Combined, the population of Dakota would still be less than that of Nebraska. Only Wyoming would have have a smaller population among the Plains States. In the face of shrinking populations in the Dakotas, it's time to consolidate. Wisconsin should also seize the UP form Michigan. Kittens are little cats.
When you talk to people about the Dakotas, they are often confused as to what is what state. So for all intents and purposes the view of ND and SD is just of Dakota. The people are culturally and politically identical. All that would need to be done is picking where the capital will be and unifying the laws. The move would bolster the coffers in the states and make a true economic powerhouse. With AG, Energy, Financial, Hi Tech, industries leading the way.
The sparse populations and vast amounts of undeveloped land within both states along with the lack of a draw from outside the area tells me it would make sense for them to join forces.
To use the Carolinas to support the no side is ignorant, I'm sorry! For one, they were two of the 13 original colonies, therefore have a much longer and richer history, and South Carolina (which is less than half the size of North in population), is nearly three times as big as the Dakotas combined!
In order to keep the US at 50 states there could simply be a plan to split one of the big two states (California and Texas) into two states or make NYC its own state.
It's not likely to happen, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't make sense.
It would be very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very v very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very cool.
Let us face it north and south Dakota have tiny populations and are pretty much the same state just ones further south than the other. The geography is similar and so are customs and history. All in all there pretty much the same state. North and south Dakota should combine.
Look at Puerto Rico with a population of 3.337 million people, yet cannot vote for president of the United States of America. Why should they not be able to vote for president while North Dakota (755,393) and South Dakota (869,666) which is combined to be 1,625,059 people can vote for president with six electoral votes.
The perfect solution is to unify Puerto Rico (3.337 million) and the United States Virgin Islands (102,951), and make them a state. During this process you combine the states of North and South Dakota.
I admit, I have never been to these states but this is what I know:
Both have small and similar populations, their economy is based on the same things, their landscape is very similar, the customs are, as far as I know, almost the same, the average income and poverty rate are almost the same, and even ethnically they are very similar. And in face of such a small population, a merger would make total sense to me
Combining the South Dakota and North Dakota would result in 49 states. DC Statehood and Puerto Rico Statehood are frequently discussed but the stigma against abandonment of the number 50, though illogical, is a major hinderance to formation of new states. If we combine the Dakotas, we suddenly have room for one more state without making the number 51.
Let's face it, nobody actually goes to North Dakota. It's a boring state with nothing going on. Like there's South Dakota and the other one. Having two seems kinda counter intuitive. Even the history of how both Dakotas were made is pretty boring. They were both made because republicans just wanted more republican states. So we might as well merge them. Honesty the only problem would be deciding which state capital gets to remain "the capital".
North Dakota & South Dakota are both very small (population) states, there is no need for such small populations to have separate legislatures and administrative systems. If we combined them, the cost would reduce by half, cutting waste, leaving more money for either infrastructure and social security, or even tax cuts.
Both states have similar demographics, cultures and economies therefore they're a perfect candidate for a merger, and neither state has a large city located ideally for a capital (Fargo & Sioux Falls are right on the eastern border) so the new Dakota state would still have no natural capital just like ND & SD now, so no loss!
We wouldn't need to change the flag - give Puerto Rico & DC representation, they deserve to be states! Merge the Dakotas and then maybe make Wyoming join Montana or Rhode Island join Massachusetts and then voila, 50 states still.
This couldn't possibly ever happen because ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL ITS ILLEGAL
I believe it was for the Civil War... North Dakota wanted to free the slaves while South Dakota wants to have slaves. North and South Dakota have a rare chance of becoming one state because that USA has to change its flag, go through several documents and the government ruling there would be totally confused. May BE in the future.... North And South Dakota will become to One Dakota
I do not believe North Dakota and South Dakota will become one state of Dakota. I do not believe there is any inkling of the idea that the citizens of either state are interested in such a change. Both states have fairly low population rates and it may be a good idea.
Should South Carolina and North Carolina become one state? No. Both states have their own rules and history. It would not make any sense to merge them into one. I live in South Carolina and would personally be offended if it was decided that our state was to be merged with North Carolina. Just because the state has the same ending, there is a lot of pride held in that North and South.
It was an effective way to divide the territory. The Dakota territory would have been to large to overlook competing with the population statistics in 1899. There was disputes between the business on the topic of railways. One ran through what now is North Dakota, the other ran through what now is South Dakota. They did such a good job of disagreeing that eventually they separated the territory into two separate states to settle the feud. One major reason for the separation was to gain representation for the region in national politics. If the Dakota Territory were to have simply stayed as one state there would have been 2 Senators (vs 4 currently) and 1 House Rep. (vs 2 currently).
If ND and SD were to merge into just Dakota it would expensive to build a new capitol building somewhere other than Pierre or Bismarck. The political districts would have to be redrawn. We would need a new governor, etc. The Capital would probably stay in the state with a better capitol building.