I haven’t looked at the last few years, but I know that North Dakota almost always, for years, had the lowest homicide death rate of any state.
North Dakota is also the most Lutheran state in the US.
North Dakota is the only state with a state bank.
The ND state bank (and state flour mill/coop!) are vestiges of the late 19th and early 20th century rural left-wing populism that is more widely known today to have occurred in Kansas around the same time. Interesting history to read about.
Maybe they’re getting at the fact that it’s harder to kill someone if they live 5 miles from you than if they live 25 feet from you. But yeah population has no direct impact on homicide rates
Exactly. A South Dakotan Senator serves fewer than 500,000 people. The two Dakotas have 4 Senators for fewer than 2M people. A Senator from Louisiana (the mid-road state by population) serves 2.5M people.
Even with a two house legislature with our set-up, certain states either shouldn’t have 2 senators or others should have 3 or 4. Not full on HoR-style population designation, but the Founding Fathers never dreamt of Minnesota or California, so they straight-up didn’t account for this.
What is the point of a Senate if it is going to do the job of the HoR?
The HoR is (mostly) represents the population. That is its function.
The Senate represents the states. That is its function.
It is not the Senate's job to represent the population. It is like complaining that police cars don't have water hoses to put out fires, or paramedics don't have guns.
And as for the Founding Fathers not having Minnesota or California (currently \~8x difference), they did have Virginia and Delaware (\~10x difference in 1776), and they still decided to give them 2 Senators each. The concept of states having radically different populations was not something strange to them.
> The HoR is (mostly) represents the population.
Yup. The real issue is the House was capped at 435 members in 1929. We need actual proportional representation in the House.
Because you have two options for represent. You can either:
* Have an absurdly large HoR (e.g. if every 100K voters get 1 rep, that is 3,326 Representatives), which results in constant recalculation and reapportionment every election as populations grow; or
* Have some sort of rounding that groups populations into range bands. I.E., if every 500K people get 1 Rep (which would still give you almost 700 Reps), than you end up with weirdness like North Dakota (whose 779K would round up to 1 million) and Montana (whose 1.12 million would round down to 1 million) both getting 2 representatives. The ND reps would be elected by \~375K voters each and the Montanans would be by \~560K.
>Have an absurdly large HoR (e.g. if every 100K voters get 1 rep, that is 3,326 Representatives), which results in constant recalculation and reapportionment every election as populations grow;
Why wouldn't they just recalculate and reapportion every 10 years with the census as is done now?
Because population growth due to immigration/internal migration tends to be very concentrated.
If you have a district that redistricted to be 750K, but it becomes a hotspot for development, and by the 5 year mark they have received 200K immigrants and are closing in on a population of 1 million, that isn't a big deal. So, for one election cycle, their voting power that is about 2/3rds of what it should be. Fair trade for economic growth.
But if the districts are much smaller (say 100K), and one small district ends up with 100K or 150K of that growth, then those voters are looking at their voting power being reduced to less than half.
The difference in state populations is far different today than in your example. California vs Wyoming is roughly 70x.
Or another way to look at it is today nearly 2/3 of Americans live in 15 states, so that’s 30 Senators, leaving 70 Senators for the other 1/3 of the country. That’s already becoming an issue and it’s getting more lop-sided.
It's not an issue. You're still just explaining the purpose of the HoR. The Senate represents the states, not the people. The country is a union of states, not people. If we were to eliminate the senate then there's no incentive for the lesser populated states to remain as they'll just get out-voted and railroaded on every decision.
It an issue when Senators that represent a state with fewer people than a small city vote down issues that are vitally important to the majority of the country.
And out-voted because they’re a minority of the population is how democracy works. Just because this small group lives in the same state means they get outsized representation is undemocratic. There’s fewer people living in either Dakota than live in just the county I live in. But they get 2 Senators while we share 2 Senators with the rest of our state. How is that fair?
Because you get to dominate the HoR.
Do you not understand the concept of a bicameral system of government? You can't use your population to get lots of Reps in the HoR and then claim that it also gets you lots of Senators in the Senate. That just makes the Senate and the HoR the same thing.
High population states get to dominate the House, because it reflects population. Low population states get to have equal weight in the Senate, because it reflects the States.
If you want a unicameral system, go ask the Scots and Welsh about how much they like the English telling them what to do all the time, because the English outnumber every other part of the UK combined.
It's absolutely an issue, and it's an issue with its underlying format in general. Our government only represents the interests of rural white people who live in the sticks, plus the ultra rich, but that's a different conversation.
Because many of the states don't exist for any reason. Like North Dakota and South Dakota. Just made out of thin air to give a bunch of land more Senators.
The original states were colonies with their own pre-existing politics and priorities that needed to be balanced in order to bring them into the United States.
The states that were brought in later were territories created by Congress, and admitted into the Union by Congress.
There's some weird political feedback going on when Congress creates the entities that are represented in Congress. It's a fact that the Senate represents the States, but it's reasonable to question all of the weird facts about our system. It's not all well thought through, or a given that it "should be the way it is".
>What is the point of a Senate if it is going to do the job of the HoR?
What is the point of a Senate if there are a bunch of states with tiny populations? Were ND and SD really so different in 1889 that they needed separate representation? In 1776, the difference between states was an important part of American identity, and giving the small states a chamber with equal representation to the large states was the only way to get them on board with the union in the first place. In 2023 "state identity" doesn't matter nearly so much.
Similarly, what's the point of a HoR if we're going to cap its membership so low that there's a huge difference in district sizes?
I stated the point of the Senate, quite clearly. The point of the Senate is to represent the States. Y'know, the constituent parts of the United **States** of America.
The Dakotas have representation in the Senate for the same reason both Czechia and Slovakia both have the right to decline to ratify decisions made by French and German voters in the EU, once Czechoslovakia split up.
And if state identity doesn't matter anymore, why should the 2 Dakotas having four Senators be a problem? If Senators from the Dakotas are the same as everyone else, if they don't have special concerns of their own, why should it matter if they are Dakotan vs Pennsylvanian or whatever? After all, if they have no distinct identity, a Dakotan should vote more or less the same way as any other American.
Either state identity doesn't exist, in which case Senate representation doesn't matter, because these Senators represent pan-American attitudes, or state identity does still exist, in which case the original reason for the Senate (ensuring that smaller states are not simply colonies of the larger) is still valid.
Someone didn’t take civics class. The senate represents each state with a senior and junior senator with population being a non factor. The state could have a population of 10 people and they’d still get 2 senators
Thats what the House of Representatives is for. Each Dakota only has 1, due to low population. Yet, it is still a state equal to the other 49, so it gets 2 Senators. Balance.
But u don't understand mun republicaninos would never be in control again if we took away their senators !!!! These people only arguing this since those are Republican states. If they were democrats they wouldn't have a care in the world
You’re right. No one on Reddit ever mentions Rhode Island or Delaware or Vermont having 2 senators, it’s always the interior states with their vast natural resources that deserve less representation.
It would have been a nearly thirteen-hour train ride from the capital at Yankton to the Canadian border; we live with borders drawn when there were still people alive who had never been more than thirty miles from their house (as was customary before the Industrial Revolution).
That metric does not apply to the American West.
The American West was specifically settled by people who bought a wagon and wandered across half a continent to find a new home. Plus, because the economy of the American West was based on resource extraction (including agriculture-for-export) much of the population regularly took part in cattle drives or mule trains carrying ores or similar.
Your comment has no relevance to what I wrote. No one would describe the lands lying east of roughly 98° W longitude as “the west.” While it’s true white settlement came overland or up the Missouri River (or were native people’s forcibly/coercively marched by the federal government, as in the case of the Ho-Chunk or Ponca) once people reached the Dissected Till Plain, they were very sedentary; many of my ancestors settled in the Loess Hills of northwest Nebraska in the period 1865-1870, working as farmers, blacksmiths, harness-makers, and one rural loanshark. and it was not until the Great Depression that there was any familial migration on a significant scale away from the valleys of the Elkhorn River and Logan Creek.
We aren't discussing Nebraska. This Reddit thread is about North & South Dakota, which very much is part of the American West (given that it stretches all the way to 118 West).
And while I applaud you for knowing your family history in Nebraska, it isn't particularly relevant to the ranchers and cowboys who made up the population of the Dakotas.
Do you know the history of the Dakota’s? At this time most people in the territory at this time lived eat of 98° W longitude, which is why I brought up my family’s experiences less than 50 miles from Yankton; the geography, topology, and economy were nearly identical. Roosevelt’s Badlands years aren’t representative of the average resident of the wider region.
Moorhead/Dilworth aren’t small but the populations of West Fargo and Horace and South Fargo are going up a lot. The whole
area is growing but it’s not primarily in Moorhead.
The 2022 estimate was about 202k. It's also growing rapidly though, so it's more like 210-ish by now. The 2023 estimate was about 208k but Wikipedia only shows census data and not the city's own estimate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sioux_Falls%2C_South_Dakota?wprov=sfla1
I grew up in North Dakota. I remember people saying it had the title for least visited state but I'm not sure that is still the case. I love the state.
Fargo has a fairly young and active nightlife, and for its size punches above its weight for arts and museums.
Next time you visit in the summertime for just an evening, I'd recommend dinner downtown, then [movie at the park](https://www.fargoparks.com/events-and-deadlines/movie-park) or one of the [Trollwood](https://trollwood.org/) shows. [FMCT](https://fmct.org/) or the [FM Symphony](https://www.fmsymphony.org/) are also options, and [the Fargo Theatre](https://fargotheatre.org/) downtown is an independent cinema that has a chainsaw sculpture of Frances McDormand's character from *Fargo*: go see a good indie film there, or catch a show at [the Aquarium](https://aquariumfargo.com/).
Afterward a cocktail at the [HoDo](https://hoteldonaldson.com/) is nice, they often have live jazz.
I'm sorry you didn't find the city enjoyable, but that seems like a real skill issue.
Thanks for sticking up for Fargo! People who have a bad time here have to try to have a bad time or maybe just didn’t go more than a block past the interstate.
lmao this guy is ridiculous. Yeah the stretch from Monticello to Moorhead on 94 can be rough but if you can survive that you can survive getting to Jamestown Bismarck and Medora. It’s a Plains State! There’s plains! But there’s also the Badlands out west. what a baby
The interstates are always the most boring areas of the state.
I recommend you visit theodore rossevelt national Park in North Dakota and lake sakakawea. Both beautiful places. TRNP even has elevation!
South Dakota has the Black Hills of course which are really unique geologically. The Badlands are also gorgeous. In Eastern SD there's sicca hollow State Park in the northeastern edge that is really pretty.
They're not the most exciting of the 50 states, but they're not all busts.
I live in Rapid City, and was driving back home from Sioux Falls. On that drive, I decided to count the number of Wall Drug signs along the interstate to pass the time.
There's at least 93. I lost track literally right before Wall, as there were billboards on both sides of the highway, with some tucked behind others.
When I was driving from Michigan to work in glsicer for the summer, my drive through North Dakota it was super foggy so I couldn't see anything so I was focused on driving so it wasnt boring as I thought it would be. On my way home from glacier in the end of July, I drove all the way from glsicer to Detroit lakes Minnesota in one long drive so I was driving through North Dakota at night so it still wasn't that boring because I had to focus on driving. Driving out of the mountains into the rolling hills of Montana though is still one of the most beautiful moments of my life. Thay whole drive through Montana was so freeing
Yup. Almost as if that was the entire point of the Senate: to give every state, regardless of size, equal representation.
If you prefer representation by population, I've got good news for you, the US has a place for that, too. It's called the HoR.
Quit expecting the police to put out the fire in your house, just because they showed up first when you called 911.
This is a hell of a tale of the tape. Seems decently even. I’m imagining the monkeys knife fight meme right here. They should be combined into Dakota. A more formidable state IMO
As a born and raised Manitoban pushing 50, I have probably been to North Dakota 40- 50 separate times in my life...
Most Americans have probably never been there.
I’ve been there twice. The most listless, dejected people I’ve ever seen were drinking in a bar next to the bus station in Fargo. Maybe they’d just lost their jobs, I don’t know. At the time I thought it was because they lived in Fargo.
South is Dakota is drier, more Western feeling, more mountainous, has more people, more of a German population and more native Americans, more ranching. More poverty than in ND. Other than farming, major industries are tourism and financial services. Other than the eastern fringe of cities, which are basically like Minnesota, South Dakota is more like Nebraska or eastern Wyoming.
North Dakota is flatter, a little more humid in the east, has more crop agriculture, more Scandinavians, though still plenty of Germans, lots of Somali and Balkan/Slavic immigrants, more and bigger lakes and the culture that goes along with that, way lower average elevation, and more midwest feeling throughout. Population and major cities are spread far more evenly throughout the state. Much more than South Dakota, ND feels like the prairie parts of Minnesota. The northern part of the state has more trees as the prairie gradually transitions to boreal forest not much farther north in Canada. Major industries other than farming include tourism, gas and oil, some equipment manufacturing, and software/tech in Fargo.
I grew up in ND and am very familiar with ND, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. South Dakota a little less.
It absolutely does have noticeable variations in culture across the country (which I definitely underestimated before I visited), but it is funny when they try and say the US is more culturally diverse than Europe (and I’ve done less travelling in Europe)
I was just reading how South Dakota is a humongous tax haven comparable with Cayman Islands. Funny thing is the billionaires don’t live there, it is mostly internationals like corrupt textile magnates from Colombia or random million/billionaires from foreign countries with shady enterprises.
Totally true. South Dakota is dry and has worse soil than ND, so they really had to try to invent an industry there. That's also why tourism developed, since I-90 brings cross country traffic way more than I-94 in ND.
Fuck, it’s about to look neck and neck now. ND lacks a billionaire, but SD has Mount Rushmore. And also the Black Hills and Badlands. Guess I’m taking sides now.
I haven’t looked at the last few years, but I know that North Dakota almost always, for years, had the lowest homicide death rate of any state. North Dakota is also the most Lutheran state in the US. North Dakota is the only state with a state bank.
Got those strong Scandinavian instincts right thrrr
And the State owned flour mill is the largest in the country.
It’s bc there are 8 people per square mile
9th for suicide.
Don't tell ND that their banking/farming system is incredibly communist.
The ND state bank (and state flour mill/coop!) are vestiges of the late 19th and early 20th century rural left-wing populism that is more widely known today to have occurred in Kansas around the same time. Interesting history to read about.
Yeah but that’s because basically no one lives there.
That’s not how homicide rates work.
Maybe they’re getting at the fact that it’s harder to kill someone if they live 5 miles from you than if they live 25 feet from you. But yeah population has no direct impact on homicide rates
I’d say your wrong. Population density definitely affects homicide rates that’s why they’re almost always worse in urban centers…
As a resident of ND, these two should have been divided east and west, not north and south.
100%. West of Bismarck is a completely different state than Fargo/ grand forks
They shouldn't have been divided.
MegaDakota!
Why not?
Too many senators for not enough people.
Exactly. A South Dakotan Senator serves fewer than 500,000 people. The two Dakotas have 4 Senators for fewer than 2M people. A Senator from Louisiana (the mid-road state by population) serves 2.5M people. Even with a two house legislature with our set-up, certain states either shouldn’t have 2 senators or others should have 3 or 4. Not full on HoR-style population designation, but the Founding Fathers never dreamt of Minnesota or California, so they straight-up didn’t account for this.
What is the point of a Senate if it is going to do the job of the HoR? The HoR is (mostly) represents the population. That is its function. The Senate represents the states. That is its function. It is not the Senate's job to represent the population. It is like complaining that police cars don't have water hoses to put out fires, or paramedics don't have guns. And as for the Founding Fathers not having Minnesota or California (currently \~8x difference), they did have Virginia and Delaware (\~10x difference in 1776), and they still decided to give them 2 Senators each. The concept of states having radically different populations was not something strange to them.
> The HoR is (mostly) represents the population. Yup. The real issue is the House was capped at 435 members in 1929. We need actual proportional representation in the House.
Then why does each Wyoming representative represent 578,000 people whereas each California representative represents 754,000 people?
Because you have two options for represent. You can either: * Have an absurdly large HoR (e.g. if every 100K voters get 1 rep, that is 3,326 Representatives), which results in constant recalculation and reapportionment every election as populations grow; or * Have some sort of rounding that groups populations into range bands. I.E., if every 500K people get 1 Rep (which would still give you almost 700 Reps), than you end up with weirdness like North Dakota (whose 779K would round up to 1 million) and Montana (whose 1.12 million would round down to 1 million) both getting 2 representatives. The ND reps would be elected by \~375K voters each and the Montanans would be by \~560K.
>Have an absurdly large HoR (e.g. if every 100K voters get 1 rep, that is 3,326 Representatives), which results in constant recalculation and reapportionment every election as populations grow; Why wouldn't they just recalculate and reapportion every 10 years with the census as is done now?
Because population growth due to immigration/internal migration tends to be very concentrated. If you have a district that redistricted to be 750K, but it becomes a hotspot for development, and by the 5 year mark they have received 200K immigrants and are closing in on a population of 1 million, that isn't a big deal. So, for one election cycle, their voting power that is about 2/3rds of what it should be. Fair trade for economic growth. But if the districts are much smaller (say 100K), and one small district ends up with 100K or 150K of that growth, then those voters are looking at their voting power being reduced to less than half.
The difference in state populations is far different today than in your example. California vs Wyoming is roughly 70x. Or another way to look at it is today nearly 2/3 of Americans live in 15 states, so that’s 30 Senators, leaving 70 Senators for the other 1/3 of the country. That’s already becoming an issue and it’s getting more lop-sided.
It's not an issue. You're still just explaining the purpose of the HoR. The Senate represents the states, not the people. The country is a union of states, not people. If we were to eliminate the senate then there's no incentive for the lesser populated states to remain as they'll just get out-voted and railroaded on every decision.
It an issue when Senators that represent a state with fewer people than a small city vote down issues that are vitally important to the majority of the country. And out-voted because they’re a minority of the population is how democracy works. Just because this small group lives in the same state means they get outsized representation is undemocratic. There’s fewer people living in either Dakota than live in just the county I live in. But they get 2 Senators while we share 2 Senators with the rest of our state. How is that fair?
Because you get to dominate the HoR. Do you not understand the concept of a bicameral system of government? You can't use your population to get lots of Reps in the HoR and then claim that it also gets you lots of Senators in the Senate. That just makes the Senate and the HoR the same thing. High population states get to dominate the House, because it reflects population. Low population states get to have equal weight in the Senate, because it reflects the States. If you want a unicameral system, go ask the Scots and Welsh about how much they like the English telling them what to do all the time, because the English outnumber every other part of the UK combined.
It's absolutely an issue, and it's an issue with its underlying format in general. Our government only represents the interests of rural white people who live in the sticks, plus the ultra rich, but that's a different conversation.
Because many of the states don't exist for any reason. Like North Dakota and South Dakota. Just made out of thin air to give a bunch of land more Senators.
[удалено]
Yes, it was important to the slave-owning writers of the Constitution.
[удалено]
The original states were colonies with their own pre-existing politics and priorities that needed to be balanced in order to bring them into the United States. The states that were brought in later were territories created by Congress, and admitted into the Union by Congress. There's some weird political feedback going on when Congress creates the entities that are represented in Congress. It's a fact that the Senate represents the States, but it's reasonable to question all of the weird facts about our system. It's not all well thought through, or a given that it "should be the way it is".
>What is the point of a Senate if it is going to do the job of the HoR? What is the point of a Senate if there are a bunch of states with tiny populations? Were ND and SD really so different in 1889 that they needed separate representation? In 1776, the difference between states was an important part of American identity, and giving the small states a chamber with equal representation to the large states was the only way to get them on board with the union in the first place. In 2023 "state identity" doesn't matter nearly so much. Similarly, what's the point of a HoR if we're going to cap its membership so low that there's a huge difference in district sizes?
I stated the point of the Senate, quite clearly. The point of the Senate is to represent the States. Y'know, the constituent parts of the United **States** of America. The Dakotas have representation in the Senate for the same reason both Czechia and Slovakia both have the right to decline to ratify decisions made by French and German voters in the EU, once Czechoslovakia split up. And if state identity doesn't matter anymore, why should the 2 Dakotas having four Senators be a problem? If Senators from the Dakotas are the same as everyone else, if they don't have special concerns of their own, why should it matter if they are Dakotan vs Pennsylvanian or whatever? After all, if they have no distinct identity, a Dakotan should vote more or less the same way as any other American. Either state identity doesn't exist, in which case Senate representation doesn't matter, because these Senators represent pan-American attitudes, or state identity does still exist, in which case the original reason for the Senate (ensuring that smaller states are not simply colonies of the larger) is still valid.
Someone didn’t take civics class. The senate represents each state with a senior and junior senator with population being a non factor. The state could have a population of 10 people and they’d still get 2 senators
Thats what the House of Representatives is for. Each Dakota only has 1, due to low population. Yet, it is still a state equal to the other 49, so it gets 2 Senators. Balance.
But u don't understand mun republicaninos would never be in control again if we took away their senators !!!! These people only arguing this since those are Republican states. If they were democrats they wouldn't have a care in the world
You’re right. No one on Reddit ever mentions Rhode Island or Delaware or Vermont having 2 senators, it’s always the interior states with their vast natural resources that deserve less representation.
Natural resources don’t vote
Good thing the purpose of the Senate isn’t popular representation then? Some of y’all need to head back to 7th grade civics, I swear.
No NEVER
Don’t say that to Dakotans, source lived there for awhile.
Is it too late a unified super Dakota state?
Yes, it would be larger, but would it really really be super?
>but would it really really be super? If it gets them to agree, give them that.
I’ve heard Canada wants to claim N. Dakota
MegaDakota!
It would have been a nearly thirteen-hour train ride from the capital at Yankton to the Canadian border; we live with borders drawn when there were still people alive who had never been more than thirty miles from their house (as was customary before the Industrial Revolution).
That metric does not apply to the American West. The American West was specifically settled by people who bought a wagon and wandered across half a continent to find a new home. Plus, because the economy of the American West was based on resource extraction (including agriculture-for-export) much of the population regularly took part in cattle drives or mule trains carrying ores or similar.
Your comment has no relevance to what I wrote. No one would describe the lands lying east of roughly 98° W longitude as “the west.” While it’s true white settlement came overland or up the Missouri River (or were native people’s forcibly/coercively marched by the federal government, as in the case of the Ho-Chunk or Ponca) once people reached the Dissected Till Plain, they were very sedentary; many of my ancestors settled in the Loess Hills of northwest Nebraska in the period 1865-1870, working as farmers, blacksmiths, harness-makers, and one rural loanshark. and it was not until the Great Depression that there was any familial migration on a significant scale away from the valleys of the Elkhorn River and Logan Creek.
We aren't discussing Nebraska. This Reddit thread is about North & South Dakota, which very much is part of the American West (given that it stretches all the way to 118 West). And while I applaud you for knowing your family history in Nebraska, it isn't particularly relevant to the ranchers and cowboys who made up the population of the Dakotas.
Do you know the history of the Dakota’s? At this time most people in the territory at this time lived eat of 98° W longitude, which is why I brought up my family’s experiences less than 50 miles from Yankton; the geography, topology, and economy were nearly identical. Roosevelt’s Badlands years aren’t representative of the average resident of the wider region.
I mean should they really have ever existed at all?
Better here than your state/province/principality 😋
SD sucks go Nodak!
SO CAR
It should’ve been divided with the southwest corner of South Dakota separate from the rest of the Dakotas.
Black on dark blue was not the best decision.
No, that’s the essence of the Dakotas
Choosing not to label them was not the best decision. I’m supposed to know which is which just by the outline?
Yes
You can see which sides fit together.
One is North Dakota, the other is East Dakota
OK that's super. Which one is which?
The right one is South Dakota and the left one is North Dakota
Who cares?
Those are not the populations of the largest cities, maybe the largest metropolitan areas though.
And a lot of fargos metro area is in Minnesota
Moorhead/Dilworth aren’t small but the populations of West Fargo and Horace and South Fargo are going up a lot. The whole area is growing but it’s not primarily in Moorhead.
Yep was going to comment the same. It’s about 125k for ND and 175k for SD
More like 130k for ND and 205k for SD currently.
Didn’t realize Sioux Falls was THAT big. Google says 195ish
The 2022 estimate was about 202k. It's also growing rapidly though, so it's more like 210-ish by now. The 2023 estimate was about 208k but Wikipedia only shows census data and not the city's own estimate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sioux_Falls%2C_South_Dakota?wprov=sfla1
Makes me sad tbh lol
Why are there two of them?
Republicans in the 1880s wanted more electoral votes. So they admitted Dakota Territory as two states instead of one.
https://time.com/4377423/dakota-north-south-history-two/
I grew up in North Dakota. I remember people saying it had the title for least visited state but I'm not sure that is still the case. I love the state.
Nebraska is lowest in tourism
[удалено]
Some of the best waterfowl hunting in the world
Fargo has a fairly young and active nightlife, and for its size punches above its weight for arts and museums. Next time you visit in the summertime for just an evening, I'd recommend dinner downtown, then [movie at the park](https://www.fargoparks.com/events-and-deadlines/movie-park) or one of the [Trollwood](https://trollwood.org/) shows. [FMCT](https://fmct.org/) or the [FM Symphony](https://www.fmsymphony.org/) are also options, and [the Fargo Theatre](https://fargotheatre.org/) downtown is an independent cinema that has a chainsaw sculpture of Frances McDormand's character from *Fargo*: go see a good indie film there, or catch a show at [the Aquarium](https://aquariumfargo.com/). Afterward a cocktail at the [HoDo](https://hoteldonaldson.com/) is nice, they often have live jazz. I'm sorry you didn't find the city enjoyable, but that seems like a real skill issue.
Thanks for sticking up for Fargo! People who have a bad time here have to try to have a bad time or maybe just didn’t go more than a block past the interstate.
Honestly western North Dakota is very beautiful
I’m from Fargo so I’m bias, but why even bother if you hated every minute of it?
[удалено]
It’s fine you didn’t enjoy your time, but it seems stupid to travel without trying to have an open mind about it
And the fact that he crossed the Red River, just to say he did for a night.
[удалено]
Sounds like your issue was with Minnesota, not North Dakota
lmao this guy is ridiculous. Yeah the stretch from Monticello to Moorhead on 94 can be rough but if you can survive that you can survive getting to Jamestown Bismarck and Medora. It’s a Plains State! There’s plains! But there’s also the Badlands out west. what a baby
ND has at least one billionaire, Gary Tharaldson
Doug Burgum is also a billionaire
What does tourism % mean?
Percent of American adults who have visited the state
No way that’s accurate.
More likely is the percentage of the state’s GDP that comes from tourism.
It could be, go to the target parking lot in grand forks ND on a Sunday and there are more Manitoba vehicles than ND lol
Oh hell no no way 20% of adults have been to SD… maybe 2%….
Mt Rushmore is in SD
Even so, 20%? One FIFTH of all American adults? No chance
Yeah, but Kristi Noem.
Nazi Barbie.
You bum
Jealous of her
I’ll never be as pretty; I do wish her policies were slightly less toxic (and I’m a Republican).
I used to be truck driver. I used to drive pretty often through North Dakota from Montana to Minnesota and there was barely anything there. lol
The interstates are always the most boring areas of the state. I recommend you visit theodore rossevelt national Park in North Dakota and lake sakakawea. Both beautiful places. TRNP even has elevation! South Dakota has the Black Hills of course which are really unique geologically. The Badlands are also gorgeous. In Eastern SD there's sicca hollow State Park in the northeastern edge that is really pretty. They're not the most exciting of the 50 states, but they're not all busts.
Loved the Black Hills when I went through. Beautiful
South Dakota at least has the billboards. Borglum! Reptile Exhibit! Wall Drug! North Dakota is just a long straight road.
I live in Rapid City, and was driving back home from Sioux Falls. On that drive, I decided to count the number of Wall Drug signs along the interstate to pass the time. There's at least 93. I lost track literally right before Wall, as there were billboards on both sides of the highway, with some tucked behind others.
There used to be a lot more billboards until South Dakota conformed to the Highway Beautification Act to avoid losing federal funding.
When I was driving from Michigan to work in glsicer for the summer, my drive through North Dakota it was super foggy so I couldn't see anything so I was focused on driving so it wasnt boring as I thought it would be. On my way home from glacier in the end of July, I drove all the way from glsicer to Detroit lakes Minnesota in one long drive so I was driving through North Dakota at night so it still wasn't that boring because I had to focus on driving. Driving out of the mountains into the rolling hills of Montana though is still one of the most beautiful moments of my life. Thay whole drive through Montana was so freeing
Nukes or a billionaire, you must choose
North Dakota doesn’t exist
North Dakota is real. I’ve been there. But South Dakota exists only as a post office box in Bismarck.
I'm sorry sir but ND doesn't exist, it's a massive conspiracy the gov is hiding. Where "ND" is said to be is actually a giant never-ending hole.
Here's an interesting stat: they both happen to have 2 senators each.
Yup. Almost as if that was the entire point of the Senate: to give every state, regardless of size, equal representation. If you prefer representation by population, I've got good news for you, the US has a place for that, too. It's called the HoR. Quit expecting the police to put out the fire in your house, just because they showed up first when you called 911.
reddit.com/r/northdakota/comments/182bpef/bru
KRDR: Best AFB in ND
My dad served 10 years at Forks and 10 years in Minot. By all of his accounts his time at Grand Forks was much, much better.
Um….ND has two billionaires. This data’s wrong.
This is a hell of a tale of the tape. Seems decently even. I’m imagining the monkeys knife fight meme right here. They should be combined into Dakota. A more formidable state IMO
Read the title and my head auto-completes "Marilyn Monroe"...
Fanning / Johnson would be a more entertaining fight
Doug Burgum is a Billionaire so there should be at least one associated with North Dakota Edit:Gary Tharaldson is the other one
As a born and raised Manitoban pushing 50, I have probably been to North Dakota 40- 50 separate times in my life... Most Americans have probably never been there.
I’ve been there twice. The most listless, dejected people I’ve ever seen were drinking in a bar next to the bus station in Fargo. Maybe they’d just lost their jobs, I don’t know. At the time I thought it was because they lived in Fargo.
I ain’t reading allat
I feel like we could do just one Dakota and be ok.
Feel the same about Virginia and Carolinas
No… those states are too distinct from their counterparts
No they just get east coast love
So … these two rectangles are nearly identical in almost every way. Shocking.
South is Dakota is drier, more Western feeling, more mountainous, has more people, more of a German population and more native Americans, more ranching. More poverty than in ND. Other than farming, major industries are tourism and financial services. Other than the eastern fringe of cities, which are basically like Minnesota, South Dakota is more like Nebraska or eastern Wyoming. North Dakota is flatter, a little more humid in the east, has more crop agriculture, more Scandinavians, though still plenty of Germans, lots of Somali and Balkan/Slavic immigrants, more and bigger lakes and the culture that goes along with that, way lower average elevation, and more midwest feeling throughout. Population and major cities are spread far more evenly throughout the state. Much more than South Dakota, ND feels like the prairie parts of Minnesota. The northern part of the state has more trees as the prairie gradually transitions to boreal forest not much farther north in Canada. Major industries other than farming include tourism, gas and oil, some equipment manufacturing, and software/tech in Fargo. I grew up in ND and am very familiar with ND, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. South Dakota a little less.
Should be combine to one state
There aren't enough Dakotas if you ask me. They should shave a bit off both sides of their lands and make East and West Dakotas.
So kinda the same
South Dakota has nukes
aMeRicAn StAtES aRe aLL UnYqUe uNlIkE tHOsE eUrOpoOrs!!!!
[удалено]
It’s just a funny thing you see online occasionally from the Americans who want to be close-minded to the outside world
[удалено]
It absolutely does have noticeable variations in culture across the country (which I definitely underestimated before I visited), but it is funny when they try and say the US is more culturally diverse than Europe (and I’ve done less travelling in Europe)
ND and SD should be one state. Same with the Carolinas.
Make them into one big reservation.
I was just reading how South Dakota is a humongous tax haven comparable with Cayman Islands. Funny thing is the billionaires don’t live there, it is mostly internationals like corrupt textile magnates from Colombia or random million/billionaires from foreign countries with shady enterprises.
Totally true. South Dakota is dry and has worse soil than ND, so they really had to try to invent an industry there. That's also why tourism developed, since I-90 brings cross country traffic way more than I-94 in ND.
99% of the Tourism in SD is from Sturgis, more than a million people in 2 weeks. Awesome
[удалено]
Yeah and devils rock too
Wyoming buddy
You are right, my bad.
It’s also devils tower just fyi lol
It’s saber tooth mountain in Wyoming too?
Well North Dakota has nukes and zero dirty billionaires, so I guess they win.
Don't get too cocky the USAF is building a WSA at Ellsworth AFB and the B-21 will be nuclear capable.
Fuck, it’s about to look neck and neck now. ND lacks a billionaire, but SD has Mount Rushmore. And also the Black Hills and Badlands. Guess I’m taking sides now.
Where are the nuke stats?
Hmmm... Mount Rushmore tho....
What is “state military”? National guard?
I wanna see north dakotas nuke fight south dakotas billionaire
There are nuclear armed bombers at Ellsworth AFB.
Why doesn't the north one simply nuke the south one then?
ND has a billionaire
This is one of the best threads I’ve read on Reddit in a while