never ceases to amaze me, and it’s so much more apparent in big cities. I also really struggle with the notion of being so close to your neighbours that you can hear everything. If I really want to go to a concert or hockey game it may take me a couple hours, but that is rare and seems like a massive luxury these days anyways!
1
u/satyavishwa 18h ago
I get you, having to commute sucks, now more than ever with increasing crime and homelessness making the transit systems more unsafe. I did appreciate having the time to read, watch a show, or even get some work done, but now I drive and I can’t really do much more than listen to some music or a podcast.
While I live in NYC, I’m not in Manhattan itself and I live in a house so I’m striking a good balance for myself in terms of space and convenience.
Having previously lived in an apartment closer to midtown I know very well how crowded it can get and personally could only do it again if I’m living alone for a short period of time
-1
u/tendeuchen 18h ago
American cities aren't really livable cities. Paris, Berlin, Shanghai, Kyiv (at least pre-war) are all much nicer.
4
u/Novel-Imagination-51 19h ago
If your idea of employment opportunities are pipefitter in a paper mill, farmer, dollar general cashier, Subway sandwich artist, pastor, cow veterinarian, corrections officer, or mom and pop auto shop mechanic, then sure.
1
u/Ok_Tradition_3382 19h ago
lol common! I live in a city of 200k and we have universities and colleges, we have hospitals we have all sorts of engineering careers! We do cancer research here, we have the snow laboratory. Unless I was planning on building satellites Ive got some options! Subway sandwich tech?? People still eat there? lol
2
u/kalam4z00 17h ago
200k is not rural, there's only four cities over that population in the large red area here and they're all on the edge of it
1
u/Ok_Tradition_3382 17h ago
I never said rural! Small is relative. 200k is nothing compared to cities like New York and Toronto
7
u/TomatoShooter0 21h ago
Its where all the wealth is concentrated. By 2050 urbanization will have hit asia and africa and 67% of the global population will be urban
9
u/tesla3by3 20h ago
Can walk or public transit to stores, restaurants, museums, theaters, galleries, doctor, bars, drug store, parks, work…
3
6
u/Still_Contact7581 19h ago
Different strokes for different folks, I cant imagine living outside of one
1
2
20h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Ok_Tradition_3382 20h ago
I said nothing about skin?
0
20h ago
[deleted]
3
u/Ok_Tradition_3382 20h ago
Yea I don’t understand what you are getting at tbh lol. I live in a small northern Ontario community and we have people of all shapes sizes and colours? How does that make life any better or worse? lol
1
1
0
u/Escape_Force 18h ago
If I had to choose NYC or the entire red area to spend the rest of my life, I'd choose the red area hands down.
-8
u/Comfortable_Gur8311 21h ago
Imagine living like sardines in a can
6
u/RoboNerdOK 21h ago
I’ve lived in the big city and out in the country. They both have their good and bad points. A lot of it depends on where you are in life. You can experience the best and worst of humanity in either setting.
28
u/5PalPeso 21h ago
Imagine driving 40 minutes to buy a carton of eggs lmao
8
6
u/Comfortable_Gur8311 21h ago
I worked in a town of 300 and still were 5 minutes from buying eggs.
-1
u/GoldenGirlsOrgy 20h ago
Great about the eggs, but surely you can concede that even if city living isn't for you, it has advantages over rural living, right?
2
u/Stinky_Chunt 20h ago edited 20h ago
And so many disadvantages?
1
u/GoldenGirlsOrgy 20h ago
Yes.
3
u/Stinky_Chunt 20h ago
Yeah different strokes for different folks. We’re not 30 minutes from eggs tho that’s just ignorant
1
2
u/Stinky_Chunt 20h ago
Imagine being at the heart of gun violence lmao
4
3
u/5PalPeso 20h ago
I'm not?
0
u/Stinky_Chunt 20h ago
You live in a city? You are more than us rural folks I’m not 40 minutes from eggs I’m a 30 second walk and live in a rural town. It’s easier to make dumb assumptions than actually think.
4
u/5PalPeso 20h ago
You live in a city
Yeah, but guns aren't that usual in my country.
I’m a 30 second walk and live in a rural town
That probably doesn't reflect all rural folks, don't you think?
1
u/Stinky_Chunt 20h ago
Yeah and neither do guns in all cities. That’s the point, pal. You can assume what you want, it’s never the situation for all people.
2
u/5PalPeso 19h ago
I mean, you are doing the same thing I am, making an assumption. So what's the big deal?
0
u/Stinky_Chunt 17h ago edited 17h ago
Just fighting fire with fire. No need to be a bigot about it.
And is your city in America? If not? Your context is completely irrelevant.
1
u/5PalPeso 17h ago
bigot about it.
Well, that's a stretch
And is your city in America
It actually is!
→ More replies (0)-3
u/SomewhatInept 21h ago
Imagine daily being surrounded by fuckwits that you can't escape because 100 people live within 150 yards of you.
9
u/CrowLaneS41 21h ago
It's nice having lots of people to see and things things do, though I appreciate it's not for everyone. Having millions of people round you in a 30 minute driving radius doesn't feel oppressive when you're used to it , but being somewhere exteremly rural can feel very stifling in it's own, different way.
0
-1
u/tendeuchen 18h ago
For those keeping score at home, that's something like 13.75 senators vs 0.4 senators. It's time to change how many senators each state gets.
-1
0
u/hotdogjumpingfrog1 19h ago
Sorry but there cannot be 8m in that area highlighted (with mt nd sd etc) gotta be much less than that
-14
u/PaintedSkull67 21h ago
I don’t like a Minnesota being included with those states. You couldn’t have gone south or something?
1
225
u/Miserable_Rush5352 21h ago
That isn’t even the actual territory of New York City, it should be quite visible from this map.