The "City States" project is a proposal to create 50 new U.S. states based on major metropolitan areas. The goal is to address the undemocratic nature of institutions like the Senate and Electoral College by rebalancing representation through the addition of city-based states. The new states would be defined by existing county borders and would be created by carving out portions of current states, offering a modern approach to fixing the imbalance in our democracy and creating "a more perfect Union" as envisioned in the constitution.

New states are needed to make the U.S. more democratic by giving more direct representation to millions of people living in large cities who are currently underrepresented. For example, California, with nearly 40 million residents, has the same number of senators as Wyoming, which has fewer than 600,000 people. This imbalance results in millions of Californians having far less influence in the Senate compared to a much smaller population in Wyoming. This disproportionate representation skews national policy and often leaves urban populations without a fair say in the federal government.

Additionally, cities often have unique needs and political identities that differ significantly from the states they are part of. For instance, urban areas tend to be more diverse, have different economic drivers, and face distinct challenges compared to their rural counterparts. Creating city-states would bring government closer to the people, allowing urban populations to have a stronger voice in policies that directly affect them. By aligning representation more closely with population distribution and regional interests, we can build a more democratic and responsive system.

Creating new states from major metropolitan areas would address significant gaps in representation by ensuring that more Americans have a voice in the Senate and Electoral College. Each new state would gain two senators, redistributing power away from sparsely populated rural states that currently hold disproportionate influence. This would make the Senate more reflective of the country’s population distribution and better aligned with contemporary demographics.

The Electoral College is another area where creating new states could have a major impact. The flaws of the Electoral College have been highlighted in recent years, with the winner of the popular vote losing the presidency in 2000 and 2016. This outcome has occurred five times in U.S. history, undermining the principle of majority rule. By adding new states that better reflect urban populations, the Electoral College would more closely align with the popular vote, making presidential elections more democratic. Unlike amending the Constitution, which requires overwhelming majorities in Congress and the states, creating new states is a much simpler process and can be achieved with a single state legislature’s approval and a majority in Congress.

Yes, the U.S. Constitution allows for the creation of new states from existing ones under Article IV, Section 3. The process requires the consent of the state legislature from which the new state is being carved and approval from Congress. This mechanism has been used multiple times in American history, such as when Maine was formed from Massachusetts or when West Virginia split off from Virginia during the Civil War.

The Admissions Clause states: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

Creating new city-based states requires only the consent of the state legislature and a simple majority in Congress—no constitutional amendment, court rulings, or supermajorities are needed. This process can be completed by a single party if it controls the legislature of the state being split and holds majority control in both the House and Senate, along with the presidency. For example, if a party controls California’s legislature and also holds congressional majorities and the White House, it could quickly split off new city-states like Silicon Valley or San Diego. This approach bypasses filibusters and other obstacles, requiring only a majority vote, making it a politically feasible strategy.

The proposed list of new states include every metropolitan area in the U.S. with more than 2.5 million people, covering the top 25 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) as defined by the U.S. Census by population. These cities have populations larger than the four smallest existing states—Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, and North Dakota—with many cities having more residents than those states combined. The largest proposed state is Los Angeles, with nearly 10 million people, while the smallest is Boston, with around 800,000. On average, these new city-states would have populations of about 2.33 million. The list also includes every city with at least three major league sports teams and most cities with any professional sports team, with notable exceptions like Green Bay.

The proposed states are typically formed from a single county, but in some cases, multiple counties are included to better capture the metro area’s footprint, such as the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. Some city-states are based on well-defined city governments, like Philadelphia, Jacksonville, and New York City while others represent broader metropolitan areas that currently include multiple city governments, such as Rio Grande Valley, Inland Empire, and the Triangle. Most of these cities are located near state borders, but a few are enclaves within their current states. These city-states are designed to be self-sufficient, often containing critical infrastructure like airports, interstate highways, and major economic hubs.

The key factors for determining which cities become new states include minimum and maximum population, viability, and cultural considerations.

Each proposed city-state must have a population of at least 750,000, which is larger than the populations of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, and North Dakota. The maximum population is targeted at 10 million, which aligns with the largest existing county (Los Angeles), while the target size is around 2 million people. Any single county with a population over 1 million is considered a strong candidate due to its existing infrastructure and governance.

Viability is assessed based on the ability of the proposed state to function independently with a devolved government structure and existing infrastructure. County borders are critical, as state authority is already delegated at the county level, making the transition smoother. Additionally, critical infrastructure like airports, highways, and economic hubs are considered to ensure the new state can sustain itself effectively. Well-defined city governments, like those in Philadelphia, Jacksonville, and New York City, strengthen viability, as these areas already have cohesive governance structures. While city-states bordering other states are preferred, enclaves are still feasible. Preference is given to those that border more than one state, but there are existing examples of states with only one border (Maine) or no state borders at all (Alaska, Hawaii).

Cultural identity plays a key role in determining the boundaries of city-states, especially when deciding whether to split a metro area or keep it unified. In some regions, differences in voting patterns, demographics, or community identity lead to the creation of multiple neighboring city-states, as seen with Detroit and Pontiac. In other cases, metro areas with multiple counties with large populations, like Long Island or Tampa Bay, remain combined due to shared cultural or economic ties, even if their population could support multiple states.

When parts of existing states split off to form new city-states, the remaining areas of the original states would continue to function as they do now, but with adjusted borders and populations. The existing states would retain their own governance and representation, although they would likely experience shifts in political dynamics due to the loss of population and a change in voter demographics. New city-states would take on the governance of the areas they encompass, managing everything from local services to representation in Congress. In many cases, the changes would be relatively seamless, as the new state governments would inherit existing state structures and adjust them to fit local needs.

This plan enhances state rights by creating states that are better aligned with their populations’ needs and identities, staying true to the principles of federalism. At the core of state rights is the fundamental authority of a state to determine its own boundaries and define what constitutes the state—its first and most essential action as a state, with the consent of Congress. This plan respects and strengthens that right by allowing states to redefine themselves more appropriately. City-states would have full sovereignty within their borders, just like any other state, exercising control over education, infrastructure, law enforcement, and more.

By aligning state boundaries with cultural and economic realities, this approach strengthens local governance and gives urban populations the ability to manage their unique challenges more effectively. The plan builds on the federalist model, ensuring that each state—no matter how large or small—can represent its population in the Senate and Electoral College with equal standing to any other state. This not only supports state rights but also makes the overall system more representative.

City-based states better reflect the needs and identities of their populations, making them more democratic and representative than existing state structures. Urban areas are often culturally, economically, and politically distinct from the rural areas within the same state, leading to governance that doesn’t align with the majority of the population in cities. For example, in Illinois, Chicago dominates state politics despite having vastly different needs and priorities than the state’s rural areas. By creating a city-state for Chicagoland, both the new city-state and the remaining state become more democratic, with each better reflecting the interests of their respective populations.

This approach benefits both sides. The city-state gains representation that aligns with its urban needs, while the remaining state is freed from being overshadowed by a large city and gains more balanced governance that reflects its rural or suburban populations. Additionally, the remaining states would retain their own Senate seats and still have populations larger than the smallest existing states (like Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, and Vermont), ensuring they remain politically viable. By creating states centered around major metropolitan areas, representation becomes more closely aligned with the residents who live there, ensuring their voices are more clearly heard in both state and federal government.

Yes, creating new city-states would have a significant impact on the Electoral College by redistributing electoral votes and making presidential elections more representative. Each new state would receive two electoral votes for the Senate and additional votes based on its population, shifting the balance of power in presidential elections toward urban areas that have historically been underrepresented. This change would align the Electoral College more closely with the popular vote, helping to prevent scenarios where the candidate who wins the popular vote loses the election, as happened in 2000 and 2016.

By adding new states based on urban centers, large cities with significant populations would gain more influence in deciding the presidency. This shift would reflect modern demographics and better capture the will of the majority of voters, ensuring that future elections are more democratic and that the outcome better aligns with the voice of the people.

These new city-states would operate under the same constitutional framework as any other U.S. state. They would have their own state governments, including executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and would be responsible for managing local services like education, transportation, and law enforcement. The city-state governments would likely be tailored to meet the unique needs of urban areas, focusing on issues like infrastructure, housing, and public safety, while also providing representation in the U.S. Senate and House.

These new states would typically be formed from a single county or the minimal number of counties needed. State governments are already devolved to the county level, with existing state offices like courts, social services, and health departments operating within counties. This existing infrastructure means that the new state wouldn’t need to recreate all state functions from scratch. In some cases, there are already unified city-county governments, like Philadelphia, Jacksonville, or New York City. Additionally, in large cities, the mayor and city council often already function similarly to a governor and state legislature, with full-time elected and paid city representatives. Upon creation, the new city-state would initially inherit existing state laws and compacts but could gradually enact new laws tailored to its specific needs, making the transition relatively simple.

The new city-states would inherit existing infrastructure like airports, highways, public transit systems, and utility networks from the states they are carved out of. Because these areas already function as centralized hubs, most of the critical infrastructure is already in place and integrated into the metropolitan area’s economy. The city-state governments would take over management of these resources, making adjustments as needed to suit their populations and regional needs.

State compacts, agreements, and regional partnerships would continue, especially in areas where cooperation with neighboring states is essential. Over time, the new states would be able to renegotiate these agreements and establish new ones that reflect their interests. Because these city-states would typically align with existing county borders, many essential services—like water supply, power grids, and emergency management—would continue seamlessly during the transition.

Throughout U.S. history, several states have been created by splitting off from existing states. Examples include Kentucky splitting from Virginia in 1792, Tennessee splitting from North Carolina in 1796, Maine splitting from Massachusetts in 1820, and West Virginia splitting from Virginia during the Civil War in 1863. Each of these splits addressed regional and political needs, setting important precedents for creating new states by division.

Additionally, Washington, D.C., was originally carved out of land from Virginia and Maryland to serve as the nation’s capital, operating much like a city-state. Part of the District was later returned to Virginia in 1846, demonstrating that boundaries can be adjusted based on evolving political circumstances. These historical cases show that creating new states by splitting existing ones is a well-established practice under the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, there are several examples of successful city-states and city-nations around the world. Modern examples include Singapore, Monaco, San Marino, and Liechtenstein. These city-states thrive as independent entities despite their small size, demonstrating that densely populated areas can govern themselves effectively while maintaining strong economies and global influence.

Historically, cities like Athens, Venice, and Florence were also prominent city-states that played major roles in regional and global politics. While these examples vary in governance structure and scope, they highlight how urban centers can be both self-sufficient and highly influential when given the autonomy to govern themselves.

No, the United States flag wouldn’t need to change, even if more states are added. Just like how the U.S. originally added a stripe for every new state but returned to 13 to honor the original colonies, the 50 stars can remain as a symbol of an era when the nation solidified its identity. We’ve had 50 stars for longer than any other configuration, over 65 years, marking the period when America emerged as a global superpower. The 50 stars and 13 stripes are now deeply embedded in the national consciousness and Old Glory is perfect just the way it is.

Fifty is both symbolic and practical. We’ve been at 50 states for decades, since 1959, and doubling that number to reach 100 offers a clear message about the potential for expanding representation. It’s a round number that shows how easily our system can accommodate more states and how many large urban areas are already larger than the smallest existing states.

In addition to these 50 city-states, additional types of states could also be added from Federal territories and districts such as Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia. Both have active statehood movements and have passed referendums supporting statehood. After the first 50 city-states, there’s even room to add another 50, capturing the next wave of growing cities.

To support the "City States" project, you can start by sharing the concept with your friends, family, and social networks. Use share links on platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X to help spread the word - follow us @CityStatesUS. Raising awareness is crucial for building momentum and creating new City States.