This Tuesday, The Atlantic published a very misguided take by Simon Barnicle, suggesting that the next time Democrats control the government, they should use their majorities to admit new, liberal states to the union, specifically by splitting up existing states. According to Barnicle, this would permanently cement an electoral advantage for Democrats, and correct our current state of minority rule. Besides the wild leap that Democrats will control the government anytime soon (the 2020 senate map is brutal), Barnicle ignores a host of practical, political, and even moral issues with this terrible proposal.

Before I go further, we should acknowledge that there’s a lot of potential for a motte-and-bailey defense here. Barnicle’s defenders might boil the article down to fair representation for DC and U.S. territories, which the article does advocate for. Obviously, DC statehood and a referendum for Puerto Rico are good ideas, but those two states alone would not give Barnicle the majority he wants (nor draw backlash of the scale this article talks about), and that’s not what he advocates for. Instead, the article specifically says:

“Perhaps there could be a North and South California, or an East and West Massachusetts. A new state of Long Island, an area that is geographically larger than Rhode Island, would be more populous than most of the presently existing states.”

Barnicle also references “the new states of Brooklyn and Queens,” with a header image that seems to imply we should also split New York in two. Adding that up, we’re talking about upwards of seven new states, and even more, if you extend the argument to the other three boroughs in New York or any state around the size of Massachusetts.

Practical Concerns

My first concern with this is purely practical: the constitution says, and Barnicle acknowledges, splitting up states requires the permission of the said state. With that in mind, how would a Democratic congress get any state to agree to split itself up? Sure, you can find hyper-partisans everywhere, but I doubt state representatives in California are very interested in dividing their state up in order to gain a marginal electoral college advantage. Even if they were, it’s definitely not going to be a recipe for their reelection, and that same logic applies to every state.

There’s not a lot of polling on this issue (shocker), but proposals in New York and California have already been rejected. Meanwhile, movements in Colorado and Washington never got off the ground, and neither have dozens of others—there’s clearly no appetite for this outside the fantasy world Barnicle’s article seems to posit. Just as importantly, where there is appetite, state partition proposals are disproportionately driven by conservative secessionism, meaning Democrats are unlikely to channel any excitement that might exist.

And all of those problems show up before we ask what the Republicans think of this proposal (or any Democrat to the right of AOC, but I digress), and I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest they might not like it. Obama couldn’t even get through a decent health care plan with a supermajority in both houses, and somehow the Democrats are going to divide up states? I want what this guy’s smoking. Making matters worse, every single state government also has a contingent of Republicans who will interfere with this process as much as possible, probably with the public overwhelmingly on their side.

Oh, you also have to do this all in two years, because no way you’re getting your supermajority back once you start dividing up states. Seems plausible…

Retaliation

For reasons inscrutable to all but God, Barnicle seems to think this electoral railroading will make Republicans more cooperative, forcing them to compromise on constitutional issues regarding equal representation. This is asinine. Sure, Republicans might “agree that these institutions [Electoral College and the Senate] are unfair,” but they wouldn’t care because they currently benefit from this unfairness! They will fight tooth and nail to maintain their advantage.

I think the fundamental mistake here is underestimating just how fatally unpopular this plan would be. The GOP base would be righteously infuriated, and moderate swing voters would take it too kindly either. Transparent political machinations are not popular, and neither is dividing up states, and that’s on top of the Democrats already being at a disadvantage for the midterms. Even with their new advantage from Gerrymandering states, the Democrats would have a rough time.

That gives Republicans the opportunity and the popular mandate to respond in kind. Maybe they would only cut up enough states to reassert the status quo, but I wouldn’t count on it. The map’s probably not going to be pretty for Democrats after the GOP replies. Of course, if they went too far, they’d probably get voted out, giving the democrats power again, and that could continue Ad Infinitum. Not ideal. Either way, the GOP is not going to be backed into enough of a corner to renegotiate the constitution.

Plus, the GOP has an ace in the hole. Texas can probably split itself into five states at will, which means the Republicans can fight back as soon as the Democrats start dividing up states. Even if Dallas, Austin, and Houston mean one of the new states is blue, that’s still six extra GOP senators, offsetting the theoretical Democratic advantage a lot. If Congress challenged it, it could go to the supreme court, but it’s more likely the GOP just wouldn’t bother pursuing it after taking control from the Democrats. This would easily reverse any progress Barnicle thought his plan would make.

Conclusion

It’s easy to admit that Barnicle’s article has a valid point: the current American electoral system is grossly unrepresentative, leads to minority rule and gives the GOP a structural advantage. In some cosmic sense, it’s probably just to fix it. But this proposal wouldn’t. Besides being impossible to carry out, the retaliation would be so bad as to reverse any progress that could possibly be made. Meanwhile, it would be a major blow to progressive politics, forcing a democratic majority out early and giving the GOP a mandate to strike back.

Yes, we should look for ways to correct the injustices in American electoral politics, but it’s never going to be solved in one fell swoop. Rather than provoking backlash by going on an ill-advised power trip, a Democratic majority should reach for more incremental reforms, like fighting against Gerrymandering, Granting DC statehood, and any number of progressive policies unrelated to electoral reform. The next time Democrats are in power they have the potential to do a lot of good. Let’s not waste it on something that will never work.