North American Union Capital?

[Mr. Dictator]

So, for all those who want or don't want a North American Union, this isn't really a thread about whether there should or shouldn't be one. I was thinking about it earlier, and ASSUMING THAT IT HAS TO BE DONE, where would the logical capital be?

 

[Dachs]

Washington, DC. The capital of the most important country in North America. And the world.

 

[_random_]

Dayton, Ohio.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Somewhere civilised, like Canada.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Memphis or Denver.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Washington, DC. The capital of the most important country in North America. And the world.

I honestly don't think it would be DC. DC will remain the head of the united states if it happens, but it's too far North to be centralized enough me thinks. Moving it closer to Mexico would have an effect on the corruption though.

Wait, why don't we just build a forbidden palace?

 

[Perfection]

Detroit

 

[sophie]

SAN FRANCISCO!

but seriously, probably New York or somefin.

 

[amadeus]

Somewhere in South Dakota or Nebraska... a little south of the geographic center of North America. Sparsely populated, low building costs, and most importantly, have English as the official language.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I believe a good capital would be Chicago if it was a Canadian-American union.

 

[DJNotNice]

If this included Central America, San Antonio would be a good location for it.

 

[Mango Elephant]

I actually think Mexico City would be cool to have as a capital.

With the official language of the entire union as Spanish, of course.

 

[Godwynn]

Bismarck, North Dakota

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Detroit

I seriously think this is a good idea. It's on a busy border with Canada, has fairly good connections to other cities, is in the Midwest, and could use the assistance from a new industry--pan-American government. It might be the push the city needs (as competent a manager as Dave Bing is, competent management alone won't be able to turn the city around completely). Plus it would probably be an excuse to force the intransigent suburbs to give a little.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Bismarck, North Dakota

Well that would be some nice symbolism there

 

[Mango Elephant]

I seriously think this is a good idea. It's on a busy border with Canada, has fairly good connections to other cities, is in the Midwest, and could use the assistance from a new industry--pan-American government. It might be the push the city needs (as competent a manager as Dave Bing is, competent management alone won't be able to turn the city around completely). Plus it would probably be an excuse to force the intransigent suburbs to give a little.

That's waaaay to North, though. Our capital should be as close to the center as possible, so something in Northern Mexico or Texas would be optimal. I doubt Mexicans would like having their capital in Michigan.

 

[bhsup]

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It's centrally located, fed by major interstates, and it is in Oklahoma, so I'd probably never have a reason to go there.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

That's waaaay to North, though. Our capital should be as close to the center as possible, so something in Northern Mexico or Texas would be optimal. I doubt Mexicans would like having their capital in Michigan.

What do you think Californians think of having the capital in Washington?

Compromise: The executive is in Detroit, the legislature is in Juarez. (That's theoretically how they do it in the EU, though the EP plays down its meetings in Strasbourg).

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I think Memphis or Nashville would be nice.

Memphis would bring a looooot of conspiracy theories though. Nashville is a hub for the entire southeast of the United States though, and not that far from Mexico or Canada.

 

[Ajidica]

Minneapolis/St. Paul Minnesota. Nice connections to Canada, not too big, lower crime rates, we get real seasons, access all 4 major forms of transportation, what else is needed?

EDIT: Why would Memphis bring conspiracy theories?