[First posted: 19 May 2015]

The Green Papers
Sectional and Regional Political
Predominance, 2000 thru 2014


 

What is found in the tables below this explanatory introduction is the relative Political Party Predominance (that is: the average Political Strength of each of the two Major Parties) in each Section, Region (and, in some cases, sub-Region) of the United States of America (as well as throughout the United States of America as a whole) as the same has been determined by the voting behavior of the electorate in State and Federal elections held in the several States of the American Union from 2000 through 2014. The resultant Political Party Predominance in each such Section, Region or sub-Region of the country is probably best understood as being, put most simply, the average Political Party Strength of the average constituent State of the Union in a given Section, Region or sub-Region (as well as throughout the United States of America as a whole) as has been calculated coming out of the General Elections held every even-numbered year during the period in question.

The choice of the period of time covered in the following tables is based on the fact that The Green Papers first went online, for perusal by the Internet-using public, in late September 1999 and, as a result, the first U.S. Elections this website dealt with were those of 2000 (while the General Elections of 1999 were being held in Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi early in the first November of the site's existence, The Green Papers was still more or less "getting its act together" at that time and, therefore, the site did not at all deal with those elections in real time). So, another way of looking at the data presented below is in terms of the predominance of either of the two Major Parties (Democrat or Republican) in each Section, Region and sub-region of the country as such predominance was discerned coming out of each of the General Elections held in early November of every even-numbered year since those 2000 Elections first covered by The Green Papers itself!

The core data used herein is the same as that found in the table of Comparative Political Party Predominance in each State already posted to this website, in which each State of the American Union has (optimally) a total of 100 points divided between the two Major Parties (Democrat and Republican) and, where this might also be necessary, Third Parties and/or Independent elective officeholders. The actual methodology used to so divide the optimum 100 points in each State can be found on the page linked to earlier in this same paragraph.

For the purposes of the tables found below on this page, the relevant "scores"- as determined in the manner mentioned in the previous paragraph- for each Major Party (and, perhaps, 'Other') in each State have, in addition, been multiplied by the number of Representatives in the lower chamber of the Congress of the United States (this being the U.S. House of Representatives) to which a given State is entitled (these being the number of seats in the U.S. House which have been filled in each General Election for same in every even-numbered year). The use of such a multiplier in this way allows for the fairest comparison between States of otherwise disparate population and, in addition, gives a "grand score" (which in each State totals, optimally, the number of Representatives in Congress from that State multiplied by 100) for each of the two Major Parties (as well as any relevant Third Parties or Independents): the grand scores for each Party in each State in a given Section, Region or sub-Region are thereafter added together and the resultant sum is then divided by the total number of Representatives in Congress from that particular Section, Region or sub-Region; this result is then rounded to the nearest whole integer to produce the averages found in all the tables below (the same process, by the way, has also been applied to the United States of America as a whole to produce a NATIONWIDE average for each Party resulting from each General Election in an even-numbered year during the period in question [again, 2000 thru 2014]).

As both Joel Garreau, in his now-more than three decades old The Nine Nations of North America, and Colin Woodard- in his much more recent American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America- so well and correctly (though only up to a point) note, the very concept of a constituent State of the American Union is not so easily shoe-horned into a concomitant concept of SECTIONS and their included Regions throughout the United States of America. Indeed, those States which are divided between more than one Garreau/Woodard 'Nation' (and this is especially so as regards any State that might be divided into more than two) contain both the seeds and the roots of much politicoeconomic- as well as sociocultural- tension (and even contention) to, themselves, be as potentially politically polarized (perhaps even politically unstable!) as the very Federal Republic of which they each, by constitutional definition, are a part.

Yet the fact remains that that very Federal Republic is a federation of States and not of SECTIONS and their own Regions (or, if you might prefer the terminology of Messrs. Garreau and Woodard, 'Nations') per se: after all, each State of the American Union sends two United States Senators to the upper house (the quintessential "second chamber", in Political Science terms) of the Congress of the United States and, while each such State is entitled to at least one member of the U.S. House of Representatives (the lower house or "first chamber" of that same Congress), no Congressional Districts (in those States which, by virtue of Census-determined population, are entitled to more than one Representative in Congress) are constitutionally permitted to cross State lines. In addition, each constituent State of the American Union elects its own Governor, as well as its own State legislature: thus, in analyzing the Political Party breakdown within Regions and Sections of the United States of America, it seems far more useful to arrange said Sections and Regions into which the American Nation is, seemingly, divided by States (or, to here paraphrase the great early 19th Century U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall: "it is the political relationships within a federation we are expounding here!").

To this end (and despite any and all caveats suggested by the above-cited works of Messrs. Garreau and Woodard being well kept in mind), the United States of America has been divided- as regards the tables found below- into Sections and Regions (as well as a few sub-Regions) primarily based on those historical factors more directly related to (in particular) forms of local governance in each State (although some adjustments based on more recent political trends within certain States have also been made while making these determinations). Please know that a more detailed analysis of which State has been placed in just which SECTION/Region[/sub-Region] (and why) is to be found directly beneath the tables of data found below.

 
 
 
  • NORTHEAST: CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI & VT
    • NE 1- New England: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI & VT
    • NE 2- Mid-Atlantic: DE, MD, NJ, NY & PA
      • NE 2 A: old New Netherland-- DE, NJ & NY
      • NE 2 B: outside old New Netherland-- MD & PA

 

SECTION
or Region
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other
NORTHEAST 61 38 1 67 33 -- 68 32 -- 83 16 1 84 15 1 74 25 1 77 22 1 77 22 1
NE 1- New England 66 32 2 64 36 -- 69 31 -- 78 18 4 81 15 4 75 21 4 86 12 2 78 20 2
NE 2- Mid-Atlantic 60 40 -- 68 32 -- 68 32 -- 84 16 -- 85 15 -- 74 26 -- 75 25 -- 77 23 --
NE 2 A: old New Netherland 66 34 -- 73 27 -- 74 26 -- 89 11 -- 90 10 -- 82 18 -- 83 16 1 82 18 --
NE 2 B: outside old New Netherland 49 51 -- 59 41 -- 59 41 -- 77 23 -- 77 23 -- 60 40 -- 62 38 -- 68 32 --
 
 
  • MIDWEST: IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, OH & WI
    • MW 1- 'Upper' Midwest: IL, MI, MN & WI
    • MW 2- 'Lower' Midwest: IN, IA & OH
 
SECTION
or Region
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other
MIDWEST 48 52 -- 56 44 -- 56 44 -- 66 34 -- 76 24 -- 56 44 -- 57 43 -- 51 49 --
MW 1- 'Upper' Midwest 60 40 -- 73 27 -- 79 21 -- 80 20 -- 84 16 -- 66 34 -- 69 31 -- 60 40 --
MW 2- 'Lower' Midwest 30 70 -- 29 71 -- 20 80 -- 43 57 -- 65 35 -- 42 58 -- 38 62 -- 35 65 --
 
 
  • SOUTH: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA & WV
    • S 1- 'Upper' ("Border") South: AR, KY, MO, NC, TN, VA & WV
    • S 2- 'Lower' ("Deep") South: AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC & TX
 
SECTION
or Region
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other
SOUTH 36 64 -- 32 68 -- 23 77 -- 26 74 -- 37 63 -- 30 70 -- 26 74 -- 24 76 --
S 1- 'Upper' ("Border") South 35 65 -- 40 60 -- 31 69 -- 39 61 -- 60 40 -- 48 52 -- 36 64 -- 32 68 --
S 2- 'Lower' ("Deep") South 36 64 -- 27 73 -- 18 82 -- 19 81 -- 23 77 -- 20 80 -- 21 79 -- 19 81 --
 
 
  • WEST: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, KS, MT, NE, NV, NM, ND, OK, OR, SD, UT, WA & WY
    • W 1- Interior West: AK, AZ, CO, ID, KS, MT, NE, NV, NM, ND, OK, SD, UT & WY
      • W 1 A: outside formerly far northern Mexico/Nueva España-- AK, ID, KS, MT, NE, ND, OK, SD & WY
      • W 1 B: within formerly far northern Mexico/Nueva España-- AZ, CO, NV, NM & UT
    • W 2- Pacific Coast: CA, HI, OR & WA
 
SECTION
or Region
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other
WEST 62 38 -- 63 37 -- 54 46 -- 57 43 -- 62 38 -- 66 34 -- 65 35 -- 64 35 1
W 1- Interior West 17 83 -- 26 74 -- 28 72 -- 33 67 -- 44 56 -- 30 70 -- 27 73 -- 25 74 1
W 1 A: outside formerly far northern Mexico/Nueva España 15 85 -- 25 75 -- 25 75 -- 27 73 -- 28 72 -- 13 86 1 9 90 1 7 91 2
W 1 B: within formerly far northern Mexico/Nueva España 19 81 -- 26 74 -- 29 71 -- 37 63 -- 57 43 -- 44 56 -- 39 61 -- 37 63 --
W 2- Pacific Coast 88 12 -- 86 14 -- 71 29 -- 72 28 -- 74 26 -- 89 11 -- 91 9 -- 90 10 --
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES
of AMERICA
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other Dem GOP other
Nationwide 50 50 -- 52 48 -- 47 53 -- 54 46 -- 61 39 -- 54 46 -- 52 48 -- 50 50 --
 
 
 
 

As promised, a more detailed examination of the historical/local governmental reasons for including just which States in just what SECTION, Region and/or even sub-Region in the tables above now follows---

The NORTHEAST contains the following two groups of States:

NE 1: the New England States in which Town[ship] government historically was- and, for the most part, yet remains- the principal element in local governance below the State level (what with the quintessential New England 'Town Meeting' and Counties- where these might still function in the region- reduced, in these States, to exercising but minimal judicial and, perhaps, administrative functions])... NE 1, therefore, consists of the following States (in generally North-South geographical order):

  • Maine
  • New Hampshire
  • Vermont
  • Massachusetts
  • Rhode Island
  • Connecticut

NE 2: the so-called Mid-Atlantic Region, consists of the following States (again, in generally North-South geographical order):

  • New York
  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania
  • Delaware
  • Maryland

NE 2 can, further, be divided into the following two subgroups of States:

NE 2 A consists of the current three States of the American Union which were already part of New Netherland at the time [1664] of the English takeover of New Amsterdam (now New York City and, at the time, the effective 'capital' of this Dutch colony on mainland North America), these being: New York State, New Jersey and Delaware. What is now eastern New York State and northern New Jersey (actually, that which would become, from 1676 until 1702, East Jersey) had been New Netherland from the time [in 1624] Peter Minuit (at least allegedly) purchased 'the Manhattans' (traditionally, Manhattan Island itself but, more correctly, the entirety of the lands surrounding what is now New York Harbor and all the islands within same) from local natives for items worth a mere $24; meanwhile, what is now southern New Jersey (that is, what would be [again, from 1676 to 1702] West Jersey) and Delaware had been (since 1638) the core of that 'New Sweden' which was taken over by the Dutch in 1655 (though, in fact [and despite its altogether brief rule by the Kingdom of Sweden] New Sweden had been, at least at first, largely underwritten by Dutch investors [indeed, the aforementioned Peter Minuit was also New Sweden's first Governor!]). In any event, the area now encompassed by these three States developed- from, first and foremost, its Dutch roots and, later (particularly in New York and New Jersey), enhanced by emigration directly westward from New England, especially after the central and western portions of "Upstate" New York had been wrested from the native Iroquois Confederacy [the so-called 'Five (later, Six) Nations'] in the wake of the American Revolution)- a strong tradition of rather strong local government second only to that which had evolved in New England (as already described above)...

indeed, New England-style 'Town Meeting' was utilized in a New York State which also originated the so-called 'Supervisorial System', in which the chief officers of all the Town[ship]s in a County- the 'Town Supervisor's- also served as ex officio members of that County's Board of Supervisors (similarly, in New Jersey, 'Chosen Freeholders'- "chosen", that is, by each Township during 'Town(ship) Meeting' to [originally] represent the Township before its County Court of Quarter Sessions- evolved into the County Board of Chosen Freeholders for much the same reason): thus, although- quite unlike the situation in New England- the Town[ship]s in both New York and New Jersey shared the functions of sub-State local government with their respective Counties, the Counties in these two States were still generally (as was the case in a New England in which the County did- and still does- comparatively little [if, as regards Southern New England nowadays, anything!]) subservient to its Town[ship]s (as it was the direct representatives of the Town[ship]s actually governing the County as a whole). Since the earliest days of the Republic, both New York and New Jersey have come to abandon the 'Town[ship] Meeting' (and, in addition, most Counties in New York State no longer even utilize the 'classic' Board of Supervisors, while- in New Jersey- the Boards of Chosen Freeholders are now elected by the voters of the Counties at-large): however, the notion of stronger 'Home Rule' yet prevails throughout much of these two States.

Delaware, meanwhile, had developed (under English rule, as the 'Three Lower Counties' of Pennsylvania) units of local government- called 'Hundred's- which came to, more and more, function as but convenient administrative subdivisions of its Counties as the Pennsylvania approach to organizing local government (to be described shortly) overwrote- throughout the Colonial Period- a stronger local governance which had been laid down by the Dutch (in such places as Zwaanendael [now Lewes, Delaware]) [and, in fact, the 'Hundred' itself has, long ago, become vestigial]).

NE 2 B consists of the two States of Maryland and Pennsylvania (in the latter of which, unlike the case in New York State [and even more so, as regards New England!], the Townships would come to function as mere administrative subdivisions of the Counties [hence, for instance, Pennsylvania's so-called 'Commissionary System' of County Government (where a County Board of 'Commissioners'- elected separately from those chosen to govern each of a County's Townships- has shared, generally equally, local government functions with the Townships)]: indeed, 'Township Meeting' was never firmly established in Pennsylvania). Meanwhile, Maryland- like neighboring Delaware- once had a local sub-County unit called the 'Hundred' (long since abandoned in that State), the result of its being, in essence, an "extension" of Virginia during the Colonial Period (in fact, the 'Hundred'- an ancient subdivision of the English 'shire' [= county]- was first utilized in Virginia). Indeed, the antebellum sociocultural connection with Virginia had Maryland (along with, sometimes, Delaware) included in the SOUTH (both Maryland and Delaware were 'Slave states' before the Civil War) throughout the 19th Century, but Maryland- like Delaware- has become (from the 20th Century now into the early 21st) so firmly ensconced within the so-called 'Northeast Corridor' "Megalopolis" that both Maryland and Delaware are now, so very clearly, well within the political culture of the Mid-Atlantic Region.

Pennsylvania and Maryland- despite the fame (perhaps overmuch) of that 'Mason's and Dixon's Line' first run to settle their common border during the Colonial Period- have one significant historical commonality: they were each founded (albeit for different reasons!) on a basis of religious tolerance (for Christians, at least) during a 17th Century in which colonies established by the English (Dutch-supported colonies, such as New Netherland [see above], were another matter) tended to have little, if any, of that; in addition, both Pennsylvania and Maryland- unlike the three other States of the Mid-Atlantic have, even to this day, their respective "feet in the doors" of neighboring SECTIONS of the country (Pennsylvania having exported its 'Commissionary System' of local government to parts of the MIDWEST [as noted below]; Maryland- like the nearby SOUTH- utilizing the 'Strong County' model [also to be explained below]) and, therefore, considering these two States together, and apart from what came out of the aforementioned New Netherland (New York, New Jersey and Delaware), can be more useful.

 

The MIDWEST consists of the following two groups of States:

MW 1: the 'Upper' Midwest-- largely settled by those who, at least primarily, had emigrated directly westward from New England and New York and their immediate descendants moving on even further westward (as a result, New York's 'Supervisorial System' of County Government [already described above] came to prevail herein: Michigan, Wisconsin and most of Illinois have utilized Townships as the basic unit of local government with, if only at first, 'Township Meeting' and the Township's Supervisor [or, in Wisconsin, the Chairman of a Township's Board of Supervisors] serving ex officio as a member of the County's Board of Supervisors]- although Michigan has since abandoned this system in favor of a County Board of Commissioners; meanwhile, in Minnesota (although it never adopted the aforementioned 'Supervisorial System'), the 'Township Meeting' also came to be widely used. All in all, in most of the territory of these four States (except for sparsely populated areas [or, in the case of Illinois, those "Downstate" Counties with stronger Southern influence]) Townships became rather robust units of local governance, despite these Townships almost always being coterminous with the rectangular 6 miles-a side 'Township's laid out as a result of the Federal Public Land Survey and, thus, a concept of local governance in which the Townships are at least the co-equal of the County of which they are a part has colored the political culture of these four States... thus, MW 1 consists of the following States (in generally geographical order, East to West):

  • Michigan
  • Illinois
  • Wisconsin
  • Minnesota

MW 2: the 'Lower' Midwest-- largely settled primarily by those who had emigrated directly westward from Pennsylvania and their immediate descendants moving on even further westward (as a result, Pennsylvania's 'Commissionary System' of County Government [already described above] came to prevail in Ohio and Indiana and on over to Iowa. With the County sharing- yet exerting predominance [via a County Board being elected separately from those governing each of its Townships, which tended to place said Townships in a, more or less, advisory role relative to the County] over- local government functions, the Township tended to not be so robust in such States [and, as in Pennsylvania (and for much the same reason) 'Township Meeting' was never utilized in this Region of the country])... MW 2, therefore, consists of the following States (in general East-West geographical order):

  • Ohio
  • Indiana
  • Iowa

The SOUTH consists of the following two groups of States:

S 1: the 'Upper' [also known as the "Border"] South-- that is: the Tidewater plus that swath of States settled primarily by those in the "hills" generally due west of said Tidewater and the associated Piedmont who then moved overland more or less directly westward  along with, over time, their immediate descendants moving even further westward. These took with them a noticeably looser form of local governance than that which tended to prevail to the north (for there were to be no organized governmental Townships below the County level [clan and family connections (those of the landed gentry within the area of origination, but not so amongst the "common people" in and, then, beyond the Appalachian chain) being more important than any others at the most local level], leaving the County as the only element of local governance [in fact, in at least four of these States (Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and, later, West Virginia), the essence of the old County Court (of 'Quarter Sessions') would not completely yield its traditional administrative authority to a more modern elected County Board] and, thus, the County became a rather powerful force within whatever political culture developed below the State level). This Region proved to be- as it yet, to this very day, remains- an effective 'buffer zone' between the widely disparate political and social cultures of the "Deep" South (see below) and those sections of the country to the north of it (the NORTHEAST especially, but even- to much extent- the MIDWEST); it also contained most of the Unionist sentiment below the so-called 'Mason/Dixon Line' (extended westward in the National Mind of the early to mid-19th Century so as to follow the Ohio River) going into the Civil War and, indeed, the States in this Region proved rather reluctant to secede from the Union as the clouds of said Civil War grew in both size and darkness into early 1861 (only four of the six States of this Region in existence at the time would belatedly join the Confederacy [and only after the firing on Fort Sumter in April of that year had signalled the onset of that conflict] and the seventh State- West Virginia- itself thereafter seceded from one of these 'Upper South' Confederate States!... S 1, thus, consists of the following States (in general East-West geographical order):

  • Virginia
  • West Virginia
  • North Carolina
  • Kentucky
  • Tennessee
  • Missouri
  • Arkansas

S 2: the 'Lower' [also known as the "Deep"] South-- that is: the Coastal Lowlands of the Southeastern United States and that swath of States settled primarily by those from said Lowlands (generally Plantation owners and their families accompanied by retinues of slaves moving more or less directly westward across what came to be called 'the Cotton Belt', after the very crop that came to symbolize the political and social culture of this Region). Plantations owned by a single family tended to be as large (if not even larger!) than many a Township (in some cases, approaching the size of an entire County!) in the northern tier of States and, since the Plantation owner was- to all intents and purposes- 'the Law' on his own land, there seemed to be no real need for local governmental units at all below the level of the County itself (thereby, such as beats, precincts and wards became the more common units of 'civil division' in this Region of the country): here, then, the County came to reign even more supreme than in the "Border" South to the north (hence, for example, the prevalent image of the quintessential all-powerful Southern County Sheriff in American literary and cinematic culture). The States included in this region are those which, having seceded from the Union as 1860 became 1861, had already formed the 7-State core of a Confederate States of America by the time of the firing on Fort Sumter: even after the Civil War, the governmental 'Strong County [or Parish, in Louisiana]' system engendered in this Region continued to prevail within these States. 'Tis true that the inclusion of both Florida and Texas have, lately, become rather problematic in this regard (for, so obviously, South Florida is today far more a part of the Caribbean Basin than North America [Miami having much closer ties to, say, San Juan or Santo Domingo than to, say, Atlanta or New Orleans (let alone Charleston or Richmond!)]; yet, even to this day, enough of Florida- about which it is so often said "the further north, the more South"- remains tied, as regards its overall political culture as a State, to the SOUTH to allow it to still be considered a part thereof; difficult issues related to the inclusion [or not] of Texas in this Region, meanwhile, are the more tied to that State's sheer geographical size (through which Texas has its proverbial "foot in the door"s of more than one Region of the country), but those Americans who first settled Texas while it was still part of Mexico between 1821 and 1836 [and, thereby, established the very foundations of the State's political culture] had brought slavery along with them [and to an area which had, shortly after Mexico's own independence, already banished slavery, thereby setting up the very seeds a significant sociocultural dispute between Texans and Mexicans almost from the start], along with [and more importantly, certainly over the nearly century and a half now since the Civil War ended] that same 'Strong County' system of local government found in the rest of the Lower South)... therefore, S 2 consists of the following States (again, in general East-West geographical order):

  • South Carolina
  • Georgia
  • Florida
  • Alabama
  • Mississippi
  • Louisiana
  • Texas

Finally- last, but certainly not least (especially considering the role of a California nowadays electing nearly 1 out of every 8 members of the U.S. House of Representatives!)- we have the WEST made up of two groups of States, the first of which is large enough in area (despite its relatively sparse population as compared to the rest of the United States) to itself be divided into two subgroups, as follows:

W 1 is the Interior West which consists of all Western States which are landlocked-- that is: which do not (with the singular exception of Alaska, the inclusion of which as 'Interior' will be explained below) border either the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. This denomination for the Region is also something of a pun, as it is this same area which happens to contain- more than any other Region per these divisions of the country used herein- most of those Federal Lands under the oversight of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Herein, more than anywhere else, the overall low density of population has well colored forms of local governance: sparse population has meant the Township has proven to be generally quite useless (although the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma would come to form governmental Townships, Oklahoma would later abandon them-- while in the other four 'Township States' in the region, the Township is nowhere universal and, even where it is still used, it is nowhere near as robust a local unit of government as it is within either Region of the MIDWEST; in addition, in the majority of the States of this Region in which the Township has never been used, any and all constitutional provisions allowing for eventual Townships are, if only figuratively speaking, nowadays well covered in a rather thick layer of cobwebs [the artificiality of the rectangular Public Land Survey 'Township' and the relatively sparse population of this Region- largely due to local climatological factors in any event- combining to make this so]!). Needless to say, the 'Commissionary System' generally prevails in those States with Townships [for nowhere is the 'Supervisorial System' found in its purest form!]) and, outside the now-four 'Township States' (again: North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas), the use of the 'Strong County' system of sub-State governance prevails ... W 1 can be, in turn, divided into the following two subgroups of States:

W 1 A primarily consists of all those States in the Interior West most of the territory of which was never part of Mexico (or its predecessor polity, the Viceroyalty of Nueva España ['New Spain']); put another way: it principally contains all those States generally carved out of either the old 'Indian Country' [the northerly regions of the old Louisiana Purchase remaining- if only temporarily- unorganized after the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848] or the eastern portions of the old 'Oregon Country' after the agreement to divide the latter between Great Britain and the United States along the 49th Parallel (indeed, the entirety of the northern border of most of W 1 A is this self-same 49th Parallel nowadays separating the United States from Canada). Alaska, however, is also included herein (despite its being surrounded by water on three sides, not to also mention its being located to the west of- rather than to the south of- Canada) because, first, it happens to be even more sparsely populated than the rest of this Region of the country and, second, because it, too, contains quite a lot of the aforementioned Federal Lands under Department of Interior supervision... thus, W 1 A consists of the following States (from South to North, then East to West [and North (to the Future?) again]):

  • Oklahoma
  • Kansas
  • Nebraska
  • South Dakota
  • North Dakota
  • Montana
  • Wyoming
  • Idaho
  • Alaska

W 1 B, however, consists of all those States in the Interior West which were- at least mostly, if not entirely- once part of Mexico (as well as Mexico's immediate predecessor polity, Nueva España). Indeed, the only portions of today's United States that were once part of Mexico not so included herein are Texas (for reasons already explained above) and California (which will be dealt with shortly). Herein, elements of Spanish colonial/Mexican culture (in the form of the norteamericano [for short, norteño] subculture) have managed to tenaciously hold on- despite the incorporation of this section into the United States for now well over a century and a half- and 'Anglo' local governmental norms (such as Townships below the County level) were not ever well able to override an area, parts of which were already under some form of early European-imposed local governance while the Original 13 United States were all still British colonies! This, combined with the same relative lack of population density as is found in the other sub-Region within the 'Interior West', has also contributed to the prevalence of the 'Strong County' model of local government (outside of more modern incorporated Municipalities below the County level, of course)... therefore, W 1 B consists of the following States (in, more or less, geographical order):

  • Colorado
  • Utah
  • New Mexico
  • Arizona
  • Nevada

W 2 is the Pacific Coast and consists of the four remaining of the 50 constituent States of the American Union not already assigned to regions/sections as above-- these being (in geographical order from South to North and then out into the Pacific itself):

  • California
  • Oregon
  • Washington
  • Hawaii

California, like Texas and Florida above, is also problematic (like Texas [along with W 1 B above], California was also once part of Mexico/Nueva España [the aforementioned norteño subculture has certainly colored both Southern- as well as Coastal- California (except for the northernmost reaches of same)] and, again like Texas, California's sheer geographical size- at least as compared to its neighbors- allows it to potentially be placed in more than one Region)-- but the fact is that treating the entire Pacific Coast of the United States (along with a State that is- by its very existence- nothing but 'Pacific coast': Hawaii) as a single entity makes the most sense for purposes of the above tables. As in the rest of the WEST, the 'Strong County' (again, outside of incorporated Municipalities below the County level) prevails herein as the basic system of local governance below the State level.