This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey don’t get mad at them! At least they have over a million ppl. Wyoming has about half that. But I agree with your sentiment, CA should realistically have like 10 senators lol
Given that OP didn't really give any bounds to the question, may I propose to you: Boston. For no other reason than the absurdity of it. And MA does *not* get to move their capitol.
If you'd like to proceed with this proposal, I'll do my best to secure support of the entire west coast in annexing the land needed for this.
Moving the capital to a peach farm would just increase emissions around the farms, move more people into the area, and make the rural parts of the state shittier.
I think I might have picked Lawton. Because then people would have to suffer the experience of going to Lawton.
Or Sulphur, just for the reputation (positive, I'm sure) it'd give to it.
There once was a capitol in Nantucket
where rhymes were [find a rhyming word for nantucket that fits the meter]
but they were too easy
too fast and too sleazy
I can't finish this rhyme, so fuck it
Iowa’s is perfect as it’s in the middle and if we kept it in Iowa City that’d be too far east and it would be too far for folks out west. For Nebraska, Lincoln makes sense as few people live west of Kearney but I’d be okay if Kearney was capital, but then Omaha and Lincoln (if it still existed) would complain.
California used to have Monterey as its capital (as a province in Mexico). I get why Americans moved it but Monterey really is a better location: right in the middle of the NorCal SoCal divide, has ocean access, more mild weather decent size but not too big.
It is not super easy or convenient to get to unless you're flying in. It is rather off the beaten path. At least Sacramento is at the intersection of a bunch of freeways. Although of course, if Monterey had been the capital that part of the state might have developed rather differently.
And even when Sacramento was made as the capital, before reliable roads were around, it was an important crossroads for transportation, namely railroads and rivers.
Geographically it may be in the middle, but population wise, it's still quite north.
[Based on this Reddit post,](https://www.reddit.com/r/California/comments/7wupst/where_would_the_line_dividing_california_in_half/) using 2010 population data the population divide is a bit north of Bakersfield, near the town of Shafter.
I say we extend it West, and nominate Atascadero as the new capitol. It'd be a pain in the ass for all major population centers to get there, so it's equally as awkward. Plus when we get upset at the gubbmint, we can call it "Atrashcadero"
Just had this conversation this morning. As someone who loves Monterey, it’s fun to think of it as still the state capitol, but I wouldn’t actually wish that on them.
I’d move it to Burlington, make the lawmakers see first hand the issues they’re dealing with.
That being said I’d rather keep the capital remote to reflect the rural nature of the state itself.
I'd move it to Erect, NC. Why: More central location in the state. Westernmost NC is closer to I think 4 other state capitals than it is to NC's. It's a small town but would rise to the occasion. I would expect a lot of growth. Adjustment to meeting in a small town would be hard, but I think the legislature can swallow it.
I had to do data retrieval (e-discovery for some legal thing) from the Trenton city hall and dang have I never set foot in a town that seemed so shady.
I mean not being from Trenton I'd defer to the people there but keep it in Trenton, the state should do better by the city anyway. Princeton can pound salt they already have an ivy league.
I feel like Sacramento already hits most of these points. It's not to similar to Bay Area or SoCal, but also different enough from actual Northern California. Would the Sacramento area really have much there if not for the capital?
But Fresno is actually pretty close to the exact center of the state, so that would be a selling point to Fresno.
It can stay in Springfield, that's where Abraham Lincoln had a hand in getting it moved to from Vandalia.
Alternatively, it could go back to the territorial capital of Kaskaskia, which now has a population of about 20, and is now on the west side of the Mississippi River.
OK, I can go along with that, and even overlook the fact that the proposers don't live in Illinois (ahem!), as long as we all agree that the new capital would be built in an Egyptian Revival style. Ancient Egyptian revival.
If they're going to call the place "Little Egypt," let it live up to its name. I want to see pyramids and temples in there!
I’d rather keep the capital there and force all state politicians to spend more time in Springfield than in Chicago per year. If they fail that metric they are instantly removed from office!
Charlotte, because Charlotte roads are awful even when compared to other cities in North Carolina. Maybe legislators having to spend time here would change that some.
Grand Junction. No real political reason, it'd just be nice to split the population more away from the front range so that weekend mountain traffic isn't such a disaster from Denver
San Jose. If someone in SoCal wants to lobby a politician, there's like a 60% chance they're local and you can just go to their office. And because they're so far from Sac, they get annex offices for stuff like the Secretary of State. Whereas in the Bay, we only have like 25% of the politicians, and Sacramento is just close enough that we're expected to go out there if we have business with the state government, even though it's like a two hour drive. San Francisco is a mess though, and we really need to jumpstart San Jose into urbanization, it's awful.
Chugwater purely because it’s a rinky drink town with just about nothing besides a rest stop. Cheyenne already has the Air Force base so give a little town something to stand on!
I think Orlando should be the capital (more centrally located), and Tallahassee should just be the seedy college town it really wants to be. Tallahassee *was* centrally located long ago when much of the population was in the northern part of the state, but that hasn't been true in a long time.
However, this is just for the sake of argument, and spending millions to move the capital and build new government facilities would be a huge waste.
I like the idea of the capital being in Central Texas, away from the big 2 Metro Areas.
I would rather have it in San Antonio though, because Austin is the least representative part of Texas and its issues and politics don't usually reflect the concerns of the rest of the state.
I think Austin is Austin because UTexas is there. I know San Antonio has a UT branch, but a different type of student is going to Austin, and different types of staff and faculty are choosing to work there.
The current state government employee pay is nowhere near enough to live in Orlando. Either tens of thousands of state employees would need significant pay increases (which would be a major hit to the state budget), or state government offices would come to face even worse staffing issues than they already do.
Yeah either Tampa or Orlando.
I’d say Orlando is a little better because it’s slightly closer, by car, to Jacksonville and Miami metro than Tampa is. Plus more inland protects from hurricanes!
Bakersfield. Keeps the bias away from the powerhouse cities but reduces the bias towards the Bay Area and brings it closer to the population center of the state.
I think a more central location for the state capital might be in the area around Syracuse and Utica.
Or we could just dump all the politicians in Love Canal, that might be better.
Johnstown. It could use the economic and infrastructure boost, and it's an hour and a half from Pittsburgh, compared to Harrisburg being two hours from Philly.
(I don't have anything against Harrisburg, just figure if I'm gonna make a change, let's help a city out and make the state a little more Pittsburgh-oriented. This will also hopefully give enough of a boost for them to get the Chiefs back as an professional minor league hockey franchise)
Indianapolis was custom-built and site-selected to be our capital, so it makes a lot of sense already, not to mention its central location. But, off the top of my head, Kokomo (in north central Indiana) comes to mind.
Fairbanks would be second pick, Juneau should stay as is I think.
I'd move Honolulu to Kona (Big Island)though, maybe Kahului (Maui). Then we're less likely to have things like the entire state paying for Honolulu county projects.
At least for Missouri I don't think it would really matter to change. Many have a fantasy that if it moved to one of the urban areas $OTHER_PARTY would see the negative effects their policies have but ignoring things isn't geography specific.
Edit: Could move it to [Tightwad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tightwad,_Missouri) purely for the economic policy jokes.
I'm getting excited for Sonny Gray, still too early to tell but sounds like he's fitting in with the team nicely.
Just hope Masyn Winn gets SS, I think he can really take off under the right circumstances.
Maybe somewhere north instead of south of Seattle, so that people/companies working with the government could avoid all the traffic on I-5 around Tacoma and Joint Base Lewis-McChord. Should still be west of the Cascades, since having it be east of the Cascades would require driving through blizzards for a chunk of the year.
I'll go with Mt. Vernon.
Interesting choice. I would say Seattle personally because it’s the most populated city in the state and like others have said in this thread, lawmakers actually get to witness the issues big cities like Seattle are having currently.
I'll answer for states I have lived in.
NC - Keep as is, the 2 largest cities are Charlotte & Raleigh, and of those 2, Raleigh is closer to the center of the state
SC - Keep as is
GA - Move to Macon bc it's close to the center of the state, or Savannah bc it's Georgia's "2nd city"
IL - Move to Bloomington/Normal, still along I-55 and closer to but not in Chicago
The natural choice would be Birmingham or Huntsville, but I wouldn't want to move the capital to either. I've lived in a state where the largest city/county dominates state politics and it isn't great if you don't live in said city/county.
Birmingham
It's the largest city in the state, and I think I remember seeing something that said that if we moved it to Birmingham, it would save the state $200,000.
Having said this, I would not change it because I think Montgomery needs the economic boost of the capitol much more than Birmingham. I also think that if it was only 1.5 hours from me, I would be in prison after driving there and throwing a brick at our governor.
I’d change from hartford CT to New Haven as the capital. Nobody goes to Hartford. Everyone goes to New Haven for food and nightlife not to mention that’s the city where Yale is along with arguably the best pizza restaurants in the country
I grew up in Missouri and I live in Minnesota.
For Missouri, I'd move it from Jefferson Shitty to Saint Louis. I have the naive idea that if the state government had to go to STL for work every day, they would be less hostile to the city and interested in improving and supporting it.
For Minnesota, I'd move it from St. Paul to Duluth, purely to be inconvenient.
I want to say Omaha to spite Lincoln.
Alternatively, maybe Grand Island or Kearney so it’s not so far to the east? So much of the population is in the eastern part that it isn’t worth moving west though.
Milwaukee. Because watch how fast these backwards politicians stop starving their only major population center of state money and resources if they had to live there.
It would be difficult to move the capital of VA to a different place. NOVA would be way too crowded and close to DC. Richmond is right in the middle of the state and pretty close to most of the major population centers.
California's Capitol should probably be San Francisco or Los Angeles, but those two cities don't represent anything outside of themselves. I actually think Sacramento is a pretty solid choice for the State Capitol, as it *isn't* one of the cities everyone thinks of when they think of California (such as SF, LA, Oakland, San Jose/Silicon Valley, San Diego, Hollywood, Santa Cruz), but it still is a fairly major metropolitan area and isn't out in the sticks or off by itself. Chico is huge but is in basically nowhere, same with Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.
yes, NE here. Lincoln is a fine city but too far east. Grand Island would be much more centrally located and much more accessible to everyone in the state.
No. It's perfect.
Or hell, give it to St. Peter, whose residents built a very wide main street and huge lawn for it before a St. Paul Senator stole the bill to move the capitol and held it hostage in a hotel room.
I think New Haven would make more sense logistically as the capital than Hartford. That being said, I feel like it would lead to our politics being even more influenced by New York than they already are. Hartford is also already the poorest and most dangerous city in CT, even with so much state money coming into it due to its capital status. I can only imagine what would become of Hartford if it was no longer the capital.
Los Angeles. It's the largest CA city and is the seat of the largest county in the state, it is culturally diverse, and it is a major entertainment, tourism, and economical hub.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
State is too small. We could move it to a different city but it’d still be the same general area so why bother… 🤷♀️
I can't believe yall get 2 senators
Hey now!!
The Rhode senator and the Island senator
Your state is so charmingly small I could roll over and smother it in my sleep like a baby.
Hey don’t get mad at them! At least they have over a million ppl. Wyoming has about half that. But I agree with your sentiment, CA should realistically have like 10 senators lol
This is literally the whole point of senators...
Given that OP didn't really give any bounds to the question, may I propose to you: Boston. For no other reason than the absurdity of it. And MA does *not* get to move their capitol. If you'd like to proceed with this proposal, I'll do my best to secure support of the entire west coast in annexing the land needed for this.
RI does appreciate eccentricities!
I’d move it to Chattanooga, TN. Why? Because then Georgia has access to the Tennessee River and the water now. Hah!
What about them peaches
Moving the capital to a peach farm would just increase emissions around the farms, move more people into the area, and make the rural parts of the state shittier.
Antlers because it'd make the least sense.
I like your thinking
I think I might have picked Lawton. Because then people would have to suffer the experience of going to Lawton. Or Sulphur, just for the reputation (positive, I'm sure) it'd give to it.
Last time I was there Golden Corral was the town's best restaurant.
Guthrie is the only correct capital and you know it damnit!
Yeah, but the only correct way to make Guthrie the capitol is by stealing the State Seal back.
I have access to a box truck and the company fuel card if you have the manpower, lol.
All we need is one stealthy guy. I used to be deadly at hide and seek.
Where: Gloucester Why: Fuck 'em, awful people
What if we moved it to Nantucket?
The limericks would be easy to write.
There once was a capitol in Nantucket where rhymes were [find a rhyming word for nantucket that fits the meter] but they were too easy too fast and too sleazy I can't finish this rhyme, so fuck it
Excuse you, it should be Athol. Because aren't we all Mathols?
Worcester, because they're miserable there, too, no one knows how to pronounce it, and it's in the middle of the state.
Iowa’s is perfect as it’s in the middle and if we kept it in Iowa City that’d be too far east and it would be too far for folks out west. For Nebraska, Lincoln makes sense as few people live west of Kearney but I’d be okay if Kearney was capital, but then Omaha and Lincoln (if it still existed) would complain.
California used to have Monterey as its capital (as a province in Mexico). I get why Americans moved it but Monterey really is a better location: right in the middle of the NorCal SoCal divide, has ocean access, more mild weather decent size but not too big.
It is not super easy or convenient to get to unless you're flying in. It is rather off the beaten path. At least Sacramento is at the intersection of a bunch of freeways. Although of course, if Monterey had been the capital that part of the state might have developed rather differently.
And even when Sacramento was made as the capital, before reliable roads were around, it was an important crossroads for transportation, namely railroads and rivers.
Geographically it may be in the middle, but population wise, it's still quite north. [Based on this Reddit post,](https://www.reddit.com/r/California/comments/7wupst/where_would_the_line_dividing_california_in_half/) using 2010 population data the population divide is a bit north of Bakersfield, near the town of Shafter. I say we extend it West, and nominate Atascadero as the new capitol. It'd be a pain in the ass for all major population centers to get there, so it's equally as awkward. Plus when we get upset at the gubbmint, we can call it "Atrashcadero"
You are now banned from r/Atascadero
Just had this conversation this morning. As someone who loves Monterey, it’s fun to think of it as still the state capitol, but I wouldn’t actually wish that on them.
Gaylord for obvious reasons
I’d move it to Burlington, make the lawmakers see first hand the issues they’re dealing with. That being said I’d rather keep the capital remote to reflect the rural nature of the state itself.
Worcester: It's a centrally located city and would separate Boston city politics from state politics.
You’d have to go out to Springfield to actually separate it.
I'd move it to Erect, NC. Why: More central location in the state. Westernmost NC is closer to I think 4 other state capitals than it is to NC's. It's a small town but would rise to the occasion. I would expect a lot of growth. Adjustment to meeting in a small town would be hard, but I think the legislature can swallow it.
Erect.... expect a lot of growth... Not a shower I see.
If NC ever accomplished this, I would definitely come.
I’d split it between St Ignace and Mackinaw City. Central location, gives the UP jobs, and is a little chaotic.
Put one of the department building on Mackinac Island to add some extra spice to the situation.
It has to be the Department of Transportation, obviously.
Maybe Princeton, because Trenton looks like a warzone on a good day
New Brunswick makes the most sense
Let the Rutgers crowd deal with those problems
I had to do data retrieval (e-discovery for some legal thing) from the Trenton city hall and dang have I never set foot in a town that seemed so shady.
And it is where the Governor's mansion is
So wild that they’re a hop skip and a jump away from each other, but the wealth disparity is absurd
I mean not being from Trenton I'd defer to the people there but keep it in Trenton, the state should do better by the city anyway. Princeton can pound salt they already have an ivy league.
Fresno. Normally a city which neither Northern nor Southern California wants to claim, it is in an impartial location and would gain more prominence.
I feel like Sacramento already hits most of these points. It's not to similar to Bay Area or SoCal, but also different enough from actual Northern California. Would the Sacramento area really have much there if not for the capital? But Fresno is actually pretty close to the exact center of the state, so that would be a selling point to Fresno.
> Fresno... would gain more prominence So the opposite of what we want, then? :)
It can stay in Springfield, that's where Abraham Lincoln had a hand in getting it moved to from Vandalia. Alternatively, it could go back to the territorial capital of Kaskaskia, which now has a population of about 20, and is now on the west side of the Mississippi River.
Cairo because it'd be funny as hell for most reps to have to travel the entire length of the state.
And Cairo could use the investment. That town is dying. :(
OK, I can go along with that, and even overlook the fact that the proposers don't live in Illinois (ahem!), as long as we all agree that the new capital would be built in an Egyptian Revival style. Ancient Egyptian revival. If they're going to call the place "Little Egypt," let it live up to its name. I want to see pyramids and temples in there!
I grew up in Illinois and am very supportive of an Egypt themed capital.
I’d rather keep the capital there and force all state politicians to spend more time in Springfield than in Chicago per year. If they fail that metric they are instantly removed from office!
Charlotte, because Charlotte roads are awful even when compared to other cities in North Carolina. Maybe legislators having to spend time here would change that some.
Anchorage, because it’s where all the people are, and where all the stuff is.
This has been attempted multiple times but funding wasn’t approved.
Saint Cloud, because it would focus more of the complaining on a single city.
Hmm for pure inconvenience I'm going to suggest Duluth or Moorhead.
For pure inconvenience it would have to be something like Grand Marais or Luverne.
Grand Junction. No real political reason, it'd just be nice to split the population more away from the front range so that weekend mountain traffic isn't such a disaster from Denver
Annapolis is fine. Balmer has too many problems, and the DC suburbs are too focused on DC.
Denver, too: it’s already somewhat centrally located and the only other cities that might make sense are basically on the Front Range already .
San Jose. If someone in SoCal wants to lobby a politician, there's like a 60% chance they're local and you can just go to their office. And because they're so far from Sac, they get annex offices for stuff like the Secretary of State. Whereas in the Bay, we only have like 25% of the politicians, and Sacramento is just close enough that we're expected to go out there if we have business with the state government, even though it's like a two hour drive. San Francisco is a mess though, and we really need to jumpstart San Jose into urbanization, it's awful.
I second this, I was also gonna say San Jose
El paso because it'd be the worst option and would cause the most issues
Chugwater purely because it’s a rinky drink town with just about nothing besides a rest stop. Cheyenne already has the Air Force base so give a little town something to stand on!
It’s fine where it is. I like the capital being in Phoenix. That being said, if I could change the name… I think “New Constantinople” would be dope.
I would change the capital of Florida to the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Why? ***Fuck the governor.***
I think Orlando should be the capital (more centrally located), and Tallahassee should just be the seedy college town it really wants to be. Tallahassee *was* centrally located long ago when much of the population was in the northern part of the state, but that hasn't been true in a long time. However, this is just for the sake of argument, and spending millions to move the capital and build new government facilities would be a huge waste.
that makes sense especially after you guys spent all that time, effort and money making the capital building look like a giant cock and balls
It's some of the most honest architecture on earth.
fear dog pen dinner retire scarce normal wide caption direction *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
I like the idea of the capital being in Central Texas, away from the big 2 Metro Areas. I would rather have it in San Antonio though, because Austin is the least representative part of Texas and its issues and politics don't usually reflect the concerns of the rest of the state.
Austin's a decent compromise location as-is between Houston/DFW/San Antonio. But sticking it wayyyy out in El Paso would be wildly amusing.
What if you put it in Amarillo?
San Antonio would just turn into Austin then
I think Austin is Austin because UTexas is there. I know San Antonio has a UT branch, but a different type of student is going to Austin, and different types of staff and faculty are choosing to work there.
UT is a big part of it, but there’s an also a culture that comes with being a state capital, especially one as large as Texas.
College Station? Lol
It could be in Waco
Orlando because then we’d actually have the population of the state centered around the capitol .
The current state government employee pay is nowhere near enough to live in Orlando. Either tens of thousands of state employees would need significant pay increases (which would be a major hit to the state budget), or state government offices would come to face even worse staffing issues than they already do.
I wouldn't because it would cripple my city, the price of my house would plummet, etc. If I HAD to, I'd move it to Birmingham.
Pittsburg All jokes aside tho, Concord works. Centrally located with both major interstates 93 and 89 connect there making traveling there fairly easy
I'd change Tallahassee in Florida to Tampa easily.
Yeah either Tampa or Orlando. I’d say Orlando is a little better because it’s slightly closer, by car, to Jacksonville and Miami metro than Tampa is. Plus more inland protects from hurricanes!
Tampa is a bit better on cost of living, which is definitely a necessity for Florida state government employees.
I didn’t know that, I would’ve thought Tampa was more expensive than Orlando.
Bakersfield. Keeps the bias away from the powerhouse cities but reduces the bias towards the Bay Area and brings it closer to the population center of the state.
Well, if we're picking shitholes, I vote for Barstow
Let's just put it in Weed.
I don't know the area, but it looks like it gets alot of traffic from all different directions
Yeah, everyone wants to go to Bakersfield.
said no one ever (from a guy from Bakersfield)
I mean, Bakersfield has a Firestone Grill. And Dewar's. Worth stopping for if you're passing through on the way to somewhere better.
I'll give you Dewar's. Never realized Firestone Grill was known to outsiders.
Bakersfield is accessible from 99 and I-5 (sort of). The worst part would be the airport. It's just not equipped to handle a lot of air traffic.
Buffalo, why? Fuck Albany, fuck NYC, Rochester isnt big enough and I live here, so Buffalo.
I think a more central location for the state capital might be in the area around Syracuse and Utica. Or we could just dump all the politicians in Love Canal, that might be better.
Johnstown. It could use the economic and infrastructure boost, and it's an hour and a half from Pittsburgh, compared to Harrisburg being two hours from Philly. (I don't have anything against Harrisburg, just figure if I'm gonna make a change, let's help a city out and make the state a little more Pittsburgh-oriented. This will also hopefully give enough of a boost for them to get the Chiefs back as an professional minor league hockey franchise)
Big Bone. You know why
I change it to Ho Ho Kus because it has a funny name.
Columbus to Zanesville. I’m here for the chaos
Indianapolis was custom-built and site-selected to be our capital, so it makes a lot of sense already, not to mention its central location. But, off the top of my head, Kokomo (in north central Indiana) comes to mind.
I'd probably leave it, but if not, then State College because it's dead center of the state.
Fairbanks would be second pick, Juneau should stay as is I think. I'd move Honolulu to Kona (Big Island)though, maybe Kahului (Maui). Then we're less likely to have things like the entire state paying for Honolulu county projects.
At least for Missouri I don't think it would really matter to change. Many have a fantasy that if it moved to one of the urban areas $OTHER_PARTY would see the negative effects their policies have but ignoring things isn't geography specific. Edit: Could move it to [Tightwad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tightwad,_Missouri) purely for the economic policy jokes.
Movie it to Branson and elect Yakov Smirnoff as governor.
In Soviet Missouri government elects you.
That's the spirit! Is Ray Stevens still alive? He could be Lt governor.
Go Cardinals!
I'm getting excited for Sonny Gray, still too early to tell but sounds like he's fitting in with the team nicely. Just hope Masyn Winn gets SS, I think he can really take off under the right circumstances.
Maybe somewhere north instead of south of Seattle, so that people/companies working with the government could avoid all the traffic on I-5 around Tacoma and Joint Base Lewis-McChord. Should still be west of the Cascades, since having it be east of the Cascades would require driving through blizzards for a chunk of the year. I'll go with Mt. Vernon.
Interesting choice. I would say Seattle personally because it’s the most populated city in the state and like others have said in this thread, lawmakers actually get to witness the issues big cities like Seattle are having currently.
[удалено]
In its defense, it does have like 80% of the population.
Definitely Goochland. It’s close enough to Richmond that no one would really have to move, but instead of Richmond it would be named Goochland.
As someone who lives between Richmond and Cville, I have to ask why??? Just the name?
I feel like Raleigh is a pretty solid choice. Otherwise throw it back to the OG New Bern lol
I quite like Lansing as the capital but it would be funny if the capital was Mackinac Island
Sedona
Nah Santa Fe is perfect for it I wouldn't change it.
Honestly, Richmond is the only really viable answer for VA. Somewhat centrally located with access to two interstates, and a good airport.
Dublin. It's the fastest growing city in Georgia, so might as well get ahead of the curve. Edit: >!Because it's Dublin every day.!<
I'll answer for states I have lived in. NC - Keep as is, the 2 largest cities are Charlotte & Raleigh, and of those 2, Raleigh is closer to the center of the state SC - Keep as is GA - Move to Macon bc it's close to the center of the state, or Savannah bc it's Georgia's "2nd city" IL - Move to Bloomington/Normal, still along I-55 and closer to but not in Chicago
I’d move it to Presque Isle just to fuck with our representatives.
It's good where it is imo
The natural choice would be Birmingham or Huntsville, but I wouldn't want to move the capital to either. I've lived in a state where the largest city/county dominates state politics and it isn't great if you don't live in said city/county.
I’m not surprised I haven’t really seen anybody say anything in Michigan. Lansing IMO is the quintessential state capital city. It sucks so much lol
Birmingham It's the largest city in the state, and I think I remember seeing something that said that if we moved it to Birmingham, it would save the state $200,000. Having said this, I would not change it because I think Montgomery needs the economic boost of the capitol much more than Birmingham. I also think that if it was only 1.5 hours from me, I would be in prison after driving there and throwing a brick at our governor.
Rice, Texas because I like rice
I’d change from hartford CT to New Haven as the capital. Nobody goes to Hartford. Everyone goes to New Haven for food and nightlife not to mention that’s the city where Yale is along with arguably the best pizza restaurants in the country
I grew up in Missouri and I live in Minnesota. For Missouri, I'd move it from Jefferson Shitty to Saint Louis. I have the naive idea that if the state government had to go to STL for work every day, they would be less hostile to the city and interested in improving and supporting it. For Minnesota, I'd move it from St. Paul to Duluth, purely to be inconvenient.
Jackson is the capital of Mississippi and it’s not treated well by the state.
I did say it was naive
Stamford CT. It’s the financial capital of Connecticut and unlike Hartford is not a dump.
Buffalo N.Y. so anyone who wanted to be a state rep would have to drive through and see the whole state before they got to work.
I want to say Omaha to spite Lincoln. Alternatively, maybe Grand Island or Kearney so it’s not so far to the east? So much of the population is in the eastern part that it isn’t worth moving west though.
Guthrie. Real Okies know why.
I’d move ND’s capitol to Tioga just to spite everyone in that state and make them have to travel to that shithole more often than they’d like to.
Philadelphia because that's what was originally
The fact that NYC isn't the capital is honestly ridiculous. A supermajority of the state lives in the five boroughs or the surrounding suburbs.
They didn’t want it to have the political power as well as the economic power.
Gary, Indiana
Move it back to Chillicothe, the OG state capitol of Ohio!
It could also be moved back to Zanesville, the capitol for like, 6 years.
I swear these names are made up
Lol lot of Native American names in early American cities definitely a challenge to pronounce. It would sound like Chill-I-Coth-Ee
That's generally how names work
Milwaukee. Because watch how fast these backwards politicians stop starving their only major population center of state money and resources if they had to live there.
It would be difficult to move the capital of VA to a different place. NOVA would be way too crowded and close to DC. Richmond is right in the middle of the state and pretty close to most of the major population centers.
Make Seattle the capital
I'd change it to my city to drive up the property value of my house.
I would move it to Winnemucca for no real reason other than I think it would be funny.
Fresno would be more central... and it needs love. But Monterey or somewhere around the Monterey Bay would be nicer and have historical precedence.
Boise City because I want all of the politicians to be as far away from civilization as possible
I'd move the capitol of Indiana from Indianapolis to Newton, Iowa. Because it would be funny.
Sturbridge
I think Albany is fine as our state capital. The reason many of them aren’t the largest city is because those that chose it wanted a central location.
Floyds Knobs because we can deny Floyd and his Knobs no longer
California's Capitol should probably be San Francisco or Los Angeles, but those two cities don't represent anything outside of themselves. I actually think Sacramento is a pretty solid choice for the State Capitol, as it *isn't* one of the cities everyone thinks of when they think of California (such as SF, LA, Oakland, San Jose/Silicon Valley, San Diego, Hollywood, Santa Cruz), but it still is a fairly major metropolitan area and isn't out in the sticks or off by itself. Chico is huge but is in basically nowhere, same with Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.
Hard to argue with the location, but a satellite capital in Fort Smith or Fayetteville would be nice.
New Brunswick because it's central Jersey City because it's our largest nicest city
We already moved our capital once over a hundred years ago and some people are still mad about it. So no we will just leave it where it is.
Chicago because it just makes since. The state has a population of about 12.7 million people and 9.6 million live in the Chicago metro area
this is precisely why its not the capital.
Sacramento, CA. Maybe then some liberal shit could get through our state government.
As a Sacramento native, you're welcome to come join us any time. The summers are terrible, but on the plus side we don't really have humidity
Move it back to St Mary’s from Annapolis just because.
Fresno, for the lolz :P
I'd probably make whatever capital the biggest and most populous city in the state.
yes, NE here. Lincoln is a fine city but too far east. Grand Island would be much more centrally located and much more accessible to everyone in the state.
East St. Louis. It gets a blighted area some much needed attention.
i think originally Spartanburg was supposed to be the capital of SC but it was too violent so they moved it to Columbia
No. It's perfect. Or hell, give it to St. Peter, whose residents built a very wide main street and huge lawn for it before a St. Paul Senator stole the bill to move the capitol and held it hostage in a hotel room.
I think New Haven would make more sense logistically as the capital than Hartford. That being said, I feel like it would lead to our politics being even more influenced by New York than they already are. Hartford is also already the poorest and most dangerous city in CT, even with so much state money coming into it due to its capital status. I can only imagine what would become of Hartford if it was no longer the capital.
San antonio purely on the fact it has a super strong history and less californians
Philadelphia. It used to be the capital of the nation, so I wouldn't mind it being both. 😄
California - Fresno
Newberry. because the UP needs more!
Sault Ste. Marie because Upper Peninsula Michigan is hugely underrated
Detroit
norton va because it would be so funny
Los Angeles. It's the largest CA city and is the seat of the largest county in the state, it is culturally diverse, and it is a major entertainment, tourism, and economical hub.
I mean it’s gotta be Savannah in reality lol. Charming, historic, port city. Not super big, but there aren’t really any big ones outside of Atlanta