AARoads Forum

Earlier today (Sunday, 2017-06-11), voters in Puerto Rico opted to seek full statehood in the USA.  Aside from the 'add two Senators/add or reapportion five or six USHouse seats' thing, the concurrent adding and shifting of EVs and the signing of I-PR1 through I-PR4, should Congress agree, it would also add a star to the USA's national flag with a new pattern.

Any ideas of what this pattern would look like?    :hmmm:

Yes, there are oodles of issues to resolve before this can be finalized, but this is the first time in my lifetime that this will have happened.  For several years now, the USA has been in the longest period in its history without the addition of a new state.

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on June 12, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Any ideas of what this pattern would look like?    :hmmm:

Wikipedia has shown this proposed US Flag for a while:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/US_flag_51_stars.svg/220px-US_flag_51_stars.svg.png)

I would imagine the union, stripe pattern, and proportions of the flag would be kept the same.

The shift in the star pattern would take a little getting used to, but prior generations have dealt with that before...9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8 works nicely.

Well, you could do six rows:

9 stars
8 stars
9 stars
8 stars
9 stars
8 stars

that would make a decent rectangle, though the bottom row being shorter than the top might look odd.

I don't think Congress will approve the additional state, though.  Use of Spanish for laws and legal documents is an issue, and so is the Republican congress approving two senators and several representatives who would probably be Democratic.

Quote from: formulanone on June 12, 2017, 05:21:51 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on June 12, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Any ideas of what this pattern would look like?    :hmmm:

Wikipedia has shown this proposed US Flag for a while:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/US_flag_51_stars.svg/220px-US_flag_51_stars.svg.png)

I would imagine the union, stripe pattern, and proportions of the flag would be kept the same.

The shift in the star pattern would take a little getting used to, but prior generations have dealt with that before...9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8 works nicely.

Whoops.  Simultaneous posts.  Nice picture :)

Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 05:27:59 AM
I don't think Congress will approve the additional state, though.  Use of Spanish for laws and legal documents is an issue, and so is the Republican congress approving two senators and several representatives who would probably be Democratic.

If Florida can provide ballots and laws in three languages, Puerto Rico ought to be able to handle two.

Quote from: mgk920 on June 12, 2017, 01:34:53 AMI-PR4

Where's that?

Anyway, it clearly would have to be a circle!
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0b/a9/fc/0ba9fcbd07edf6911743a756e569aaeb.jpg)

Quote from: formulanone on June 12, 2017, 06:15:26 AM

Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 05:27:59 AM
I don't think Congress will approve the additional state, though.  Use of Spanish for laws and legal documents is an issue, and so is the Republican congress approving two senators and several representatives who would probably be Democratic.

If Florida can provide ballots and laws in three languages, Puerto Rico ought to be able to handle two.

Also, hasn't New Mexico been heavily, if not primarily, native Spanish speaking ever since its territory became part of the USA in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?

Mike

Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 05:27:59 AM
Well, you could do six rows:

9 stars
8 stars
9 stars
8 stars
9 stars
8 stars

that would make a decent rectangle, though the bottom row being shorter than the top might look odd.

I don't think Congress will approve the additional state, though.  Use of Spanish for laws and legal documents is an issue, and so is the Republican congress approving two senators and several representatives who would probably be Democratic.

In the first place Puerto Rico is bilingual. Second of all Florida Senator Marco Rubio said we should respect the will of the people of Puerto Rico. So there are Republicans that support this including myself.

Quote from: formulanone on June 12, 2017, 06:15:26 AM

Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 05:27:59 AM
I don't think Congress will approve the additional state, though.  Use of Spanish for laws and legal documents is an issue, and so is the Republican congress approving two senators and several representatives who would probably be Democratic.

Florida statutes are in languages besides English? 


If Florida can provide ballots and laws in three languages, Puerto Rico ought to be able to handle two.

Quote from: mgk920 on June 12, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Aside from the 'add two Senators/add or reapportion five or six USHouse seats' thing, the concurrent adding and shifting of EVs and the signing of I-PR1 through I-PR4, should Congress agree, it would also add a star to the USA's national flag with a new pattern.

Puerto Rico has only three (unsigned) Interstates, though PR 30 between San Juan and Huimacao (a freeway I haven't driven) and perhaps others would be candidates for additional Interstates.

Quote from: dvferyance on June 12, 2017, 11:11:10 AM

Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 05:27:59 AM
I don't think Congress will approve the additional state, though.  Use of Spanish for laws and legal documents is an issue, and so is the Republican congress approving two senators and several representatives who would probably be Democratic.

In the first place Puerto Rico is bilingual. Second of all Florida Senator Marco Rubio said we should respect the will of the people of Puerto Rico. So there are Republicans that support this including myself.

I think the use of Spanish for laws and legal documents is less of a problem than:

(1) Significant opposition to statehood (not shown in Sunday's referendum, since statehood opponents boycotted the vote), including a substantial percentage favoring independence from the U.S. Not a good idea, IMO, to acquire an independence movement along with a new state. Hawaii has a rather pesky independence movement (Alaska has one too, though kind of a joke), but Puerto Rico's could be a bigger problem. And Canadians can tell you a lot about independence movements, though its movement seems to be tamped down at the moment.

(2) Puerto Rico's government is a basket case, currently in quasi-bankruptcy. Some of the rescue components may depend on PR not being a state, since states can't declare bankruptcy under the U.S. Code (a point that comes up in connection with Illinois). Statehood supporters may do so hoping for better rescue terms than now in place, but that might not be a realistic expectation.

Personally, I'm sympathetic to independence, an option that would be effectively ruled out (per our Civil War) by statehood.

Quote from: english si on June 12, 2017, 06:42:23 AM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0b/a9/fc/0ba9fcbd07edf6911743a756e569aaeb.jpg)

Cool.  Though I can't help but see the circle of stars as symbolic for America's influence on the world.  Gives it kind of an imperial vibe.

Or it's reminiscent of the Earthican Flag from Futurama:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.futurama-madhouse.com%2Fgrabs%2F4acv05%2F405nl-32.jpg&hash=ded2cb1554a162d2a9cfe0b5da219c0ae1c22162)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjTJgwUG.png&hash=1640dcb5290404909ffac01c1a0c14b432afb540)

There's some funny ones in this article: http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/10-wildest-proposed-51-star-american-flags-puerto/story?id=19404611 (http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/10-wildest-proposed-51-star-american-flags-puerto/story?id=19404611)

The US should choose this one...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FABC_Univision%2Freddit_flags_FlagSmartass_wmain.jpg&hash=79592ac64c8b6c794246f0662dd71a8769b99a21)

Though maybe that looks to similar too Liberia. How about this instead? :sombrero:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FABC_Univision%2Freddit_flags_FlagBestEver_wmain.jpg&hash=6c18353da93f5dd2154ac9d1c09f3e4843bc7474)

Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2017, 01:12:47 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjTJgwUG.png&hash=1640dcb5290404909ffac01c1a0c14b432afb540)

Please, I just ate.

- The circular pattern is the one that PR statehood advocates use.  The actual designs would be made by the Army and the final decision is made by Presidential proclamation. 

- PR has a median household income of $19,350.  The poorest current state (Mississippi) is over $39K.  The entire country is over $55K.  Because it is not a state, PR's "commonwealth" government and Congress can pick and choose which laws best fit economic conditions there.  If it becomes a state, every US law will automatically apply.

- In the last Census, 72% of people in PR self-reported themselves in the catagories below "very well" relative to English, contrasted to 8% of the USA as a whole.   Further, unlike a non-English speaker on the mainland USA, whose children and grand-children will eventually speak English very well (studies show that from Day One to now, by the 3rd generation, English becomes "very well" in 99% of cases, and the ancestor's mother tounge is lost in about 80% of cases), this would be a multi-generational thing.  Although the current governor advocates changing the school system to English.  This would make the USA something like Canada.  I do not think most American would be in favor of that.  (BTW, while Spanish has a special status in New Mexico, the less than very well %age there is only 12%, which is better than several other states.)

- Currently, PR is considered a "country" for certain business types.  For example, in TV broadcasting.  All of these deals would have to be sorted out. 

- Politics.  If a state, PR would get 5 house members, and 7 electors.  Assuming they stick to 435 (and thus 538) the states that would lose seats are California (democrat lock), Washington (democrat lock), Texas (Republican lock), Minnesota (leans democrat) and Florida.  Of course that uses the 2010 Census, by the time this is all sorted out the 2020 numbers would be out.  AFAIK this would be the first state added that did not have just one House seat, due to the unusual circumstances.

- The only time I was in PR, IIRC they use metric for gas pumps and for distances, but the American system for speed limits, and the cars are denominated in MPH.  So San Juan 55 means 55 km, but Speed Limit 55 means 55 MPH.  Confusing.

As long as the federal government is dominated by Republicans, I don't expect PR (or DC, for that matter) statehood efforts to yield any results.

But assuming that either or both were admitted as states, would the 50-star version of Old Glory become the new "Confederate flag"  –flown by self-proclaimed rebels who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the added state(s)?

I cannot imagine who would "rebel" against PR being a state, other than the small group in PR who advocate independence, who would not be supporting of any American flag. 

I'm not quite old enough to remember when Alaska and Hawaii became states, but I would assume that most people, and certainly most government offices, rushed right out and bought new flags.  Probably would cause a boom in the flag business.  A good solid outdoor flag that is actually sewn (rather than screen printed) is upwards of $20.  Could be a jobs program.  (BTW, Amazon has several 51 star flags for sale already).

DC cannot be made a state w/o a Constitutional amendment (Article I, Section 8) nor can it be given  seats in the Senate w/o a Constitutional amendment to which all 50 (or 51) other states agree to (Article V).  These things will never happen, no matter what party is in power.

Quote from: briantroutman on June 12, 2017, 02:14:24 PM
As long as the federal government is dominated by Republicans, I don't expect PR (or DC, for that matter) statehood efforts to yield any results.

But assuming that either or both were admitted as states, would the 50-star version of Old Glory become the new "Confederate flag"  –flown by self-proclaimed rebels who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the added state(s)?

DC should never be a state period. There is a reason why it isn't. Our founding fathers set up it that the national capitol should not be in a particular state due to a state influencing the federal government. Mexico, Australia and a few other countries have the same set up where the national capitol is not in a state. I wonder though with Puerto Rico the next talk about a another new state would likely be Guam. That is the next biggest territory.

Don't want DC to become a state?

Give them voting representation in Congress.  That'd take the main wind out of the sail that's driving their statehood push.

QuoteDC cannot be made a state w/o a Constitutional amendment (Article I, Section 8)

Technically, not true.  A smaller Federal district (covering the core, where most of the Federal buildings are, and the museum areas) could certainly be created, leaving the rest of what is now DC to become a state.  Though such a designation would require approval by Congress...highly unlikely as others have noted.

Quotenor can it be given  seats in the Senate w/o a Constitutional amendment to which all 50 (or 51)  other states agree to (Article V). 

Presuming you're referring to giving DC Senate seats without them actually becoming a state and that you're referencing the "equal Suffrage" clause at the end of Article 5.

Quote from: froggie on June 12, 2017, 03:43:11 PM
Don't want DC to become a state?

Give them voting representation in Congress.  That'd take the main wind out of the sail that's driving their statehood push.

QuoteDC cannot be made a state w/o a Constitutional amendment (Article I, Section 8)

Technically, not true.  A smaller Federal district (covering the core, where most of the Federal buildings are, and the museum areas) could certainly be created, leaving the rest of what is now DC to become a state.  Though such a designation would require approval by Congress...highly unlikely as others have noted.

I would propose the rest of what is now DC be known as the State of Maryland.

Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2017, 01:12:47 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjTJgwUG.png&hash=1640dcb5290404909ffac01c1a0c14b432afb540)

Poo.

Quote from: oscar on June 12, 2017, 11:32:32 AMAnd Canadians can tell you a lot about independence movements, though its movement seems to be tamped down at the moment.

As do Brits. Though we should have silenced it for a few years on Thursday. However there's still (three years later) the denial that they've lost for now - Wee Eck was still spouting the line that Scotland wants another referendum on independence and would vote for it in order to get away from bad Tory policy about 20 minutes before his seat's result was announced (they were counting the votes behind him and he should have had a good idea that his job was at risk), and he'd lost to a Tory with a 20% swing against him!

Quote from: briantroutman on June 12, 2017, 02:14:24 PMflown by self-proclaimed rebels who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the added state(s)?

I spotted this vlog about Puerto Rico on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5up5sYJMRA

Quote from: SP Cook on June 12, 2017, 02:47:37 PM
DC cannot be made a state w/o a Constitutional amendment (Article I, Section 8) nor can it be given  seats in the Senate w/o a Constitutional amendment to which all 50 (or 51) other states agree to (Article V).  These things will never happen, no matter what party is in power.

As froggie notes, D.C. can be shrunken down to a small core, with the rest of it given to a new or existing state. Of course, you'd want to repeal the constitutional amendment giving D.C. Electoral College votes, lest a small number of people (like homeless grate-sleepers I saw all the time when I worked near Capitol Hill) control those three EVs. I suspect that when the Constitution provided for a district with no voting rights at all, the expectation was that it would have no permanent residents and people could just vote in their home states. That's not exactly what happened, and it's way too late to unwind that.

I'm not convinced a shrunken D.C. would be required by the Constitution, which means it could all go a new state, or Maryland if it will agree (ha ha ha).  In the first years after the Constitution gave Congress the option of setting up a Federal district not within a state, the seat of government was in Philadelphia and New York before moving again to its current digs. On its face, the creation of a new district was optional, and Congress remains free to opt out.

There are multiple reasons why D.C. statehood is a terrible idea (some of which go double for Puerto Rico) and/or won't happen in any case, but I'm unsure the constitutional issues w/r/t D.C. are showstoppers.

Quote from: SP Cook on June 12, 2017, 02:47:37 PMI'm not quite old enough to remember when Alaska and Hawaii became states, but I would assume that most people, and certainly most government offices, rushed right out and bought new flags. 

Nope, not hardly.  There were plenty of 48-star flags around well into the 60's.  (Anyone remember, were there any quantities of 49-star flags between the AK and HI admission dates?)

Federal installations probably got them sooner.  But local governments, schools, and private businesses would be slower to adopt.  Why spend money to replace an otherwise perfectly useful flag?

And in any event, an expected glut of new flag sales would be partially offset by a decrease in sales of old flags prior to the official statehood date.

If DC were shrunken down to a small core, wouldn't the rest have to be given back to Maryland?

Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 04:56:57 PM
If DC were shrunken down to a small core, wouldn't the rest have to be given back to Maryland?

Good question whether Maryland would have the legal right to take back the part (or all) of D.C. that was no longer used as a Federal district. But better questions are (a) would MD even want to take back that territory and its large population, and (b) if not, would MD have the legal right, or raw political clout, to block the transfer of that territory to another state (including a new one) even if wished not to reclaim the territory for itself? I'm sure somebody has looked into that, but I don't have time to dig up the answers.

Oscar is right about a shrunken DC not being required. The Constitution gives Congress plenary legislative authority over the District (not to exceed ten miles square) that "may," through cession by states AND acceptance by Congress, become the seat of government. "May," coupled with the part about "acceptance," would normally indicate it isn't mandatory because they'd have used "shall" instead if it were.

Quote from: SP Cook on June 12, 2017, 02:47:37 PM
I cannot imagine who would "rebel" against PR being a state, other than the small group in PR who advocate independence, who would not be supporting of any American flag.

Do you think that the type of people who today fly the Confederate (battle) flag would embrace statehood for Puerto Rico–or the new flag resulting from its admission to the Union? Personally, I doubt both.

Quote from: dvferyance on June 12, 2017, 02:49:18 PM
Our founding fathers set up it that the national capitol should not be in a particular state due to a state influencing the federal government.

I'm aware of that, and yet at the same time I think it begs the question: Why was the District of Columbia created as large as it is?

Particularly at the turn of the 19th century, when the entirety of the federal government could have been housed within a handful of modest office buildings, lawmakers couldn't possibly have expected that the entirety of the district's nearly 100 undeveloped square miles would be filled with nothing but capitol buildings, executive mansions, and federal offices. And indeed, it isn't, even 200+ years later.

In other words, due to its considerable size and the sale of much of its land to private owners, D.C. was destined from the start to house private residents and private businesses and be the setting of commerce that is only tangentially connected to federal government–if at all.

And simultaneously on the other hand, the sprawling footprint of the federal government includes countless sizable office complexes in Virginia and Maryland with thousands of employees living in those states having elected representatives able to influence the activities of the federal government. Numerous private enterprises in Virginia and Maryland profit from (and have a vested interest in) the existence of the federal offices in these bordering states.

Bottom line: I fail to see how the Residence Act creating D.C. 1.) adequately serves the District's private residents or 2.) insulates the federal government from states' influences.

I'm speculating, but they might have meant to leave a good deal of countryside around the built-up area where federal troops could maneuver, free of interference from state militias.

Quote from: GaryV on June 12, 2017, 04:54:39 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on June 12, 2017, 02:47:37 PMI'm not quite old enough to remember when Alaska and Hawaii became states, but I would assume that most people, and certainly most government offices, rushed right out and bought new flags. 

Nope, not hardly.  There were plenty of 48-star flags around well into the 60's.  (Anyone remember, were there any quantities of 49-star flags between the AK and HI admission dates?)

Federal installations probably got them sooner.  But local governments, schools, and private businesses would be slower to adopt.  Why spend money to replace an otherwise perfectly useful flag?

And in any event, an expected glut of new flag sales would be partially offset by a decrease in sales of old flags prior to the official statehood date.

I still occasionally see a 49 star flag in use in front of a private residence here in Appleton, WI.

BTW, tradition is that whenever a new state is admitted to the USA, the national flag with the resulting new star pattern is unveiled by the USDoD, Office of Heraldry, and the President on the first July 4 following the admission.  Thus, the 49 star flag was 'current' for one year.  It was unveiled on 1959-07-04 (Alaska was granted statehood on 1959-01-03), while the current 50 star flag was unveiled on 1960-07-04 (Hawaii was granted statehood on 1959-08-21).

An interesting 1959 article on the subject with an image of President Eisenhower examining a 49 star flag:
http://old.qmfound.com/us_flag_49th_and_50th_star.htm

Enjoy!

Mike

Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 04:56:57 PM
If DC were shrunken down to a small core, wouldn't the rest have to be given back to Maryland?

Yes.  In fact DC used to include what is today Arlington and Alexandria, which was returned to Virginia because the governement did not need it.

It will never happen, of course, but the actual best solution for DC statehood is not to make the District smaller, but rather much larger.  Take the suburban counties around DC and make a "Columbia" or whatever you want to call it and make that a state, and let the rest of Virginia and Maryland be free.

Quote from: SP Cook on June 13, 2017, 09:44:44 AM
It will never happen, of course, but the actual best solution for DC statehood is not to make the District smaller, but rather much larger.  Take the suburban counties around DC and make a "Columbia" or whatever you want to call it and make that a state, and let the rest of Virginia and Maryland be free.

At least Republicans won't oppose that one just for political party reasons (because Virginia would switch from a blue state to a red state). However, what would the University of Maryland be called if it was no longer part of Maryland?

Quote from: 1 on June 13, 2017, 09:48:57 AM

Quote from: SP Cook on June 13, 2017, 09:44:44 AM
It will never happen, of course, but the actual best solution for DC statehood is not to make the District smaller, but rather much larger.  Take the suburban counties around DC and make a "Columbia" or whatever you want to call it and make that a state, and let the rest of Virginia and Maryland be free.

At least Republicans won't oppose that one just for political party reasons (because Virginia would switch from a blue state to a red state). However, what would the University of Maryland be called if it was no longer part of Maryland?

University of Columbia?

At the very least, there would still be a University of Maryland, except in Baltimore, so there you go.

While there have been many statehood proposals that failed to gain traction, and those which did not gather majority support, I can't find an example where admission into the Union was ever rejected by Congress.

Edit: Forgot about Deseret, which essentially became Utah.

Quote from: formulanone on June 13, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
While there have been many statehood proposals that failed to gain traction, and those which did not gather majority support, I can't find an example where admission into the Union was ever rejected by Congress.

Perhaps a Tennesseean could provide more detail:

In one article I read regarding Puerto Rico's possible paths to statehood, the author suggested that PR could do "what Tennessee did" . The article suggested that Congress was at least reluctant to admit Tennessee to the Union. In response, the Governor of Tennessee appointed congressional representatives and two Senators and sent them to Washington–kind of like that episode of Seinfeld where George Costanza was turned down for a job but he simply showed up for work anyway.

Quote from: SP Cook on June 13, 2017, 09:44:44 AM
It will never happen, of course, but the actual best solution for DC statehood is not to make the District smaller, but rather much larger.  Take the suburban counties around DC and make a "Columbia" or whatever you want to call it and make that a state, and let the rest of Virginia and Maryland be free.

I don't see how this would be a better plan than shrinking the "federal district"  to a small core around the White House, U.S. Capitol, and National Mall and returning the rest of D.C. to Maryland.

Maryland might not want these outer reaches of D.C., but then again, it may be more palatable then losing its wealthiest county (Montgomery).

Quote from: formulanone on June 13, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
Edit: Forgot about Deseret, which essentially became Utah.

Actually, Deseret was to be a much larger area, taking in not only Utah's territory, but also a lot of Nevada, Arizona...even California.  This is because of the aggressive settlement program of the Mormons.

In actuality, the reduction of the state's size to just Utah was actually taken as a slight to the Mormons that had proposed Deseret.

I love how we are a "Union" or group of states, but yet, we can't leave the group we have created; by law. Does anyone think differently?

Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2017, 02:15:17 PM
In actuality, the reduction of the state's size to just Utah was actually taken as a slight to the Mormons that had proposed Deseret.

Who's ever received more than they asked? :D

Quote from: formulanone on June 13, 2017, 05:44:50 PM

Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2017, 02:15:17 PM
In actuality, the reduction of the state's size to just Utah was actually taken as a slight to the Mormons that had proposed Deseret.

Who's ever received more than they asked? :D

Offhand, Nevada and Missouri are both larger than their originally proposed borders would have made them.

Quote from: formulanone on June 12, 2017, 05:21:51 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on June 12, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Any ideas of what this pattern would look like?    :hmmm:

Wikipedia has shown this proposed US Flag for a while:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/US_flag_51_stars.svg/220px-US_flag_51_stars.svg.png)

I would imagine the union, stripe pattern, and proportions of the flag would be kept the same.

The shift in the star pattern would take a little getting used to, but prior generations have dealt with that before...9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8 works nicely.

Maybe I am just stupid, but at first glance this looks exactly the same as the 50 state flag.

Note that just because PR became a state doesn't mean the PRI series would be signed (cf. the A series).

Quote from: oscar on June 12, 2017, 11:32:32 AM
Significant opposition to statehood (not shown in Sunday's referendum, since statehood opponents boycotted the vote)

I think it's dangerous to take the boycott into consideration when attempting to interpret the results. Otherwise, you go down the rabbit hole of questioning any election by claiming the losing side boycotted it, e.g. Trump only won because Clinton supporters were boycotting the election. Such an argument would be considered ludicrous in the mainland United States and not change the outcome of the election (since the natural counterargument is, well if they didn't want it to happen why didn't they vote against it?).

The boycott does serve as an effective fig leaf for mainland politicians opposed to PR statehood on partisan grounds, however.

I think the only realistic chance of PR statehood happening is if it is explained to Donald Trump that making PR statehood happen would be a true personal achievement for him, one that no president in a half-century had done, and which would be a permanent, irrevocable part of his legacy regardless of whatever else happens in his administration. If he internalized this on a basic level, he would likely move heaven and earth to make it possible.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 13, 2017, 11:15:44 PM

Quote from: formulanone on June 12, 2017, 05:21:51 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on June 12, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Any ideas of what this pattern would look like?    :hmmm:

Wikipedia has shown this proposed US Flag for a while:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/US_flag_51_stars.svg/220px-US_flag_51_stars.svg.png)

I would imagine the union, stripe pattern, and proportions of the flag would be kept the same.

The shift in the star pattern would take a little getting used to, but prior generations have dealt with that before...9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8 works nicely.

Maybe I am just stupid, but at first glance this looks exactly the same as the 50 state flag.

Here's the key difference: It has 1 more star on it.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 14, 2017, 04:51:52 AM
Note that just because PR became a state doesn't mean the PRI series would be signed (cf. the A series).

Quote from: oscar on June 12, 2017, 11:32:32 AM
Significant opposition to statehood (not shown in Sunday's referendum, since statehood opponents boycotted the vote)

I think it's dangerous to take the boycott into consideration when attempting to interpret the results. Otherwise, you go down the rabbit hole of questioning any election by claiming the losing side boycotted it, e.g. Trump only won because Clinton supporters were boycotting the election. Such an argument would be considered ludicrous in the mainland United States and not change the outcome of the election (since the natural counterargument is, well if they didn't want it to happen why didn't they vote against it?).

The boycott does serve as an effective fig leaf for mainland politicians opposed to PR statehood on partisan grounds, however.

I think the only realistic chance of PR statehood happening is if it is explained to Donald Trump that making PR statehood happen would be a true personal achievement for him, one that no president in a half-century had done, and which would be a permanent, irrevocable part of his legacy regardless of whatever else happens in his administration. If he internalized this on a basic level, he would likely move heaven and earth to make it possible.

But it's Congress that has to vote on it, not Trump.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 14, 2017, 06:05:59 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 13, 2017, 11:15:44 PM

Quote from: formulanone on June 12, 2017, 05:21:51 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on June 12, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Any ideas of what this pattern would look like?    :hmmm:

Wikipedia has shown this proposed US Flag for a while:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/US_flag_51_stars.svg/220px-US_flag_51_stars.svg.png)

I would imagine the union, stripe pattern, and proportions of the flag would be kept the same.

The shift in the star pattern would take a little getting used to, but prior generations have dealt with that before...9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8 works nicely.

Maybe I am just stupid, but at first glance this looks exactly the same as the 50 state flag.

Here's the key difference: It has 1 more star on it.

Additionally, the above-posted 51-star flag has a 6-row 9-8-9-8-9-8 arrangement compared to the 50-state flag having a 9-row 6-5-6-5-6-5-6-5-6 arrangement.

The "boycott" in the last two referendums should be considered.  This is not like (most American) political elections where it is "this person" or "that person", and somebody has to win; nor something like Brexit where there are only 2 posibliites.  The people that boycotted did so because, in their opinions, the choice they wanted was not offered on the ballot.

In 2012, the election was 2 questions.  They had a 78% turnout, but 28% refused to vote on the second question, which was the recomendation of their party.   The 2017 election was one question and they got a turnout of only 22%, because all of the other viewpoints' parties boycotted.  This contrasts to normal 55-60% turnouts in ordinary elections there.

The actual process of statehood is just regular lawmaking, so both Congress and the President have a say.  The modern method they have used (if you consider something they have not done for over 50 years "modern" ) is that they pass a law to provide for a straight "yes" or "no" vote on statehood, then, assuming yes wins, another law providing for statehood, and then a special election for house and senate.  Oddly the two senators elected are just "A" and "B", and only after the election does the Senate decide into which class each goes.  As to the House, it is at least arguable that the law could provide for ONE seat (and thus 3 Electors) until the next reapportionment, as no entity with this large of a %age has ever become a state.

Sure, the president could either sign it or veto it.  My point was just that they might be able to convince Trump that his name would be in the history books by signing it, but that would not motivate Congress, who would be thinking of the balance of power rather than their own names in history. 

Though come to think of it, I don't think the admission of Hawaii and Alaska are the first things that come to mind when thinking about the Eisenhower presidency.

Quote from: dvferyance on June 12, 2017, 11:11:10 AMIn the first place Puerto Rico is bilingual. Second of all Florida Senator Marco Rubio said we should respect the will of the people of Puerto Rico. So there are Republicans that support this including myself.

And in the third place, the United States does not have an official language...not that legislating one hasn't been tried, but such proposals have never succeeded.

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 13, 2017, 03:40:18 PM
I love how we are a "Union" or group of states, but yet, we can't leave the group we have created; by law. Does anyone think differently?

Actually, there's no law stating as such.  It's a precedent that they cannot leave.  For more information, please see War, Civil.

Personally, I'm in favor of statehood for Puerto Rico.  I have no vested interest, but I think the nation should keep expanding.  It won't be as rapidly as in the past, of course, but I think 60 years between additions is more than enough.  My interest is general (in slow expansion), not specific (in PR).  If there's a good candidate for statehood I'd like to see it considered.  As an exception, I recall hearing words about Kuwait becoming a state after it was liberated from Iraq.  I don't recall where I heard that, it may have just been other kids talking in school, but I remember thinking it was a bad idea because of its location in an area where it would be difficult to provide security.

I also favor shrinking DC to federal land and state-izing the rest, either in a new state or in Maryland.  This is partly because of the representation issue, and partly because I don't like the idea of direct federal citizenship.  The White House being a residence brings up an interesting question.  The Texas constitution requires that the governor reside in Austin.  There's no such requirement for the president.  I remember this being discussed when George W. Bush remained a resident of Texas, which I seem to recall being described as unusual.  The president and other transient occupants could just retain their state residency.  Do any of the staff live in the White House, and possibly not have a home elsewhere that would be in a state?  If so, they may be the only remaining DC residents who don't have representation.  Or possibly during their employment they could be assigned a government-sponsored apartment outside the district to, if nothing else, have a place to claim state residency.  This is too small an issue to be important, but it's interesting to me.  (It would get really interesting if the 23rd Amendment weren't repealed and a few White House staffers controlled 3 electoral votes.  Even more interesting would be if the president and his family became the only DC residents and controlled those three votes.)

Regarding representation, in my reading, the Constitution does not allow non-proportional representation, so that just adding one representative wouldn't work.  Since the membership is statutory, my proposal would be that Congress increase House size enough to hold the new members.  Then, if they want to stick to 435, that number could be restored with the next apportionment.  Is that how it was done before?  I should probably look that up.

Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2017, 12:31:38 PM
Sure, the president could either sign it or veto it.  My point was just that they might be able to convince Trump that his name would be in the history books by signing it, but that would not motivate Congress, who would be thinking of the balance of power rather than their own names in history. 

Though come to think of it, I don't think the admission of Hawaii and Alaska are the first things that come to mind when thinking about the Eisenhower presidency.

My read on Article. IV. Section. 3. (paragraph 1) of the Constitution of the United States of America says that the President has no say in the matter: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;".  (Note that the remainder of that paragraph deals with altering the borders of existing states.)

Mike

Quote from: wxfree on July 31, 2017, 02:51:19 PM

There's no such requirement for the president.  I remember this being discussed when George W. Bush remained a resident of Texas, which I seem to recall being described as unusual.


Regarding representation, in my reading, the Constitution does not allow non-proportional representation, so that just adding one representative wouldn't work.  Since the membership is statutory, my proposal would be that Congress increase House size enough to hold the new members.  Then, if they want to stick to 435, that number could be restored with the next apportionment.  Is that how it was done before?  I should probably look that up.

- The President and his family, the Vice-President (who was not provided a government owned house until the 1970s, BTW) and his family, members of Congress, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the other federal courts based in DC (DC circuit, federal circuit, military appeals, etc) retain their residency where elected from.  They do not vote in DC, nor do they pay DC income tax.   Remember that since the President and Vice-President have to be from different states, even if we overlook that DC is not a state at all, then no team could ever run for re-election.

- The USA has not ever admitted a new state that was not at the one represenative level.  The previous bills thus always provided for one represenative, in addition to the regular 435 until the next Census (i.e. the House had 437 members due to Alaska and Hawaii, until after the 1962 elections when it went back to 435).  It is an open question.  The Congress perhaps could provide that PR got one represenative until after the next Census, not that it would necessarially want to do that.  Clearly a case for the Supreme Court.

What's wrong with giving Puerto Rico 5 representatives immediately?

Quote from: 1 on July 31, 2017, 04:17:09 PM
What's wrong with giving Puerto Rico 5 representatives immediately?

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State..."

I think it would have to be that way, with whatever the appropriate number is.  The Constitution doesn't seem to allow non-proportional representation.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 31, 2017, 03:59:32 PM
- The President and his family, the Vice-President (who was not provided a government owned house until the 1970s, BTW) and his family, members of Congress, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the other federal courts based in DC (DC circuit, federal circuit, military appeals, etc) retain their residency where elected from.  They do not vote in DC, nor do they pay DC income tax.   Remember that since the President and Vice-President have to be from different states, even if we overlook that DC is not a state at all, then no team could ever run for re-election.

That makes sense.  Thanks for clarifying that.

Quote from: wxfree on July 31, 2017, 04:43:14 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on July 31, 2017, 03:59:32 PM
- The President and his family, the Vice-President (who was not provided a government owned house until the 1970s, BTW) and his family, members of Congress, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the other federal courts based in DC (DC circuit, federal circuit, military appeals, etc) retain their residency where elected from.  They do not vote in DC, nor do they pay DC income tax.   Remember that since the President and Vice-President have to be from different states, even if we overlook that DC is not a state at all, then no team could ever run for re-election.

That makes sense.  Thanks for clarifying that.

SP Cook has one thing wrong. The president and vice president  don't have to be from different states. The Twelfth Amendment instead provides that the electors must vote for one person for president and one for vice president and one of those two people must be from a different state from the electors. Practically speaking, what that means is that if both candidates on one ticket were from the same state, that ticket would forfeit that state's electoral votes for vice president because presumably the party would instruct the electors to vote for the presidential candidate and then vote for someone else for VP (because the presidency is the higher priority) in order to avoid having the votes invalidated by Congress.

Practically speaking, this hasn't mattered because the parties are careful about it. But also practically speaking, it's not hard to think of situations where it wouldn't matter. Last year, for example, suppose Trump had chosen Ivanka as his running mate. It wouldn't have mattered much for electoral vote reasons since it was pretty clear New York wasn't going for him anyway. Similarly, suppose the president and VP did become legal DC residents. For electoral vote purposes, that would only matter if the two were Democrats because a lot of DC voters are automatons who vote strictly on party lines regardless of who the candidates are.

It's also not hard to think of situations where this rule would have been very important. If Bush and Cheney had both hailed from Texas, for example, they would have had to forfeit Texas's electoral votes for VP. That would have meant no VP candidate would have gotten a majority and the new Senate sworn in in January 2001 would have chosen the VP from the top two electoral vote recipients (Cheney and Lieberman, that year). The Senate was initially split 50—50. I don't know whether Gore, as incumbent VP, would have been allowed a tiebreaking vote to make Lieberman the VP with Bush as president.

You are correct.  If you remember, Cheney's Wyoming residency was highly questionable.  Like most DC lifers, he had a home in northern Virginia, and another in income tax-free Texas, where he got a property tax break for being "owner-occupied".  He moved his voter's registration back to Wyoming four days before the 2000 GOP convention.  A few people squwaked about it, but nothing came of it. 

Lots of congressmen for life eventually give up everything but a nominal connection to their home states.  Here in WV, Robert Byrd never owned a home, claiming to live at a PO Box his staff checked once a week, while (eventually disgraced) second generation congressman Alan Molohan, born and raised in northern Virginia, claimes to live at his elderly mother's home.  Same was true over in Kentucky for its second generation congressan (and eventual federal prisioner) Chris Perkins.

51...pfft.  Let's go for the Obama 57 state flag.  PR, DC, Guam, Northern Marianas, Samoa, Virgin Islands and then annex one random country...LOL!  Heinz USA so to speak.  Let everyone "state" their business!

Rick

Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2017, 02:15:17 PM

Quote from: formulanone on June 13, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
Edit: Forgot about Deseret, which essentially became Utah.

Actually, Deseret was to be a much larger area, taking in not only Utah's territory, but also a lot of Nevada, Arizona...even California.  This is because of the aggressive settlement program of the Mormons.

In actuality, the reduction of the state's size to just Utah was actually taken as a slight to the Mormons that had proposed Deseret.

Deseret included Utah, Nevada, southeast Oregon, Southern California, most of Arizona, western New Mexico, western Colorado, southwest Wyoming, and southeast Idaho. Who knows if the Mormons who proposed Deseret actually thought it was going to be accepted.

Anyway, the Utah Territory was created in 1850, including Utah, most of Nevada, western CO, and southwest WY. In 1862 the Colorado part was moved to the Colorado Territory, most of the Nevada part was split to create a new territory, and part of the Wyoming part was removed. More land was given to Nevada in 1862 and 1866. Then, the rest of the Wyoming part was transferred to Wyoming.

Generally, the states and territories around Utah grew while Utah shrank. The primary reason was that the Feds weren't too keen on the Mormon practice of polygamy, and wanted as little land as possible influenced by Mormonism.

Mathematicians can rearrange the stars on the US flag to fit just perfectly...imagine 51 or 52 states in like 2026 - the 250th anniversary of the USA. Puerto Rico? SI. District of Columbia? maybe. even Guam (or merged with the Northern Marianas)? or Jefferson north of the 40N latitude in California? Hold on, this makes 54. I would believe Eastern Oklahoma forms a state to represent the Indian Nations jurisdictional area (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee and Seminole) plus Osage county - 55 states then - 5 rows of 5 stars and 5 rows of 6 stars. what about Lakotah (Sioux Nations of the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska)? 56, unless the Navajo nation appears as a new state (covers the four corner states region of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico). "57 states" predicted by president Barack Obama unless he included American Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Palmyra Atoll in his definition of the "United States of America's extended family tree".   

Quote from: Desert Man on August 10, 2017, 12:00:51 AM"57 states" predicted by president Barack Obama unless he included American Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Palmyra Atoll in his definition of the "United States of America's extended family tree".   

He implied there were 60, not 57. Here is the actual quote:

Quote from: Wikiquote, on Barack ObamaOver the last fifteen months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty...seven states... I think one left to go. One left to go – Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to, even though I really wanted to visit – but my staff would not justify it.

57 + one left + Alaska + Hawaii = 60.

Quote from: Desert Man on August 10, 2017, 12:00:51 AM
Mathematicians can rearrange the stars on the US flag to fit just perfectly...imagine 51 or 52 states in like 2026 - the 250th anniversary of the USA. Puerto Rico? SI. District of Columbia? maybe. even Guam (or merged with the Northern Marianas)? or Jefferson north of the 40N latitude in California? Hold on, this makes 54. I would believe Eastern Oklahoma forms a state to represent the Indian Nations jurisdictional area (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee and Seminole) plus Osage county - 55 states then - 5 rows of 5 stars and 5 rows of 6 stars. what about Lakotah (Sioux Nations of the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska)? 56, unless the Navajo nation appears as a new state (covers the four corner states region of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico). "57 states" predicted by president Barack Obama unless he included American Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Palmyra Atoll in his definition of the "United States of America's extended family tree".   

Don't forget Superior.

I remember there was once an online app on Slate that generates U.S. flags up to 100 stars based on historical patterns - Short, Long, Alternate, Equal, Wyoming, and Oregon.  A 51 star flag worked either in the Alternate pattern, which alternated between rows of even and odd number of stars with the same amount of even and odd rows, or in the Wyoming pattern, which had had all rows with the same number of stars except the top and bottom which had an extra star each.

The current 50-star U.S. flag is a Long pattern, which has more long rows than short rows.

Thought I'd bump this thread instead of making a new one. Looks there will be a full House vote on DC statehood soon, though Mitch McConnell has already said that any statehood bill for DC and Puerto Rico is DOA as long as he controls the Senate...

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482656-house-panel-approves-bill-to-grant-dc-statehood (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482656-house-panel-approves-bill-to-grant-dc-statehood)

Quote from: LM117 on February 25, 2020, 02:24:14 PM
Thought I'd bump this thread instead of making a new one. Looks there will be a full House vote on DC statehood soon, though Mitch McConnell has already said that any statehood bill for DC and Puerto Rico is DOA as long as he controls the Senate...

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482656-house-panel-approves-bill-to-grant-dc-statehood (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482656-house-panel-approves-bill-to-grant-dc-statehood)

QuoteThey also pointed to the District's long history of political scandal, most recently with Jack Evans resigning from the city council last month on the eve of an expulsion vote over a string of ethics violations. Evans filed to run for his old seat just days later.

So it's just like every other state: it has scandals.

Quote from: formulanone on February 25, 2020, 02:56:00 PM
So it's just like every other state: it has scandals.

Right, but those other states have been grandfathered into scandals. DC has to be squeaky clean to get in.

Keep the same pattern, but add one more star in the blue field.  The majority of people wouldn't even notice the change.

DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

But you can change the constitution, no?

Quote from: roadman on February 25, 2020, 03:18:24 PMKeep the same pattern, but add one more star in the blue field.  The majority of people wouldn't even notice the change.

See the first reply of this thread that shows the Wiki design of a 51-state flag.

Chances are that particular design was conceived long ago, maybe even shortly after Hawaii became a state.  Should a 51st state ever become reality, be it PR, DC or even a split within an existing state; a proposed 52-star flag will likely be designed shortly thereafter.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2020, 04:15:40 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

But you can change the constitution, no?

Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 25, 2020, 04:19:44 PM

Quote from: roadman on February 25, 2020, 03:18:24 PMKeep the same pattern, but add one more star in the blue field.  The majority of people wouldn't even notice the change.

See the first reply of this thread that shows the Wiki design of a 51-state flag.

Chances are that particular design was conceived long ago, maybe even shortly after Hawaii became a state.  Should a 51st state ever become reality, be it PR, DC or even a split within an existing state; a proposed 52-star flag will likely be designed shortly thereafter.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2020, 04:15:40 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

But you can change the constitution, no?

Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future given today's political climate.

Instead, I'd propose giving most of DC back to Maryland, keeping only the southwestern part of the District where most of the federal buildings are - you could use something like K and 4th as the new DC eastern and northern boundaries. That would only require an act of Congress and approval from the Maryland legislature.

Quote from: US 89 on February 25, 2020, 04:47:52 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 25, 2020, 04:19:44 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2020, 04:15:40 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

But you can change the constitution, no?

Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future ever given today's political climate.

FTFY

Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause)

That clause reads:

Quote{The Congress shall have Power} To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings

I don't see how this precludes DC from being made a state. Sure, this clause gives congress legislative power over DC, but it's already been established by precedent that congress can delegate that power to a city government. Logically congress would also be able to delegate that power to a state government.

The way this clause makes things interesting is that in a scenario where DC is a state, congress would retain the power to override any laws the state passes in ways they cannot for other states, and potentially even to revoke DC's statehood.

Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2020, 05:00:39 PM

Quote from: US 89 on February 25, 2020, 04:47:52 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 25, 2020, 04:19:44 PM
Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future ever given today's political climate.

FTFY

That thing that's unlikely to happen ever has happened 27 times already.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 25, 2020, 07:02:41 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause)

That clause reads:

Quote{The Congress shall have Power} To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings

I don't see how this precludes DC from being made a state. Sure, this clause gives congress legislative power over DC, but it's already been established by precedent that congress can delegate that power to a city government. Logically congress would also be able to delegate that power to a state government.

The way this clause makes things interesting is that in a scenario where DC is a state, congress would retain the power to override any laws the state passes in ways they cannot for other states, and potentially even to revoke DC's statehood.

Complicating factor is the "equal footing doctrine", which at least presumptively gives new states all the rights of the old ones (I don't understand that doctrine, and don't feel like researching the issue in depth). That might nullify any special powers Congress might have over the District that it would not have over any other state. OTOH, if that argument doesn't work, then Virginia and Maryland might not be worried about D.C. taxing the incomes of Virginia and Maryland residents who work in D.C., as D.C. really wants to do, if Congress can thwart that ambition.

Congress could carve out a small area within D.C. to remain subject to Congressional control, and grant statehood to the rest, much like Congress ceded much of the original DIstrict back to Virginia in the 1840s. But unless the 23rd amendment were repealed, that would give any residents of the shrunken District -- including the homeless people who sleep on steam grates next to Federal buildings in downtown D.C. -- control over the three electoral votes now cast by D.C. 

Quote from: oscar on February 25, 2020, 08:13:59 PM
Congress could carve out a small area within D.C. to remain subject to Congressional control, and grant statehood to the rest, much like Congress ceded much of the original DIstrict back to Virginia in the 1840s. But unless the 23rd amendment were repealed, that would give any residents of the shrunken District -- including the homeless people who sleep on steam grates next to Federal buildings in downtown D.C. -- control over the three electoral votes now cast by D.C. 

My understanding is that the bill does just that; the new state would exclude all existing federal buildings and monuments.

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 25, 2020, 04:19:44 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2020, 04:15:40 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

But you can change the constitution, no?

Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Okay. But DC "can" become a state if the constitution is modified to be clearer on the matter (assuming the aforementioned clause does actually prevent statehood). SP Cook is 100% incorrect stating that DC cannot be granted statehood, when a constitutional amendment could easily grand DC that power.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 25, 2020, 07:02:41 PM

Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2020, 05:00:39 PM

Quote from: US 89 on February 25, 2020, 04:47:52 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 25, 2020, 04:19:44 PM
Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future ever given today's political climate.

FTFY

That thing that's unlikely to happen ever has happened 27 times already.

Thank you. People forget this all the time. It's called an "amendment" for a reason.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2020, 09:35:45 PM

Okay. But DC "can" become a state if the constitution is modified to be clearer on the matter (assuming the aforementioned clause does actually prevent statehood). SP Cook is 100% incorrect stating that DC cannot be granted statehood, when a constitutional amendment could easily grand DC that power.

As others have pointed out, nothing about amending the Constitution can be described as "easily" .  Yes, as a matter of theoretical political science, DC could be made a state IF 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4ths of the states approve, something that would require cross party, cross ideology, and cross regional support, which is, of course, a wise thing, which has led to It only being amending, really 17 times; the Bill of Rights as a more or less package; two quick amendments to fix mistakes; the three post Civil War amendments (done under questionable circumstances); four from the progressive era; two under the "new deal" ; one to fix the new deal's excesses; four arising out of the civil rights movement and Vietnam; and one to fix the excesses and greed of Congress re its own pay, from the Newt Gingrich era.  That is not a lot in over 230 years.  Nor should it be any easier.

On the same token, the Constitution COULD be amended to admit Israel, New York City, Greenland, or the moon as states; declare three-toed sloths to be citizens;  make banana peels legal tender; or make abortion mandatory.  None of things is going to happen either.

However, we were discussing a simple bill, not a Constitutional amendment, and said bill, leaving out the fact that is will not pass the Senate nor be singed by the President, would be declared void by the courts as a matter of simple textual reading.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 25, 2020, 07:02:41 PM

Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2020, 05:00:39 PM

Quote from: US 89 on February 25, 2020, 04:47:52 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 25, 2020, 04:19:44 PM
Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future ever given today's political climate.

FTFY

That thing that's unlikely to happen ever has happened 27 times already.

The first 10 Amendments (aka The Bill of Rights) were all ratified Dec. 15, 1791.  Amendments 11 through 27 were ratified over a much longer time period; from Feb. 7, 1795 through May 7, 1992.

The 27th Amendment was also proposed along with the original Bill of Rights. Congress didn't put a time limit on ratification and it eventually got enough states in 1992. The other remaining unratified amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights related to apportionment of representatives.

Don't bet on that!

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 26, 2020, 10:15:29 AMThe 27th Amendment was also proposed along with the original Bill of Rights. Congress didn't put a time limit on ratification and it eventually got enough states in 1992. The other remaining unratified amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights related to apportionment of representatives.

The above further proves the earlier point regarding Constitutional Amendments not being added too quickly nor at will.

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 26, 2020, 10:38:41 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 26, 2020, 10:15:29 AMThe 27th Amendment was also proposed along with the original Bill of Rights. Congress didn't put a time limit on ratification and it eventually got enough states in 1992. The other remaining unratified amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights related to apportionment of representatives.

The above further proves the earlier point regarding Constitutional Amendments not being added too quickly nor at will.

For a counter-example, the 26th Amendment (extending voting rights to 18-year-olds) not only was ratified easily but set a speed record (only 100 days between when it was sent to the states and when enough states ratified it).

D.C.'s record on amendments is a mixed bag. It took less than a year for ratification of the 23rd Amendment (giving D.C. three electoral votes in Presidential elections). But a later proposed amendment, which would have among other things given D.C. two Senators and one voting member of the House of Representatives, was not ratified by the time limit specified by Congress, so it failed.

Quote from: SP Cook on February 26, 2020, 09:20:16 AM
However, we were discussing a simple bill, not a Constitutional amendment, and said bill, leaving out the fact that is will not pass the Senate nor be singed by the President, would be declared void by the courts as a matter of simple textual reading.

As I mentioned, such bill does not grant statehood to all of DC; it truncates the federal district to the area around the current federal buildings/monuments and makes the rest of it a new state.  As such, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be constitutional, though I do wonder if it would need the permission of Maryland, as it's on land ceded from that state.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 25, 2020, 07:02:41 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause)

That clause reads:

Quote{The Congress shall have Power} To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings

I don't see how this precludes DC from being made a state. Sure, this clause gives congress legislative power over DC, but it's already been established by precedent that congress can delegate that power to a city government. Logically congress would also be able to delegate that power to a state government.

The way this clause makes things interesting is that in a scenario where DC is a state, congress would retain the power to override any laws the state passes in ways they cannot for other states, and potentially even to revoke DC's statehood.

Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2020, 05:00:39 PM

Quote from: US 89 on February 25, 2020, 04:47:52 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 25, 2020, 04:19:44 PM
Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future ever given today's political climate.

FTFY

That thing that's unlikely to happen ever has happened 27 times already.

But 10 of them happened at the same time only 4 years after the document was created.  And of the remaining 17, 1 actually repealed another.  And only 12 have been ratified since 1900 (including the 1 cancelling the other).   I can certainly think of 13 states that would oppose any amendment. 

Quote from: SP Cook on February 26, 2020, 09:20:16 AMthe three post Civil War amendments (done under questionable circumstances)

Hell, SCOTUS damn near ripped the 14th Amendment apart in United States v. Cruikshank (1876). It took over a century to overturn that dumpster fire.

Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2020, 05:09:48 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on February 26, 2020, 09:20:16 AMthe three post Civil War amendments (done under questionable circumstances)

Hell, SCOTUS damn near ripped the 14th Amendment apart in United States v. Cruikshank (1876). It took over a century to overturn that dumpster fire.

I can see where JK Rowling got that character name from!

Heck, I would not oppose returning the non-Federal parts of DC to Maryland.

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on February 26, 2020, 11:24:12 PM
Heck, I would not oppose returning the non-Federal parts of DC to Maryland.

Mike

Not that my "vote" on a roads forum matters, but this is my opinion as well.  Either leave it as-is, or have MD re-absorb it.  It doesn't need to be it's own state.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 26, 2020, 10:15:29 AM
The 27th Amendment was also proposed along with the original Bill of Rights. Congress didn't put a time limit on ratification and it eventually got enough states in 1992. The other remaining unratified amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights related to apportionment of representatives.

Yeah. The other of the original 12 amendments submitted to the states (which was never ratified) would require about 6000 representatives in the House. Now, the 435 number isn't a Constitutional requirement (it could be changed by Congress whenever it likes), but 6000 doesn't impress me as the way to run an effective representative government. It took 203 years to get around to ratifying the 27 amendment. The founders knew that people who could set their own salaries would eventually cause trouble. It just took us a while for the rest of us to catch up.

Quote from: wxfree on July 31, 2017, 04:40:43 PM

Quote from: 1 on July 31, 2017, 04:17:09 PM
What's wrong with giving Puerto Rico 5 representatives immediately?

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State..."

I think it would have to be that way, with whatever the appropriate number is.  The Constitution doesn't seem to allow non-proportional representation.

Puerto Rico would be breaking new ground because, it would, under current rules, deserve more than one Representative.

If we reapportioned to 435 to include Puerto Rico, California, Texas, Florida, and New York (and probably one other) would all need to lose a representative. California and Texas would probably get it back from one of the 14-19 Representative states, so we would actually be taking representatives from Ohio or Pennsylvania or the like. Adding Democrats to the population would undoubtedly add Democrats to the House, but it is far from clear how many as a net.

That said, if the Democrat party schisms, into say the "Socialist" party and the "Liberal" party as a result of the 2020 elections (which is a real possibility), the Republicans may not see any harm in adding a mostly Liberal state to the Union, since the Republican majority would doubtless persist for the "foreseeable" future. If the Democrats take a good drubbing but nonetheless reunite after the election, we could well be in a situation where statehood for Puerto Rico may never really be considered. Of course, the Democrats had full control back in 2010 and didn't push through ANY statehood proposals. No reason to think that, if they gain full control again in 2020 (or 2024) that anything different would happen.

In the past, states have been either admitted in loose "groups" to keep political balance or in groups that tended to follow the political agenda of the party in power. At the moment, there is no "balancing" state to Puerto Rico. Guam, the Marianas, and the Virgin Islands are all to small to balance (and besides are rather Democrat-leaning, if I am properly informed).

Isn't the current non-voting USHouse delegate ('Resident Commissioner') from Puerto Rico (Jenniffer Gonzalez) a Republican?

That said, yes, should they be granted full statehood, Puerto Rico would likely require the reapportionment of six USHouse seats.

Mike

Quote from: michravera on February 28, 2020, 12:10:49 AM
If we reapportioned to 435 to include Puerto Rico, California, Texas, Florida, and New York (and probably one other) would all need to lose a representative.

Just for the record, if Puerto Rico had been a state at the time of the 2010 reapportionment, then the states that would have lost a representative with respect to what they actually had are: FL, WA, TX, CA, and MN.

Quote from: kevinb1994 on February 26, 2020, 07:44:05 PM

Quote from: LM117 on February 26, 2020, 05:09:48 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on February 26, 2020, 09:20:16 AMthe three post Civil War amendments (done under questionable circumstances)

Hell, SCOTUS damn near ripped the 14th Amendment apart in United States v. Cruikshank (1876). It took over a century to overturn that dumpster fire.

I can see where JK Rowling got that character name from!

Probably George Cruikshank, the famous British illustrator and cartoonist from the 1800s.

The amendments to the constitution have passed because they did not greatly upset the balance of power between political viewpoints - except for the reconstruction amendments that passed before the states that seceded were readmitted.  Attempting to grant DC voting representation in the House or Senate would go nowhere.

Quote from: Mr_Northside on February 27, 2020, 03:36:38 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on February 26, 2020, 11:24:12 PM
Heck, I would not oppose returning the non-Federal parts of DC to Maryland.

Mike

Not that my "vote" on a roads forum matters, but this is my opinion as well.  Either leave it as-is, or have MD re-absorb it.  It doesn't need to be it's own state.

Agreed. Apparently there was a reason the District of Columbia was separated from being part of a state. I'm presuming it was intended to be the seat of government, not just another city. Either keep it as a non-state, or give it back to Maryland. Those who choose to live there do so willingly knowing it's not a state.

A non-binding statehood referendum will be held in Puerto Rico in November.

https://time.com/5837906/puerto-rico-referendum-us-statehood/ (https://time.com/5837906/puerto-rico-referendum-us-statehood/)

And on a somewhat related note, SCOTUS has unanimously upheld the oversight board that Congress created.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/01/supreme-court-rules-puerto-rico-financial-oversight-board-is-legal.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/01/supreme-court-rules-puerto-rico-financial-oversight-board-is-legal.html)

with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Quote from: texaskdog on June 02, 2020, 10:26:16 PM
with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 02, 2020, 10:39:24 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 02, 2020, 10:26:16 PM
with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

A simple majority is not enough. You'd have to have a 2/3 majority, which is not happening in the House or the Senate anytime soon, for either party.

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2020, 07:10:27 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 02, 2020, 10:39:24 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 02, 2020, 10:26:16 PM
with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

A simple majority is not enough. You'd have to have a 2/3 majority, which is not happening in the House or the Senate anytime soon, for either party.

It doesn't need that, just a 'gentlemans agreement', like with the Missouri Compromise of the mid 19th century - we'll just agree to admit one new 'free' state for every new 'slave' state in order to maintain that balance.
Yep, that only held of a decade or so.

Admitting a new state only requires the assent of a majority of each house of congress, no presidential signature needed (see: Article. IV., Section. 3., Constitution of the United States of America).

Mike

Several Republicans have supported statehood for PR in the past (even co-sponsored previous statehood bills). The biggest obstacle in Congress is McConnell as usual, who flat out said that statehood will never happen as long as he controls the Senate.

Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2020, 07:28:34 AM

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2020, 07:10:27 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 02, 2020, 10:39:24 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 02, 2020, 10:26:16 PM
with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

A simple majority is not enough. You'd have to have a 2/3 majority, which is not happening in the House or the Senate anytime soon, for either party.

...
Admitting a new state only requires the assent of a majority of each house of congress, no presidential signature needed (see: Article. IV., Section. 3., Constitution of the United States of America).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. So making DC a state could easily be done with a simple majority, and would not require a constitutional amendment?

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2020, 09:17:15 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2020, 07:28:34 AM

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2020, 07:10:27 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 02, 2020, 10:39:24 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 02, 2020, 10:26:16 PM
with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

A simple majority is not enough. You'd have to have a 2/3 majority, which is not happening in the House or the Senate anytime soon, for either party.

...
Admitting a new state only requires the assent of a majority of each house of congress, no presidential signature needed (see: Article. IV., Section. 3., Constitution of the United States of America).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. So making DC a state could easily be done with a simple majority, and would not require a constitutional amendment?

There is some question about that.  The Constitution says Congress has the right "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States..."

To some, that implies that a Constitutional amendment would be needed.  Especially since Maryland's cession was to create the national capital and that you can't create additional states from another state without a state's permission.

So would be it be a simple Congressional act?  A Congressional act with Maryland's approval?  Or a Constitutional amendment?

I think the courts would have to sort it out.

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2020, 09:17:15 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2020, 07:28:34 AM

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2020, 07:10:27 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 02, 2020, 10:39:24 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 02, 2020, 10:26:16 PM
with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

A simple majority is not enough. You'd have to have a 2/3 majority, which is not happening in the House or the Senate anytime soon, for either party.

...
Admitting a new state only requires the assent of a majority of each house of congress, no presidential signature needed (see: Article. IV., Section. 3., Constitution of the United States of America).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. So making DC a state could easily be done with a simple majority, and would not require a constitutional amendment?

Not DC, but I don't see why Puerto Rico can't happen. If they want it, it seems like a golden opportunity for the dems if they ever get the majority back.

There are two possible ways I know of to balance PR or DC statehood:

* Split Illinois into Chicagoland and Downstate, where downstate leans Republican
* Split New York into NYC area and Upstate, where upstate leans Republican

In both cases, the Electoral College will go toward Republicans (DC keeps its electoral votes, PR gets 6; upstate NY gets 11, and downstate IL gets 8), while the Senate will go toward Democrats (if the new IL/NY rural state was safe R, the states would cancel out, but since they only lean, there's a decent chance of more Democratic senators).

Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2020, 12:01:45 PM
There are two possible ways I know of to balance PR or DC statehood:

* Split Illinois into Chicagoland and Downstate, where downstate leans Republican
* Split New York into NYC area and Upstate, where upstate leans Republican

In both cases, the Electoral College will go toward Republicans (DC keeps its electoral votes, PR gets 6; upstate NY gets 11, and downstate IL gets 8), while the Senate will go toward Democrats (if the new IL/NY rural state was safe R, the states would cancel out, but since they only lean, there's a decent chance of more Democratic senators).

Also, a way to balance out DC statehood would be to give Northern Virginia to DC, causing rest of Virginia to lean red.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 12:11:47 PM

Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2020, 12:01:45 PM
There are two possible ways I know of to balance PR or DC statehood:

* Split Illinois into Chicagoland and Downstate, where downstate leans Republican
* Split New York into NYC area and Upstate, where upstate leans Republican

In both cases, the Electoral College will go toward Republicans (DC keeps its electoral votes, PR gets 6; upstate NY gets 11, and downstate IL gets 8), while the Senate will go toward Democrats (if the new IL/NY rural state was safe R, the states would cancel out, but since they only lean, there's a decent chance of more Democratic senators).

Also, a way to balance out DC statehood would be to give Northern Virginia to DC, causing rest of Virginia to lean red.

DC cannot be a state after Puerto Rico Guam would be the most likely candidate for a new state.

Guam, with a population of under 200K, is never going to be its own state.  More likely, though still pretty unlikely, would be annexation into Hawaii.

Even DC with a population of 700K is unlikely to become its own state despite being bigger than Wyoming. A more likely solution is to return the portion of DC that has little or no Federal property back to Maryland.

DC couldn't really be a state, as that would leave DC with a lot of control over federal government operations.  Possibly DC might be allowed to elect representatives and one or two senators, but a constitutional amendment would be required which would have a lot of trouble getting passed.  I don't think Congress would ever give away the power to override the DC government if they wished to.

Puerto Rico would only be an option if a right-leaning state were admitted at the same time, and there don't seem to be any obvious candidates.  Guam is awfully small for a state by modern standards.  (A population of 60,000 was the minimum written into the Northwest Ordinance but I don't see anyone today arguing that 167,000 people in Guam should be entitled to two senators).

Quote from: kkt on June 03, 2020, 03:58:25 PM
DC couldn't really be a state, as that would leave DC with a lot of control over federal government operations.  Possibly DC might be allowed to elect representatives and one or two senators, but a constitutional amendment would be required which would have a lot of trouble getting passed.  I don't think Congress would ever give away the power to override the DC government if they wished to.

Puerto Rico would only be an option if a right-leaning state were admitted at the same time, and there don't seem to be any obvious candidates.  Guam is awfully small for a state by modern standards.  (A population of 60,000 was the minimum written into the Northwest Ordinance but I don't see anyone today arguing that 167,000 people in Guam should be entitled to two senators).

Why would there need to be a balance if the dems control both chambers of congress?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 03:59:32 PM

Quote from: kkt on June 03, 2020, 03:58:25 PM
DC couldn't really be a state, as that would leave DC with a lot of control over federal government operations.  Possibly DC might be allowed to elect representatives and one or two senators, but a constitutional amendment would be required which would have a lot of trouble getting passed.  I don't think Congress would ever give away the power to override the DC government if they wished to.

Puerto Rico would only be an option if a right-leaning state were admitted at the same time, and there don't seem to be any obvious candidates.  Guam is awfully small for a state by modern standards.  (A population of 60,000 was the minimum written into the Northwest Ordinance but I don't see anyone today arguing that 167,000 people in Guam should be entitled to two senators).

Why would there need to be a balance if the dems control both chambers of congress?

It takes 60 out of 100 senators to invoke cloture (end debate so they can vote) on most questions.

Quote from: kkt on June 03, 2020, 04:08:03 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 03:59:32 PM

Quote from: kkt on June 03, 2020, 03:58:25 PM
DC couldn't really be a state, as that would leave DC with a lot of control over federal government operations.  Possibly DC might be allowed to elect representatives and one or two senators, but a constitutional amendment would be required which would have a lot of trouble getting passed.  I don't think Congress would ever give away the power to override the DC government if they wished to.

Puerto Rico would only be an option if a right-leaning state were admitted at the same time, and there don't seem to be any obvious candidates.  Guam is awfully small for a state by modern standards.  (A population of 60,000 was the minimum written into the Northwest Ordinance but I don't see anyone today arguing that 167,000 people in Guam should be entitled to two senators).

Why would there need to be a balance if the dems control both chambers of congress?

It takes 60 out of 100 senators to invoke cloture (end debate so they can vote) on most questions.

Fuck American politics

Quote from: kkt on June 03, 2020, 04:08:03 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 03:59:32 PM

Quote from: kkt on June 03, 2020, 03:58:25 PM
DC couldn't really be a state, as that would leave DC with a lot of control over federal government operations.  Possibly DC might be allowed to elect representatives and one or two senators, but a constitutional amendment would be required which would have a lot of trouble getting passed.  I don't think Congress would ever give away the power to override the DC government if they wished to.

Puerto Rico would only be an option if a right-leaning state were admitted at the same time, and there don't seem to be any obvious candidates.  Guam is awfully small for a state by modern standards.  (A population of 60,000 was the minimum written into the Northwest Ordinance but I don't see anyone today arguing that 167,000 people in Guam should be entitled to two senators).

Why would there need to be a balance if the dems control both chambers of congress?

It takes 60 out of 100 senators to invoke cloture (end debate so they can vote) on most questions.

This, however, is simply due to the rules of the Senate, not the Constitution. Changing this rule to get a bill passed is often referred to as the "nuclear option" and has been threatened several times before, but has not yet been done for regular bills. It's a fascinating procedure that basically boils down to this:

A senator: I'd like to lodge a complaint that the guy in charge isn't letting this bill pass with 50 votes.
The guy in charge: That's cause the rule book says you need 60 votes.
A senator: I call for a vote that says the guy in charge can't read the rule book right.
More than 50 senators: Yeah, that guy can't read.
The guy in charge: I guess it's been decided I can't read. Everyone has to pretend the book says 50 instead of 60 now, or else they'll be accused of not being able to read, too.

The Democrats first did this in 2013 to allow Obama's second-term Cabinet and judicial nominees to be confirmed, as the Republicans were voting all of them down. In 2017, the Republicans could not get to 60 votes in favor of Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination, so they did the same thing.

So essentially, the only thing that needs to happen to get the votes needed set to 50 for anything would be a bill that the majority party desperately wants passed and the minority party doesn't, with 50 to 59 votes on the majority side. Both parties have been reluctant to do this, though, because once it's done, it makes things essentially the same as they are in the House, where the minority party has zero say in anything and has no tools to check the majority party. Both parties know they'll never hold the majority forever.

But, on the other hand, obstructionism has become such a part and parcel of Senate procedure that the only way any major legislation gets done is through stupid procedural tricks (like reconciliation) to get around the 60-vote threshold anyway. So it's possible that the 60-vote threshold's days are numbered.

Requiring more than 51% agreement on anything, in my opinion, is a good thing.  It makes for a greater likelihood that the minority won't be trampled on by the majority, and also that actual compromise will be accomplished.

Another option for DC to grant them some representation in Congress beyond the current non-voting delegate.  For instance, give them an actual voting member in Congress and simultaneously increase the House to 437 members.  I know this was debated at least in committee about a decade ago because the state that would have benefitted from another extra member would have been Utah, which would have liklely been a Republican district.

I believe they could do this with a simple bill and not a constitutional amendment.

If you wanted to get really weird, you could do an amendment that not only gives them a member of Congress, but also gives them one Senator.  But not not official statehood.

Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 05:12:36 PM
Requiring more than 51% agreement on anything, in my opinion, is a good thing.  It makes for a greater likelihood that the minority won't be trampled on by the majority, and also that actual compromise will be accomplished.

The problem is that there is no longer any incentive to compromise now that earmarks have been stamped out by public demand. Previously, you could get minority support for a bill by saying something to a Kansas senator like "If you vote for my bill I'll put some money in it to upgrade US-400 to an Interstate." This led to a lot of money being spent, some of it on stupid stuff, but bills got passed with bipartisan support more often.

Now, with that incentive gone, there's no real benefit to voting across party lines. If you do it too much, you get primaried for being a "[party] in name only". (Before, you could sidestep this criticism by saying "Yes, but I helped Kansas by getting US-400 upgraded to Interstate.") So the minority party tends to vote as a bloc and shut down anything the majority wants to do.

And that's probably as far as I'll go with that, lest we start talking about actual politicians and parties.

Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2020, 12:01:45 PM
There are two possible ways I know of to balance PR or DC statehood:

Depends on what you mean by "balance". I know in this context you mean balance between the 2 parties, but another interpretation is balance so that we still only have 50 states. The obvious solution for keeping 50 states would be to merge the Dakotas, but of course that's never happening, as it would be an automatic flip of 2 senators from Republican to Democrat.

Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2020, 12:01:45 PM
* Split Illinois into Chicagoland and Downstate, where downstate leans Republican
* Split New York into NYC area and Upstate, where upstate leans Republican

In both cases, the Electoral College will go toward Republicans (DC keeps its electoral votes, PR gets 6; upstate NY gets 11, and downstate IL gets 8), while the Senate will go toward Democrats (if the new IL/NY rural state was safe R, the states would cancel out, but since they only lean, there's a decent chance of more Democratic senators).

In the case of Puerto Rico, where do the EV's come from? Would there be 544 instead of 538?

I have stated before, and will maintain, that Upstate NY would be the swing state if it was its own state, supplanting Ohio as the national bellwether. Upstate voted much more heavily for the Democratic senators than they did for president in both 2016 and 2018, so it is likely that it would have at least one and possibly two Democratic senators if it was its own state.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 03, 2020, 05:19:36 PM
If you wanted to get really weird, you could do an amendment that not only gives them a member of Congress, but also gives them one Senator.  But not not official statehood.

A similar amendment (two Senators instead of one) was proposed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Not nearly enough states ratified it before the proposal expired in 1985.

Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2020, 11:35:57 PM
Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

The issue is that Puerto Rico is just so sizable.  If it were a state, it would rank between Connecticut and Utah population wise.

The Pacific Territories (Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands), even if you combined all of them, would have a population less than half of Wyoming.  (The other issue is that culturally, Samoa as a Polynesian nation is different that Guam and the Mariana Islands as Micronesian nations.)

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

But there is no harm in simply keeping them as territories.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 09:02:20 AM
....

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

....

Something tells me the people of the Virgin Islands would be extremely displeased with that arrangement given Puerto Rico's unique (for the USA) situation as 94% Spanish-speaking with a government that legally operates in Spanish (except for federal institutions there, such as the federal district court in San Juan), whereas in the Virgin Islands less than 20% of the population speaks Spanish. Hard to imagine a combined state going for a Canadian-style arrangement with everything in two languages.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2020, 11:35:57 PM
Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

The issue is that Puerto Rico is just so sizable.  If it were a state, it would rank between Connecticut and Utah population wise.

The Pacific Territories (Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands), even if you combined all of them, would have a population less than half of Wyoming.  (The other issue is that culturally, Samoa as a Polynesian nation is different that Guam and the Mariana Islands as Micronesian nations.)

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

But there is no harm in simply keeping them as territories.

Fold them into Hawaii, distances will suck but what can you do. Or keep them as territories and give them limited reps in congress, like one senator, one house rep, and one electoral vote.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 04, 2020, 10:15:41 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2020, 11:35:57 PM
Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

The issue is that Puerto Rico is just so sizable.  If it were a state, it would rank between Connecticut and Utah population wise.

The Pacific Territories (Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands), even if you combined all of them, would have a population less than half of Wyoming.  (The other issue is that culturally, Samoa as a Polynesian nation is different that Guam and the Mariana Islands as Micronesian nations.)

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

But there is no harm in simply keeping them as territories.

Fold them into Hawaii, distances will suck but what can you do. Or keep them as territories and give them limited reps in congress, like one senator, one house rep, and one electoral vote.

Need a new birth certificate?  Fly to Honolulu!

Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2020, 11:35:57 PM
Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

Residents of American Samoa aren't even US Citizens - they are Nationals instead.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 04, 2020, 10:15:41 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2020, 11:35:57 PM
Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

The issue is that Puerto Rico is just so sizable.  If it were a state, it would rank between Connecticut and Utah population wise.

The Pacific Territories (Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands), even if you combined all of them, would have a population less than half of Wyoming.  (The other issue is that culturally, Samoa as a Polynesian nation is different that Guam and the Mariana Islands as Micronesian nations.)

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

But there is no harm in simply keeping them as territories.

Fold them into Hawaii, distances will suck but what can you do. Or keep them as territories and give them limited reps in congress, like one senator, one house rep, and one electoral vote.

I really don't even know if giving them reps in Congress is necessary.  In Puerto Rico's case, you are taking about 3 million people.  The pacific islands, 200,000.

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 04, 2020, 09:46:14 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 09:02:20 AM
....

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

....

Something tells me the people of the Virgin Islands would be extremely displeased with that arrangement given Puerto Rico's unique (for the USA) situation as 94% Spanish-speaking with a government that legally operates in Spanish (except for federal institutions there, such as the federal district court in San Juan), whereas in the Virgin Islands less than 20% of the population speaks Spanish. Hard to imagine a combined state going for a Canadian-style arrangement with everything in two languages.

Yeah you are probably right.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 11:27:50 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 04, 2020, 10:15:41 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2020, 11:35:57 PM
Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

The issue is that Puerto Rico is just so sizable.  If it were a state, it would rank between Connecticut and Utah population wise.

The Pacific Territories (Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands), even if you combined all of them, would have a population less than half of Wyoming.  (The other issue is that culturally, Samoa as a Polynesian nation is different that Guam and the Mariana Islands as Micronesian nations.)

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

But there is no harm in simply keeping them as territories.

Fold them into Hawaii, distances will suck but what can you do. Or keep them as territories and give them limited reps in congress, like one senator, one house rep, and one electoral vote.

I really don't even know if giving them reps in Congress is necessary.  In Puerto Rico's case, you are taking about 3 million people.  The pacific islands, 200,000.

Maybe no reps, but one combined electoral vote. Wyoming has 3, and the pacific territories combined are about half the size of Wyoming.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 03, 2020, 05:19:36 PM
Another option for DC to grant them some representation in Congress beyond the current non-voting delegate.  For instance, give them an actual voting member in Congress and simultaneously increase the House to 437 members.  I know this was debated at least in committee about a decade ago because the state that would have benefitted from another extra member would have been Utah, which would have liklely been a Republican district.

I believe they could do this with a simple bill and not a constitutional amendment.

If you wanted to get really weird, you could do an amendment that not only gives them a member of Congress, but also gives them one Senator.  But not not official statehood.

Unconstitutional. 

Article I.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...

ONLY STATES can have votes in either the House or the Senate.  Non-states cannot. 

Quote from: SP Cook on June 04, 2020, 01:06:21 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 03, 2020, 05:19:36 PM
Another option for DC to grant them some representation in Congress beyond the current non-voting delegate.  For instance, give them an actual voting member in Congress and simultaneously increase the House to 437 members.  I know this was debated at least in committee about a decade ago because the state that would have benefitted from another extra member would have been Utah, which would have liklely been a Republican district.

I believe they could do this with a simple bill and not a constitutional amendment.

If you wanted to get really weird, you could do an amendment that not only gives them a member of Congress, but also gives them one Senator.  But not not official statehood.

Unconstitutional. 

Article I.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...

ONLY STATES can have votes in either the House or the Senate.  Non-states cannot. 

It's not unconstitutional if it is done via Constitutional amendment....which is why I noted it might be necessary in the first case.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 01:28:35 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on June 04, 2020, 01:06:21 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 03, 2020, 05:19:36 PM
Another option for DC to grant them some representation in Congress beyond the current non-voting delegate.  For instance, give them an actual voting member in Congress and simultaneously increase the House to 437 members.  I know this was debated at least in committee about a decade ago because the state that would have benefitted from another extra member would have been Utah, which would have liklely been a Republican district.

I believe they could do this with a simple bill and not a constitutional amendment.

If you wanted to get really weird, you could do an amendment that not only gives them a member of Congress, but also gives them one Senator.  But not not official statehood.

Unconstitutional. 

Article I.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...

ONLY STATES can have votes in either the House or the Senate.  Non-states cannot. 

It's not unconstitutional if it is done via Constitutional amendment....which is why I noted it might be necessary in the first case.

I'm not sure that can be done for the Senate even by constitutional amendment, unless all fifty States agreed to it.  Article V of the Constitution–with the words "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"–shields Article I Section 3 from amendment.  Any change to the number of Senators that still retains equality of representation between the States could be adopted as an Amendment if ratified by three-fourths of the States.  However, admitting non-State representation into the Senate would change the equality of suffrage for all the existing fifty member States and would therefore require unanimous ratification.  For example, if DC were represented by a Senator, then each State's representation in the Senate would decrease from ²/₁₀₀ to ²/₁₀₁.

However, there is some debate about it.  Specifically, States' "equal suffrage in the Senate" could be interpreted to mean not that each State's representation equal ¹/_x assuming x number of constituent entities, but rather only that each State have the same representation as each of the other constituent States.  Thus, if DC were granted a Senator, it could be said that each State's suffrage would remain equal because all fifty would have the same  ²/₁₀₁ representation, and therefore Article V would not have been violated.

It's a tricky question.

Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2020, 02:12:17 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 01:28:35 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on June 04, 2020, 01:06:21 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 03, 2020, 05:19:36 PM
Another option for DC to grant them some representation in Congress beyond the current non-voting delegate.  For instance, give them an actual voting member in Congress and simultaneously increase the House to 437 members.  I know this was debated at least in committee about a decade ago because the state that would have benefitted from another extra member would have been Utah, which would have liklely been a Republican district.

I believe they could do this with a simple bill and not a constitutional amendment.

If you wanted to get really weird, you could do an amendment that not only gives them a member of Congress, but also gives them one Senator.  But not not official statehood.

Unconstitutional. 

Article I.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...

ONLY STATES can have votes in either the House or the Senate.  Non-states cannot. 

It's not unconstitutional if it is done via Constitutional amendment....which is why I noted it might be necessary in the first case.

I'm not sure that can be done for the Senate even by constitutional amendment, unless all fifty States agreed to it.  Article V of the Constitution–with the words "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"–shields Article I Section 3 from amendment.  Any change to the number of Senators that still retains equality of representation between the States could be adopted as an Amendment if ratified by three-fourths of the States.  However, admitting non-State representation into the Senate would change the equality of suffrage for all the existing fifty member States and would therefore require unanimous ratification.  For example, if DC were represented by a Senator, then each State's representation in the Senate would decrease from ²/₁₀₀ to ²/₁₀₁.

However, there is some debate about it.  Specifically, States' "equal suffrage in the Senate" could be interpreted to mean not that each State's representation equal ¹/_x assuming x number of constituent entities, but rather only that each State have the same representation as each of the other constituent States.  Thus, if DC were granted a Senator, it could be said that each State's suffrage would remain equal because all fifty would have the same  ²/₁₀₁ representation, and therefore Article V would not have been violated.

It's a tricky question.

No part of the Constitution is shielded from the amendment process.  Article V can be amended just as well, and any proposed amendment could take care of the issues you raise above.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
No part of the Constitution is shielded from the amendment process.  Article V can be amended just as well, and any proposed amendment could take care of the issues you raise above.

To claim that the part of the Constitution outlining its process of amendment can itself be amended is not necessarily true.

I suggest reading this commentary on Article V (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/5/essays/131/prohibition-on-amendment-equal-suffrage-in-the-senate), a portion of which I quote below:

Quote
The second unamendable provision shows how seriously the smaller states were committed to protecting the "original federal design."  Its sponsor was Roger Sherman of Connecticut, architect of what is often called the Connecticut Compromise or "the Great Compromise,"  whereby states were to be represented proportionally in the House and equally in the Senate. Two days before the convention ended, on September 15, Sherman "expressed his fears that three fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate."  He therefore proposed language barring amending the Constitution to deprive states of their equal suffrage. When his motion failed, Sherman indicated how profoundly concerned he was by proposing the elimination of Article V altogether. This motion also failed, but it prompted Gouverneur Morris to propose the language ultimately adopted by the Constitutional Convention. As James Madison wrote in his notes, "This motion being dictated by the circulating murmurs of the small States was agreed to without debate, no one opposing it, or on the question saying no."

Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2020, 02:51:59 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
No part of the Constitution is shielded from the amendment process.  Article V can be amended just as well, and any proposed amendment could take care of the issues you raise above.

To claim that the part of the Constitution outlining its process of amendment can itself be amended is not necessarily true.

I suggest reading this commentary on Article V (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/5/essays/131/prohibition-on-amendment-equal-suffrage-in-the-senate), a portion of which I quote below:

Quote
The second unamendable provision shows how seriously the smaller states were committed to protecting the “original federal design.” Its sponsor was Roger Sherman of Connecticut, architect of what is often called the Connecticut Compromise or “the Great Compromise,” whereby states were to be represented proportionally in the House and equally in the Senate. Two days before the convention ended, on September 15, Sherman “expressed his fears that three fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate.” He therefore proposed language barring amending the Constitution to deprive states of their equal suffrage. When his motion failed, Sherman indicated how profoundly concerned he was by proposing the elimination of Article V altogether. This motion also failed, but it prompted Gouverneur Morris to propose the language ultimately adopted by the Constitutional Convention. As James Madison wrote in his notes, “This motion being dictated by the circulating murmurs of the small States was agreed to without debate, no one opposing it, or on the question saying no.”

I know I'm going to regret getting into this, but this article doesn't seem to give a legal reason as to why the entrenchment clause can't be amended. Rather, it states that doing so would change the nature of the union, but there have been a number of amendments that have done so, in particular the Fourteenth. Moreover, so far as I can tell, the citation from Texas v. White only asserts that the federal government can step in to avert the destruction of the indestructible union of the states, which is no surprise given that Texas v. White is the legal manifestation of, shall we say, Grant v. Lee, which has nothing to with the composition of the Senate.

A better argument, I think, would center on how any entrenchment clause is more or less meaningless if it can be amended, since that goes against the nature of what an entrenchment clause is.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 04, 2020, 03:19:57 PM

Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2020, 02:51:59 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
No part of the Constitution is shielded from the amendment process.  Article V can be amended just as well, and any proposed amendment could take care of the issues you raise above.

To claim that the part of the Constitution outlining its process of amendment can itself be amended is not necessarily true.

I suggest reading this commentary on Article V (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/5/essays/131/prohibition-on-amendment-equal-suffrage-in-the-senate), a portion of which I quote below:

Quote
The second unamendable provision shows how seriously the smaller states were committed to protecting the "original federal design."  Its sponsor was Roger Sherman of Connecticut, architect of what is often called the Connecticut Compromise or "the Great Compromise,"  whereby states were to be represented proportionally in the House and equally in the Senate. Two days before the convention ended, on September 15, Sherman "expressed his fears that three fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate."  He therefore proposed language barring amending the Constitution to deprive states of their equal suffrage. When his motion failed, Sherman indicated how profoundly concerned he was by proposing the elimination of Article V altogether. This motion also failed, but it prompted Gouverneur Morris to propose the language ultimately adopted by the Constitutional Convention. As James Madison wrote in his notes, "This motion being dictated by the circulating murmurs of the small States was agreed to without debate, no one opposing it, or on the question saying no."

I know I'm going to regret getting into this, but this article doesn't seem to give a legal reason as to why the entrenchment clause can't be amended. Rather, it states that doing so would change the nature of the union, but there have been a number of amendments that have done so, in particular the Fourteenth. Moreover, so far as I can tell, the citation from Texas v. White only asserts that the federal government can step in to avert the destruction of the indestructible union of the states, which is no surprise given that Texas v. White is the legal manifestation of, shall we say, Grant v. Lee, which has nothing to with the composition of the Senate.

A better argument, I think, would center on how any entrenchment clause is more or less meaningless if it can be amended, since that goes against the nature of what an entrenchment clause is.

Exactly.  If the founders didn't want Article V to be amended, they could have shielded it from Amendment.  But they didn't. 

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1923&context=lsfp

"Political actors could use Article V first to amend the Equal Suffrage Clause either
by repealing it or modifying it, and then second to diminish a state's equal suffrage without its
consent.72 This double amendment procedure is admittedly a "sly scheme,"  writes Akhil Amar
but it would nonetheless "have satisfied the literal text of Article V and would also have
comported with the Constitution's general principle of ongoing popular sovereignty."

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 03:53:41 PM
Exactly.  If the founders didn't want Article V to be amended, they could have shielded it from Amendment.  But they didn't. 

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1923&context=lsfp

"Political actors could use Article V first to amend the Equal Suffrage Clause either
by repealing it or modifying it, and then second to diminish a state's equal suffrage without its
consent.72 This double amendment procedure is admittedly a "sly scheme,"  writes Akhil Amar
but it would nonetheless "have satisfied the literal text of Article V and would also have
comported with the Constitution's general principle of ongoing popular sovereignty."

Of course, the article you cited claims immediately prior to the quoted portion that such is a "design flaw" and goes against the "intention" of the framers.

Quote
This design law [sic] creates the possibility of amending the entrenching clause in order to circumvent the intended entrenchment.

Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2020, 04:07:35 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 03:53:41 PM
Exactly.  If the founders didn't want Article V to be amended, they could have shielded it from Amendment.  But they didn't. 

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1923&context=lsfp

"Political actors could use Article V first to amend the Equal Suffrage Clause either
by repealing it or modifying it, and then second to diminish a state's equal suffrage without its
consent.72 This double amendment procedure is admittedly a "sly scheme,"  writes Akhil Amar
but it would nonetheless "have satisfied the literal text of Article V and would also have
comported with the Constitution's general principle of ongoing popular sovereignty."

Of course, the article you cited claims immediately prior to the quoted portion that such is a "design flaw" and goes against the "intention" of the framers.

Quote
This design law [sic] creates the possibility of amending the entrenching clause in order to circumvent the intended entrenchment.

Well, he calls it a "design flaw."  But he really offers no attribution that their intent was to make Article V unamendable. 

But see the reference I posted earlier to the Connecticut Compromise.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 04:25:30 PM

Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2020, 04:07:35 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 04, 2020, 03:53:41 PM
Exactly.  If the founders didn't want Article V to be amended, they could have shielded it from Amendment.  But they didn't. 

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1923&context=lsfp

"Political actors could use Article V first to amend the Equal Suffrage Clause either
by repealing it or modifying it, and then second to diminish a state's equal suffrage without its
consent.72 This double amendment procedure is admittedly a "sly scheme,"  writes Akhil Amar
but it would nonetheless "have satisfied the literal text of Article V and would also have
comported with the Constitution's general principle of ongoing popular sovereignty."

Of course, the article you cited claims immediately prior to the quoted portion that such is a "design flaw" and goes against the "intention" of the framers.

Quote
This design law [sic] creates the possibility of amending the entrenching clause in order to circumvent the intended entrenchment.

Well, he calls it a "design flaw."  But he really offers no attribution that their intent was to make Article V unamendable.

There is precedent (the original "Territories Northwest of the river Ohio" Act) for permitting territories to send representatives to congress without admitting them as a state or permitting senators. As I recall, most of the territories thus created were admitted as states within a relatively short period of time, so the issue of the Electoral vote either never came up or did so only briefly.

We could certainly, probably just by statute (majority of both houses and presidential assent), change the territorial terms of any of the territories to give them actual votes in the House. I believe that, technically, any such proposal would require approval of the relevant territorial legislature and governor or a referendum to to the people of the territory, but no one really thinks that they would say "no" to congressional representation. The question would be along the lines of "how fast can we assemble the legislature to get it approved and on the governor's desk and do you think that we should drag the governor out of bed to sign it or should we let him sleep until 6AM or call an 11AM new conference? and, after that, how fast can we notify the Secretary of State that we have approved it?!"

Quote from: michravera on June 04, 2020, 06:54:38 PM
There is precedent (the original "Territories Northwest of the river Ohio" Act) for permitting territories to send representatives to congress without admitting them as a state or permitting senators. As I recall, most of the territories thus created were admitted as states within a relatively short period of time, so the issue of the Electoral vote either never came up or did so only briefly.

AIUI, the Northwest Ordinance made provisions for territorial non-voting representatives in the House once the population of a territory met a threshold, followed by a request for statehood if a higher threshold is met, which if (and only if) it was granted would then give the new state full representation in the House and the Senate.

The earlier stage of the process is pretty much where D.C. is now. D.C.'s delegate to the House has substantial voting powers, including in committee, but stopping short of letting her cast a deciding vote on the passage of legislation (she can cast a vote on legislation in the "Committee of the Whole", but then the House re-votes on final passage without her or other delegates, so her vote never really counts). Her voting rights are tweaked up or down depending on which party controls the House, but even when Republicans control the House she still has some clout. D.C. also elects two "shadow Senators". They are a total joke, with no formal role in how the Senate operates, and about zero power or influence no matter what party controls the Senate.

Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 05:12:36 PM
Requiring more than 51% agreement on anything, in my opinion, is a good thing.  It makes for a greater likelihood that the minority won't be trampled on by the majority, and also that actual compromise will be accomplished.

I agree, especially for confirming judicial appointees.  For legislation, and cabinet and executive branch appointees, I might be more inclined to let it go as the next president can get rid of them or the next congress can repeal them.  But Federal judicial appointees are for life, and as a separate branch of government they should have judges who are near the center of American political thought, not the extremes.

Actually I wish the nuclear option had never been invoked.  While it may look attractive for the majority party, it's clearly not in the spirit of the Senate rules as they were intended to work.  And any dirty trick the majority party pulls on the minority party will be done back to them and harder when the majority flips.

Or the Senate could go back to the old rule, that a filibuster needs one senator to actually keep talking if they wanted to keep a vote from being called.  It sounds extreme because it allows just one senator to block all business, however actual filibusters were rarely more than a day before the need for food, sleep, or a bathroom break became irresistable.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 11:54:40 AM

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2020, 09:17:15 AM

Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2020, 07:28:34 AM

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2020, 07:10:27 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 02, 2020, 10:39:24 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 02, 2020, 10:26:16 PM
with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

A simple majority is not enough. You'd have to have a 2/3 majority, which is not happening in the House or the Senate anytime soon, for either party.

...
Admitting a new state only requires the assent of a majority of each house of congress, no presidential signature needed (see: Article. IV., Section. 3., Constitution of the United States of America).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. So making DC a state could easily be done with a simple majority, and would not require a constitutional amendment?

Not DC, but I don't see why Puerto Rico can't happen. If they want it, it seems like a golden opportunity for the dems if they ever get the majority back.

Meaningful legislation hasn't advanced under either party's control. This owes largely to the PR government's awful fiscal condition; it is an Illinois-style quasi-bankruptcy with enormous out-migration. In fact, population loss rate is highest in the nation, 5x more than second-place West Virginia.

Quote from: STLmapboy on June 04, 2020, 10:35:07 PM
In fact, population loss rate is highest in the nation, 5x more than second-place West Virginia.

That was because of the hurricane.

Quote from: kkt on June 04, 2020, 10:22:19 PM

Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 05:12:36 PM
Requiring more than 51% agreement on anything, in my opinion, is a good thing.  It makes for a greater likelihood that the minority won't be trampled on by the majority, and also that actual compromise will be accomplished.

I agree, especially for confirming judicial appointees.  For legislation, and cabinet and executive branch appointees, I might be more inclined to let it go as the next president can get rid of them or the next congress can repeal them.  But Federal judicial appointees are for life, and as a separate branch of government they should have judges who are near the center of American political thought, not the extremes.

Actually I wish the nuclear option had never been invoked.  While it may look attractive for the majority party, it's clearly not in the spirit of the Senate rules as they were intended to work.  And any dirty trick the majority party pulls on the minority party will be done back to them and harder when the majority flips.

Or the Senate could go back to the old rule, that a filibuster needs one senator to actually keep talking if they wanted to keep a vote from being called.  It sounds extreme because it allows just one senator to block all business, however actual filibusters were rarely more than a day before the need for food, sleep, or a bathroom break became irresistable.

Our political system is so radical that moderate judges might never be confirmed because both parties hate each other.

As to the out-migration from PR, certainly the hurricane is a factor, but most people leaving PR are doing so for the same reason people have migrated for centuries, leaving places of lower opportunity for ones higher.  While PR's quality of life is high by Caribbean standards, it is well below even the poorest states, and a dysfunctional local government keeps it that way.  As full citizens (of a country where Spanish is no nearly the barrier it was even a generation ago) Puerto Ricans with ambition and ability seek other parts of their country with better governments, infrastructure, and economies.

So what exactly is the underlying cause of Puerto Rico's government being more dysfunctional than a state government?

Puero Rico has a lot of problems.  The Jones Act.  Terrible budget management.  Many of those who have the ability leave for better economic circumstances.  Statehood would likely need to come with the assumption of their debt, which would be beneficial for them but wouldn't cost the US much in comparison.

Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2020, 07:20:10 AM

Quote from: STLmapboy on June 04, 2020, 10:35:07 PM
In fact, population loss rate is highest in the nation, 5x more than second-place West Virginia.

That was because of the hurricane.

It's been shedding people since long before the hurricane. Early 2000s at least.

Quote from: kkt on June 04, 2020, 10:22:19 PM

Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 05:12:36 PM
Requiring more than 51% agreement on anything, in my opinion, is a good thing.  It makes for a greater likelihood that the minority won't be trampled on by the majority, and also that actual compromise will be accomplished.

I agree, especially for confirming judicial appointees.  For legislation, and cabinet and executive branch appointees, I might be more inclined to let it go as the next president can get rid of them or the next congress can repeal them.  But Federal judicial appointees are for life, and as a separate branch of government they should have judges who are near the center of American political thought, not the extremes.

Actually I wish the nuclear option had never been invoked.  While it may look attractive for the majority party, it's clearly not in the spirit of the Senate rules as they were intended to work.  And any dirty trick the majority party pulls on the minority party will be done back to them and harder when the majority flips.

Or the Senate could go back to the old rule, that a filibuster needs one senator to actually keep talking if they wanted to keep a vote from being called.  It sounds extreme because it allows just one senator to block all business, however actual filibusters were rarely more than a day before the need for food, sleep, or a bathroom break became irresistable.

The original "nuclear option" was used to pass the "Affordable Care Act". There were enough Republican senators at the time that opposed bringing it to a vote (and more subsequently elected) that a filibuster could have lasted until the present time.

The parliamentary device used to continue a filibuster beyond the time between bathroom breaks is known as the "Quorum Call". A quorum call is always in order and usually gives a 10 or 15 minute break. During the Senate debate on one of the Civil Rights acts, one senator (Strom Thurmond {who was a Democrat at the time, like most of those opposed to the legislation}, I believe) got up and spoke for 24 hours without resuming his seat. This gave time for the other senators involved in the filibuster to organize. Every two hours, just as it would be time for a bathroom break and a reasonable amount of time between quorum calls, a well-rested senator showed up ready to speak. He had no quorum calls to answer and would have been pleased if a quorum had not been present. There were about a dozen Southern Democrat senators involved in the filibuster, so each could speak for 2 hours and then go have a beer and get some rest while the rest of the senators {wanting to break the filibuster} had to stay close enough to the Senate floor to answer a quorum call. The group running the filibuster eventually got some concessions.

The invocation of "Cloture" once required a two-thirds vote. It was changed to three-fifths in about 1980 or so. Once cloture is invoked, it isn't the end of debate, but it becomes limited to 100 hours (probably one hour per senator), so they schedule a vote on the fifth day following its invocation.

When my party is in majority in the Senate, the filibuster is an outmoded, backward, anti-democratic throwback to a day when only the elite could rule. When my party is in the minority in the Senate, the filibuster is the last protection against divisive, unwise, and oppressive legislation.

Quote from: michravera on June 06, 2020, 08:51:40 PM
The original "nuclear option" was used to pass the "Affordable Care Act".

The ACA passed 60-39.

Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2020, 09:26:04 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 06, 2020, 08:51:40 PM
The original "nuclear option" was used to pass the "Affordable Care Act".

The ACA passed 60-39.

Maybe on the final vote, but not on the procedural vote to end debate.

Quote from: michravera on June 07, 2020, 03:33:54 AM

Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2020, 09:26:04 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 06, 2020, 08:51:40 PM
The original "nuclear option" was used to pass the "Affordable Care Act".

The ACA passed 60-39.

Maybe on the final vote, but not on the procedural vote to end debate.

The vote to end debate passed by the same exact vote.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 07, 2020, 08:21:20 AM

Quote from: michravera on June 07, 2020, 03:33:54 AM

Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2020, 09:26:04 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 06, 2020, 08:51:40 PM
The original "nuclear option" was used to pass the "Affordable Care Act".

The ACA passed 60-39.

Maybe on the final vote, but not on the procedural vote to end debate.

The vote to end debate passed by the same exact vote.

Yes.  The votes on passage are in the Wikipedia article,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Legislative_history

Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2020, 03:41:25 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 07, 2020, 08:21:20 AM

Quote from: michravera on June 07, 2020, 03:33:54 AM

Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2020, 09:26:04 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 06, 2020, 08:51:40 PM
The original "nuclear option" was used to pass the "Affordable Care Act".

The ACA passed 60-39.

Maybe on the final vote, but not on the procedural vote to end debate.

The vote to end debate passed by the same exact vote.

Yes.  The votes on passage are in the Wikipedia article,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Legislative_history

Was that passed when the democrats had a supermajority?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 07, 2020, 03:52:06 PM

Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2020, 03:41:25 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 07, 2020, 08:21:20 AM

Quote from: michravera on June 07, 2020, 03:33:54 AM

Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2020, 09:26:04 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 06, 2020, 08:51:40 PM
The original "nuclear option" was used to pass the "Affordable Care Act".

The ACA passed 60-39.

Maybe on the final vote, but not on the procedural vote to end debate.

The vote to end debate passed by the same exact vote.

Yes.  The votes on passage are in the Wikipedia article,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Legislative_history

Was that passed when the democrats had a supermajority?

Yes. It was in the brief period after Al Franken (D-MN) was seated and before Ted Kennedy (D-MA) died.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 08, 2020, 04:27:46 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 07, 2020, 03:52:06 PM

Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2020, 03:41:25 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 07, 2020, 08:21:20 AM

Quote from: michravera on June 07, 2020, 03:33:54 AM

Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2020, 09:26:04 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 06, 2020, 08:51:40 PM
The original "nuclear option" was used to pass the "Affordable Care Act".

The ACA passed 60-39.

Maybe on the final vote, but not on the procedural vote to end debate.

The vote to end debate passed by the same exact vote.

Yes.  The votes on passage are in the Wikipedia article,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Legislative_history

Was that passed when the democrats had a supermajority?

Yes. It was in the brief period after Al Franken (D-MN) was seated and before Ted Kennedy (D-MA) died.

I don't really see either party getting a supermajority any time soon.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 08, 2020, 10:31:44 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 08, 2020, 04:27:46 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 07, 2020, 03:52:06 PM

Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2020, 03:41:25 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 07, 2020, 08:21:20 AM

Quote from: michravera on June 07, 2020, 03:33:54 AM

Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2020, 09:26:04 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 06, 2020, 08:51:40 PM
The original "nuclear option" was used to pass the "Affordable Care Act".

The ACA passed 60-39.

Maybe on the final vote, but not on the procedural vote to end debate.

The vote to end debate passed by the same exact vote.

Yes.  The votes on passage are in the Wikipedia article,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Legislative_history

Was that passed when the democrats had a supermajority?

Yes. It was in the brief period after Al Franken (D-MN) was seated and before Ted Kennedy (D-MA) died.

I don't really see either party getting a supermajority any time soon.

A friend of mine opined that, in the state of Florida, if they put the choice of "A bowl of ice cream or a swift kick in the ass" to a vote, it would come out 50.5%-49.5%. He didn't predict which would win!

Quote from: michravera on June 08, 2020, 09:29:21 PM
A friend of mine opined that, in the state of Florida, if they put the choice of "A bowl of ice cream or a swift kick in the ass" to a vote, it would come out 50.5%-49.5%. He didn't predict which would win!

Yeah, there are plenty of states that are swingier than Florida, but Florida totally owns the cake when it comes to consistently being a nail-biter.

Quote from: webny99 on June 08, 2020, 11:11:25 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 08, 2020, 09:29:21 PM
A friend of mine opined that, in the state of Florida, if they put the choice of "A bowl of ice cream or a swift kick in the ass" to a vote, it would come out 50.5%-49.5%. He didn't predict which would win!

Yeah, there are plenty of states that are swingier than Florida, but Florida totally owns the cake when it comes to consistently being a nail-biter.

We should let in Puerto Rico and kick Florida out.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 09, 2020, 05:35:09 AM

Quote from: webny99 on June 08, 2020, 11:11:25 PM

Quote from: michravera on June 08, 2020, 09:29:21 PM
A friend of mine opined that, in the state of Florida, if they put the choice of "A bowl of ice cream or a swift kick in the ass" to a vote, it would come out 50.5%-49.5%. He didn't predict which would win!

Yeah, there are plenty of states that are swingier than Florida, but Florida totally owns the cake when it comes to consistently being a nail-biter.

We should let in Puerto Rico and kick Florida out.

What better way to resolve your problems than by kicking them out?  :D

The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

I'm in favor of the residents of DC getting representation in Congress, but not in favor of DC Statehood. I think the area around the major Federal buildings needs to remain under Federal control.

I'd like to see everything but the inner core of DC returned to Maryland. Still leaves some voters disenfranchised but leaves Federal control where it is needed. Has the added benefit of being realistic politically as it doesn't add 2 guaranteed Democratic seats to the Senate.

Quote from: cabiness42 on June 17, 2020, 08:05:45 AM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

I'm in favor of the residents of DC getting representation in Congress, but not in favor of DC Statehood. I think the area around the major Federal buildings needs to remain under Federal control.

I'd like to see everything but the inner core of DC returned to Maryland. Still leaves some voters disenfranchised but leaves Federal control where it is needed. Has the added benefit of being realistic politically as it doesn't add 2 guaranteed Democratic seats to the Senate.

It might hurt democrats in the electoral college though.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 17, 2020, 10:52:46 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on June 17, 2020, 08:05:45 AM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

I'm in favor of the residents of DC getting representation in Congress, but not in favor of DC Statehood. I think the area around the major Federal buildings needs to remain under Federal control.

I'd like to see everything but the inner core of DC returned to Maryland. Still leaves some voters disenfranchised but leaves Federal control where it is needed. Has the added benefit of being realistic politically as it doesn't add 2 guaranteed Democratic seats to the Senate.

It might hurt democrats in the electoral college though.

There would still be a DC, albeit with a much smaller population, and it would still have 3 electoral votes. If anything, it would help as Maryland would probably gain a legislative seat that would almost certainly be Democratic.

Who would live in a resulting federal district split off from either statehood or retrocession?  My understanding is that the part remaining under federal control would basically be a tetris-piece-shaped district from roughly the Lincoln Memorial to the Supreme Court with a branch to the White House, and maybe the parks and memorials to the southwest added on.

I do wonder what would happen to I-395 and I-695 under retrocession, since that would result in duplicated 3di numbers within Maryland.

Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2020, 01:58:39 PM
Who would live in a resulting federal district split off from either statehood or retrocession? ....

The President would, and perhaps the Vice President if the Naval Observatory were included in the revised District (perhaps as an exclave, similar to Castel Gandolfo). Their legal status as "residents" or "domiciliaries" of the District is an entirely separate matter, of course.

Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2020, 01:58:39 PM
Who would live in a resulting federal district split off from either statehood or retrocession?  My understanding is that the part remaining under federal control would basically be a tetris-piece-shaped district from roughly the Lincoln Memorial to the Supreme Court with a branch to the White House, and maybe the parks and memorials to the southwest added on.

Among others, homeless people living on steam grates next to Federal buildings.

Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2020, 01:58:39 PM
Who would live in a resulting federal district split off from either statehood or retrocession?  My understanding is that the part remaining under federal control would basically be a tetris-piece-shaped district from roughly the Lincoln Memorial to the Supreme Court with a branch to the White House, and maybe the parks and memorials to the southwest added on.

I do wonder what would happen to I-395 and I-695 under retrocession, since that would result in duplicated 3di numbers within Maryland.

I haven't seen a proposal with an area that small. What I've seen encompasses a larger area than that. Even the most narrowly defined area is going to encompass at least a few residences.

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2020, 02:03:36 PM

Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2020, 01:58:39 PM
Who would live in a resulting federal district split off from either statehood or retrocession? ....

The President would, and perhaps the Vice President if the Naval Observatory were included in the revised District (perhaps as an exclave, similar to Castel Gandolfo). Their legal status as "residents" or "domiciliaries" of the District is an entirely separate matter, of course.

I don't know how other presidents have done it, but Trump officially lives in (and votes in) Florida, despite residing in the White House.

Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2020, 02:40:48 PM
I don't know how other presidents have done it, but Trump officially lives in (and votes in) Florida, despite residing in the White House.

Barack Obama voted at 4:10 PM on 25-OCT-2012, at the Martin Luther King Community Center in Chicago, IL.

As far as I'm aware, no incumbent has ever actually cast his vote in DC.

Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2020, 02:40:48 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2020, 02:03:36 PM

Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2020, 01:58:39 PM
Who would live in a resulting federal district split off from either statehood or retrocession? ....

The President would, and perhaps the Vice President if the Naval Observatory were included in the revised District (perhaps as an exclave, similar to Castel Gandolfo). Their legal status as "residents" or "domiciliaries" of the District is an entirely separate matter, of course.

I don't know how other presidents have done it, but Trump officially lives in (and votes in) Florida, despite residing in the White House.

Usually states allow those "conducting the business of the United States" to retain their citizenship and right to vote.  Presumably that would not only would that include elected officials, but people serving in the cabinet, other nominated positions and perhaps more.

It includes far more.  Really until the 1960s the standard was that any governmental employee to maintain residency "back home" even if that was just their parents' or siblings' homes.  It was only when DC started to sprawl out to the suburbs and the government became bloated with career bureaucrats, often multi-generational, that the practice fell into disfavor. 

However, it still applies to any non-civil service position.  None live in DC.

Side note:  Because DC is not a state, it lacks the power to tax non-residents.  Not just government employee non-residents.  Not a big deal for most, because they get a pretty equal tax in VA or MD.  But, both states have an exemption for "temporary itinerant workers", designed to not tax congressmen and such.  But it applies to anyone.  Thus pro athletes (except for the MD based Redskins) can claim the exemption and to really live in FL or another tax free state.

Quote from: SP Cook on June 17, 2020, 03:37:02 PM
It includes far more.  Really until the 1960s the standard was that any governmental employee to maintain residency "back home" even if that was just their parents' or siblings' homes.  It was only when DC started to sprawl out to the suburbs and the government became bloated with career bureaucrats, often multi-generational, that the practice fell into disfavor. 

However, it still applies to any non-civil service position.  None live in DC.

Gotcha.  Thank you.

Quote from: SP Cook on June 17, 2020, 03:37:02 PM
Side note:  Because DC is not a state, it lacks the power to tax non-residents.  Not just government employee non-residents.  Not a big deal for most, because they get a pretty equal tax in VA or MD. 

VA is better on taxes than DC. That was one reason to live in VA when I moved to the DC area, though the misrule of Mayor Crackhead was a bigger factor.

Quote
But, both states have an exemption for "temporary itinerant workers", designed to not tax congressmen and such.  But it applies to anyone.  Thus pro athletes (except for the VA/MD based Redskins) can claim the exemption and to really live in FL or another tax free state.

FTFY. The 'Skins are now headquartered in Virginia, even though they currently play their home games in Maryland. They used to play in D.C., but I don't know if they once had their headquarters there as well.

The issue of the President not voting, paying taxes, etc., is why I said "[t]heir legal status as 'residents' or 'domiciliaries' of the District is an entirely separate matter, of course."

The issue about the Redskins being based in Virginia was a big deal in litigation with the NFLPA in the early 1990s over whether Virginia's right-to-work law applied to the players such that they could refuse to pay union dues (the players who refused to pay won the case).

Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

What about the senate?

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

Better idea: Take away their electoral votes, but make them exempt from federal income tax so as to address their gripe about "taxation without representation." I'd move to DC if they did that.

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2020, 09:19:47 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

Better idea: Take away their electoral votes, but make them exempt from federal income tax so as to address their gripe about "taxation without representation." I'd move to DC if they did that.

I'm sure that the democrats would be thrilled to lose 3 guaranteed electoral votes.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 17, 2020, 09:27:07 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2020, 09:19:47 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

Better idea: Take away their electoral votes, but make them exempt from federal income tax so as to address their gripe about "taxation without representation." I'd move to DC if they did that.

I'm sure that the democrats would be thrilled to lose 3 guaranteed electoral votes.

I'm going to refrain from responding due to the forum's rules about political discussion, as I don't feel I can respond without making snide comments (not directed at you).

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 17, 2020, 09:12:09 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

What about the senate?

no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate  Constitution, Article V

I think granting DC representation in the Senate would be interpreted as diluting the representation of the States in the Senate, and therefore banned and not subject to constitutional amendment unless it was passed unanimously by all 50 states.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 17, 2020, 09:12:09 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

What about the senate?

That would require statehood, and honestly, I think it's overkill for one city to become a state, regardless of political affiliation.

Quote from: LM117 on June 18, 2020, 08:35:22 AM
I think it's overkill for one city to become a state, regardless of political affiliation.

Mexico City and Berlin are both states in their own countries.

Quote from: 1 on June 18, 2020, 08:37:35 AM

Quote from: LM117 on June 18, 2020, 08:35:22 AM
I think it's overkill for one city to become a state, regardless of political affiliation.

Mexico City and Berlin are both states in their own countries.

Mexico City is not a state. It used to be the Distrito Federal, similar to Washington DC, but its status has changed slightly. It's still not a state, however, because the Mexican constitution prohibits it from being one for reasons similar to why the US Constitution has the provision giving Congress exclusive jurisdiction over what we now know as Washington DC.

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2020, 08:39:50 AM

Quote from: 1 on June 18, 2020, 08:37:35 AM

Quote from: LM117 on June 18, 2020, 08:35:22 AM
I think it's overkill for one city to become a state, regardless of political affiliation.

Mexico City and Berlin are both states in their own countries.

Mexico City is not a state. It used to be the Distrito Federal, similar to Washington DC, but its status has changed slightly. It's still not a state, however, because the Mexican constitution prohibits it from being one for reasons similar to why the US Constitution has the provision giving Congress exclusive jurisdiction over what we now know as Washington DC.

Mexico City, while not formally a state, is equal to a state in nearly every respect.  Pertinent to the topic of conversation, Mexico City has full representation in both chambers of congress.  27 of the 500 seats in the lower house (allocated by population) represent electoral districts of Mexico City, and 3 of the 128 seats in the upper house (equal to that of any other state) represent Mexico City.

Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2020, 11:43:52 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 17, 2020, 09:12:09 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

What about the senate?

no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate  Constitution, Article V

I think granting DC representation in the Senate would be interpreted as diluting the representation of the States in the Senate, and therefore banned and not subject to constitutional amendment unless it was passed unanimously by all 50 states.

Although even so, it still would not be unequal, but I feel like this discussion has happened before.

Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2020, 11:43:52 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 17, 2020, 09:12:09 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

What about the senate?

no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate  Constitution, Article V

I think granting DC representation in the Senate would be interpreted as diluting the representation of the States in the Senate, and therefore banned and not subject to constitutional amendment unless it was passed unanimously by all 50 states.

Wouldn't you only need 3/4 of the states? Also doesn't adding a new state also dilute each states representation?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 18, 2020, 02:17:39 PM
Wouldn't you only need 3/4 of the states? Also doesn't adding a new state also dilute each states representation?

If you presume that giving DC senators would be a problem that would trigger the Article 5 ban on amending the Constitution to create unequal representation in the Senate, then the remaining 1/4 states would not be "no state".

Quote from: vdeane on June 18, 2020, 02:12:47 PM
I feel like this discussion has happened before.

It did. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20478.msg2505407#msg2505407)

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2020, 09:19:47 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

Better idea: Take away their electoral votes, but make them exempt from federal income tax so as to address their gripe about "taxation without representation." I'd move to DC if they did that.

Yeah.  You, me, and about two-hundred million others.   :-D

Quote from: renegade on June 18, 2020, 03:34:44 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2020, 09:19:47 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

Better idea: Take away their electoral votes, but make them exempt from federal income tax so as to address their gripe about "taxation without representation." I'd move to DC if they did that.

Yeah.  You, me, and about two-hundred million others.   :-D

Does nobody care about voting anymore? That's 2/3 of the US!

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 18, 2020, 04:25:21 PM
Does nobody care about voting anymore?

According to the statistics, clearly not...

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 18, 2020, 04:28:02 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 18, 2020, 04:25:21 PM
Does nobody care about voting anymore?

According to the statistics, clearly not...

Yikes

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 18, 2020, 04:25:21 PM

Quote from: renegade on June 18, 2020, 03:34:44 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2020, 09:19:47 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 08:26:37 PM
Eh, just give DC a representative in the House and call it a day. Unlike Puerto Rico, at least they can vote in Presidential elections, so they're still a step above PR and other territories.

Better idea: Take away their electoral votes, but make them exempt from federal income tax so as to address their gripe about "taxation without representation." I'd move to DC if they did that.

Yeah.  You, me, and about two-hundred million others.   :-D

Does nobody care about voting anymore? That's 2/3 of the US!

I do, but if I had the choice between not paying federal income tax and giving up my vote....

The only solution to dc statehood that I se is a constitutional amendment

The people in DC should have a member of Congress and they should join with the people of Maryland to vote for a senator.  Since Maryland it's also highly democratic doing this won't upset the balance of power in the Senate could be something that would be possible.  They have been amendments before to give DC voting rights in presidential elections.

Statehood would not be good because even very local things could affect the operations of the federal government.  I am sure that many suburban residents who work in DC realize but one immediate consequence DC statehood it's some type of commuter tax.  The lack of DC statehood allows for the current regime where you only pay the income taxes for your state of residence in all three local jurisdictions.  A state of DC could also very likely impose tolls which could also hamper the operations of the government

I believe the people in DC should have representation at the federal level but it has to be reasonable.  For many it is unreasonable for a city that is relatively small and a geographic scale to have equal representation with with our states and in the US Senate.  But if they were allowed to vote with Maryland residence for Senate I don't believe that would be any objections.


Nexus 5X

Quote from: mrsman on June 19, 2020, 12:08:21 PM
The only solution to dc statehood that I se is a constitutional amendment

The people in DC should have a member of Congress and they should join with the people of Maryland to vote for a senator.  Since Maryland it's also highly democratic doing this won't upset the balance of power in the Senate could be something that would be possible.  They have been amendments before to give DC voting rights in presidential elections.

Statehood would not be good because even very local things could affect the operations of the federal government.  I am sure that many suburban residents who work in DC realize but one immediate consequence DC statehood it's some type of commuter tax.  The lack of DC statehood allows for the current regime where you only pay the income taxes for your state of residence in all three local jurisdictions.  A state of DC could also very likely impose tolls which could also hamper the operations of the government

I believe the people in DC should have representation at the federal level but it has to be reasonable.  For many it is unreasonable for a city that is relatively small and a geographic scale to have equal representation with with our states and in the US Senate.  But if they were allowed to vote with Maryland residence for Senate I don't believe that would be any objections.


Nexus 5X

That is the optimal solution, but in this political environment I don't see any constitutional amendments coming anytime soon. Retroceding most of DC to Maryland is the next best solution.

Plus, as has already been discussed, it remains unclear that such an amendment could even be added.  It's a theoretical possibility, but the constitutionality of it would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.  Article I Section III is shielded from amendment by Article V.  The supposition that Article V, an entrenchment clause, can itself be amended remains untested.

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

It passed.

https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/ (https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/)

Quote from: LM117 on June 27, 2020, 12:33:58 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

It passed.

https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/ (https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/)

It won't pass the senate so they should have waited and hoped that they got a majority and Biden in office until they passed the bill.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 27, 2020, 02:53:39 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 27, 2020, 12:33:58 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

It passed.

https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/ (https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/)

It won't pass the senate so they should have waited and hoped that they got a majority and Biden in office until they passed the bill.

...unless there are congresspeople who have an interest in both showing support foe it and seeing it fail in the Senate.

Quote from: Rothman on June 27, 2020, 03:32:36 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 27, 2020, 02:53:39 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 27, 2020, 12:33:58 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

It passed.

https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/ (https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/)

It won't pass the senate so they should have waited and hoped that they got a majority and Biden in office until they passed the bill.

...unless there are congresspeople who have an interest in both showing support foe it and seeing it fail in the Senate.

Only democrats voted for the bill.

A simple solution is to put all residential areas back in Maryland.  It would probably net them a house district.  Then, only governmental land would be in the federal district and there would be no residents in areas outside of a state.

Quote from: wxfree on June 27, 2020, 04:00:15 PM
A simple solution is to put all residential areas back in Maryland.  It would probably net them a house district.  Then, only governmental land would be in the federal district and there would be no residents in areas outside of a state.

It might hurt the democrats in the electoral college.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 27, 2020, 05:49:02 PM

Quote from: wxfree on June 27, 2020, 04:00:15 PM
A simple solution is to put all residential areas back in Maryland.  It would probably net them a house district.  Then, only governmental land would be in the federal district and there would be no residents in areas outside of a state.

It might hurt the democrats in the electoral college.

That's why you admit PR as a state at the same time. DC residents are happy because they get representation as part of Maryland. Republicans are happy that DC doesn't get 2 senators. Democrats are happy because PR's electoral votes replace DC's electoral votes, plus a couple.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 27, 2020, 03:53:50 PM

Quote from: Rothman on June 27, 2020, 03:32:36 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 27, 2020, 02:53:39 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 27, 2020, 12:33:58 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

It passed.

https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/ (https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/)

It won't pass the senate so they should have waited and hoped that they got a majority and Biden in office until they passed the bill.

...unless there are congresspeople who have an interest in both showing support foe it and seeing it fail in the Senate.

Only democrats voted for the bill.

Now why didn't they do this ten years ago, when they controlled BOTH houses of Congress (*NO* presidential signature required to admit a new state)???

:hmmm:

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on June 29, 2020, 01:13:38 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 27, 2020, 03:53:50 PM

Quote from: Rothman on June 27, 2020, 03:32:36 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 27, 2020, 02:53:39 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 27, 2020, 12:33:58 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

It passed.

https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/ (https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/)

It won't pass the senate so they should have waited and hoped that they got a majority and Biden in office until they passed the bill.

...unless there are congresspeople who have an interest in both showing support foe it and seeing it fail in the Senate.

Only democrats voted for the bill.

Now why didn't they do this ten years ago, when they controlled BOTH houses of Congress (*NO* presidential signature required to admit a new state)???

:hmmm:

Mike

The filibuster maybe?

I've always said to future statehood proposals, if you admit PR, admit Guam as well. Guam is staunchly military and right-wing and will balance what PR brings in the Senate, which counts far more than the +2 or +3 net that PR will add to the House.

The Northern Marianas, of which Guam is a part of, will see Guam in the process of full admission and will quickly get over any leftover WWII animus.

Quote from: Road Hog on June 29, 2020, 02:01:47 AM
I've always said to future statehood proposals, if you admit PR, admit Guam as well. Guam is staunchly military and right-wing and will balance what PR brings in the Senate, which counts far more than the +2 or +3 net that PR will add to the House.

The Northern Marianas, of which Guam is a part of, will see Guam in the process of full admission and will quickly get over any leftover WWII animus.

Admitting Guam is a terrible idea.  It has a third of the population of Wyoming.  168,000 people.  Its just fine as a territory.

Puerto Rico has 3 million. 

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 27, 2020, 02:53:39 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 27, 2020, 12:33:58 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

It passed.

https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/ (https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/)

It won't pass the senate so they should have waited and hoped that they got a majority and Biden in office until they passed the bill.

Even if it passed in both houses, that doesn't mean the Supreme Court would rule it constitutional.

Quote from: kphoger on June 29, 2020, 02:30:06 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 27, 2020, 02:53:39 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 27, 2020, 12:33:58 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

It passed.

https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/ (https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/)

It won't pass the senate so they should have waited and hoped that they got a majority and Biden in office until they passed the bill.

Even if it passed in both houses, that doesn't mean the Supreme Court would rule it constitutional.

It should be constitutional if you remove the federal buildings like the white house from the new state, other states have been admitted before and Virginia also already got back their part of DC.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 29, 2020, 02:31:20 PM

Quote from: kphoger on June 29, 2020, 02:30:06 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 27, 2020, 02:53:39 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 27, 2020, 12:33:58 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 07:25:37 AM
The House is planning to vote on a DC statehood bill next week, even though it's DOA in the Senate...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/878110986/house-democrats-aiming-to-make-a-point-plan-vote-on-d-c-statehood)

It passed.

https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/ (https://wtop.com/congress/2020/06/intense-house-debate-precedes-vote-on-bill-to-make-d-c-51st-state/amp/)

It won't pass the senate so they should have waited and hoped that they got a majority and Biden in office until they passed the bill.

Even if it passed in both houses, that doesn't mean the Supreme Court would rule it constitutional.

It should be constitutional if you remove the federal buildings like the white house from the new state, other states have been admitted before and Virginia also already got back their part of DC.

Whether the land goes back to Maryland or becomes a new state, I do think that there should be a federal district, at the very least containing the building at the top of each branch: the capitol, the White House, and the supreme court.  I'd also include other federal lands, such as monuments.  In the case of statehood, I would call the remaining federal district the District of Columbia, and the city of Washington would become the only city in whatever the new state is called.  It should probably be an independent city, since the city and state are conterminous, so there's no need for a county.  It might even make a good experiment for a unified city and state government.  The legislature would act as the city council, and the governor would be the mayor, since there's no land outside the city for them to be concerned with.  They might divide into a few official neighborhoods with a neighborhood council and president if people want someone more local to complain to.  I'm thinking of New York City as a model, but Washington, Newstate may not be big enough to warrant that kind of model.

Puerto Rico voted in favor of statehood.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/524590-puerto-rico-votes-in-favor-of-us-statehood (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/524590-puerto-rico-votes-in-favor-of-us-statehood)

Quote from: LM117 on November 06, 2020, 07:17:56 AM
Puerto Rico voted in favor of statehood.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/524590-puerto-rico-votes-in-favor-of-us-statehood (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/524590-puerto-rico-votes-in-favor-of-us-statehood)

We have a Democratic retention of control of the House.
We have a very likely, but not yet certain, Democratic pickup of the Presidency.
We have a 48-48 Senate split, with two races still to be called but looking very likely Republican, and both races in Georgia headed to runoffs.

The remaining vote counting and the special elections could have a significant impact on PR's chances for statehood.

I am still looking forward to a flag with 3 rows of 17 stars.

As with all of these previous referendums, Puerto Rico's other two parties just boycotted the vote, which was non-binding.

PR is like Canada in that there are local political parties and then the national ones, with there being all possible combinations i.e. one person federally a Republican, but locally a New Progressive (statehood) another person being federally democrat but Popular Democrat (commonwealth) locally.)  The three local parties are not really left-right in ideology but rather statehood-commonwealth-independence.  Puerto Rico's delegate in congress is pro-statehood/Republican; her predecessor was anti-statehood/democrat.

If congress ever gave PR an actual vote that counted, the results, especially considering the, IMHO disastrous effects it would have on the economy by making all US laws automatically apply, as everyone would vote in a meaningful election.

On the broader issue, I have heard some talk of an Amendment that would set the number of supreme court justices at 9; the number of congressmen at 435 (neither are actually mentioned in the document today) and allocate DC one full representative out of that 435, which actually seems like a good compromise.

Quote from: SP Cook on November 06, 2020, 01:19:16 PM
As with all of these previous referendums, Puerto Rico's other two parties just boycotted the vote, which was non-binding.

PR is like Canada in that there are local political parties and then the national ones, with there being all possible combinations i.e. one person federally a Republican, but locally a New Progressive (statehood) another person being federally democrat but Popular Democrat (commonwealth) locally.)  The three local parties are not really left-right in ideology but rather statehood-commonwealth-independence.  Puerto Rico's delegate in congress is pro-statehood/Republican; her predecessor was anti-statehood/democrat.

If congress ever gave PR an actual vote that counted, the results, especially considering the, IMHO disastrous effects it would have on the economy by making all US laws automatically apply, as everyone would vote in a meaningful election.

On the broader issue, I have heard some talk of an Amendment that would set the number of supreme court justices at 9; the number of congressmen at 435 (neither are actually mentioned in the document today) and allocate DC one full representative out of that 435, which actually seems like a good compromise.

I do note that should Puerto Rico get its 'star', the party balance for their federal offices would not be so cut and dried.  I fully expect that PR would would be a 'swing' state with the congressional delegation and EVs being very evenly split.  My latest guesstimate is that six USHouse seats would have to be reapportioned for PR, although with the major exodus from the island over the past few years, it could possibly bring that number down to five.

Mike

PR statehood should only be done with an expansion of the House at the same time. The House was originally supposed to be the branch of Congress that was closest to the people, with a ratio of 1 representative for every 30,000 people. Obviously that ratio is too big for today, but as the country expanded, the size of the House expanded with it roughly following something called the "cube-root rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_root_rule)" which essentially states that the number of representatives is more or less equal to the cube root of the population. The US House is one of the very few legislatures in the world that does not come close to this approximation.

It used to be pretty close, though. The House started out with 59 members and had grown to 435 by the time Arizona and New Mexico became states in 1912. But no new seats were created after the 1920 census, and in 1929 the size was legally set at 435. Since then, the House has drifted farther and farther from the cube-root approximation and become less and less representative. At this point, from the perspective of a surprisingly large amount of states it doesn't represent the population much better than their two senators - and that was not the original intent.

The cube-root approximation would give a House size of 690 members (if you think that sounds like too much, consider that the UK's House of Commons is 650). The bigger issue would be where they would meet - the current chambers in the Capitol are too small for that big a House.

I like 435.  We already have congresspeople that represent non-diverse insular communities who see no need to appeal to anybody else.  Go to 650 or whatever, and that gets worse.  For lazy reasons, since the 435 has been the constant for over a century, it is an easy way to see the population shift over time, as states added and lost seats. 

435 seems to be good, but we're lucky. We don't have any states that are tiny (such as the Virgin Islands if it was a state). Even the smallest state, Wyoming, is close enough to the typical ratio of people to Congressmen, and DC and Wyoming have about the same population by coincidence.

However, I do think Puerto Rico should immediately get 4 representatives, and not just 1, when it becomes a state, only going back to 435 after the next Census (having four states each lose a seat mid-decade works too).

Quote from: SP Cook on November 07, 2020, 11:04:21 AM
I like 435.  We already have congresspeople that represent non-diverse insular communities who see no need to appeal to anybody else.  Go to 650 or whatever, and that gets worse.  For lazy reasons, since the 435 has been the constant for over a century, it is an easy way to see the population shift over time, as states added and lost seats. 

As the size of the House has failed to grow, the number of voters that each member represents has increased. We need a much bigger house, somewhere around 1000. Members are more accountable when their districts are smaller. Yes, you end up with more "safe" districts for each party, but that can be remedied by open primaries and ranked-choice voting.

Quote from: 1 on November 07, 2020, 11:29:46 AM
435 seems to be good, but we're lucky. We don't have any states that are tiny (such as the Virgin Islands if it was a state). Even the smallest state, Wyoming, is close enough to the typical ratio of people to Congressmen, and DC and Wyoming have about the same population by coincidence.

However, I do think Puerto Rico should immediately get 4 representatives, and not just 1, when it becomes a state, only going back to 435 after the next Census (having four states each lose a seat mid-decade works too).

The last time they added states, they temporarily increased the size of the House until the next apportionment of congressmen (which wasn't all that long, given that both states were admitted in 1959), at which time they adjusted back to 435.

Quote from: SP Cook on November 07, 2020, 11:04:21 AM
I like 435.  We already have congresspeople that represent non-diverse insular communities who see no need to appeal to anybody else.  Go to 650 or whatever, and that gets worse.  For lazy reasons, since the 435 has been the constant for over a century, it is an easy way to see the population shift over time, as states added and lost seats. 

I mean, that's the point of congressional districts, no? You don't need to appeal to anybody outside your district. That way inner cities can have representatives that represent their interests and rural farming areas can have representatives that represent their interests. Having the districts be too big means you get someone who tries to please everyone and as a result really represents no one.

I live in a Congressional district that consists of the third- and fourth-largest cities in the state (the former of which is one of the most liberal areas in the state), a conservative OKC suburb, and eleven rural counties. I don't know how anyone can effectively represent all of those areas, because there are going to be votes that benefit one area at the expense of the others and the representative is going to have to play favorites with parts of his district every time he makes a decision on those.

Expanding the House would be a good idea in a few ways.  The 30,000 population per representative allowed campaigning to be done in person on a shoestring budget.  People could meet their candidates and make up their own minds.  A big campaign budget for TV commercials or even mailers would be unnecessary.  Now, you have candidates who are either personally wealthy, or owe their officers to big donors.

A much bigger house would also reduce the overrepresentation of small states in the electoral college.  The extra two seats corresponding to the senators of each state would be a much smaller proportion of the electoral votes.

But a very large House would also become unwieldly.  The size of the Capitol Building aside, once you get to over 600 people they would no longer know each other, and once they don't know each other it becomes much harder to negotiate - how do you make deals or compromise with someone you don't know?  It's already a so much easier to torpedo legislation than it is to get it passed that very important problems end up unaddressed for years and years.

Kentucky has a couple of oddly-shaped congressional districts because the state lost one of its seven seats after the 1990 census, and in 1992 the speaker of the state House of Representatives was being groomed to take the place of William Natcher, as his retirement or demise was definitely on the horizon. To do this, it became necessary to put Daviess County (Owensboro) and Warren County (Bowling Green) in the same district since the House speaker was from Owensboro and Natcher was from Bowling Green. To accomplish this, the First District stretches from the Mississippi River all the way to the Appalachian foothills. The congressman currently in office is from the easternmost county in the district.  There were a few other gerrymandering tricks done when the district boundaries were drawn up.

Conversely, Jefferson County is too big for just one district. Most of the county is in its own district, while the far eastern part is in the Fourth District, which stretches all the way from the Louisville suburbs to Ashland. The representative is from one of the eastern counties.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 08, 2020, 11:14:32 PM
Kentucky has a couple of oddly-shaped congressional districts because the state lost one of its seven seats after the 1990 census, and in 1992 the speaker of the state House of Representatives was being groomed to take the place of William Natcher, as his retirement or demise was definitely on the horizon. To do this, it became necessary to put Daviess County (Owensboro) and Warren County (Bowling Green) in the same district since the House speaker was from Owensboro and Natcher was from Bowling Green. To accomplish this, the First District stretches from the Mississippi River all the way to the Appalachian foothills. The congressman currently in office is from the easternmost county in the district.  There were a few other gerrymandering tricks done when the district boundaries were drawn up.

Conversely, Jefferson County is too big for just one district. Most of the county is in its own district, while the far eastern part is in the Fourth District, which stretches all the way from the Louisville suburbs to Ashland. The representative is from one of the eastern counties.

It seems that it would be easy enough to require that counties and independent cities must either be carved up or combined and that cities within counties must either be carved up or combined or, if gross unfairness in the population would result, some whole number  of districts must be entirely within one city or county and the entire remainder may exist in another district (which would include some adjacent entity), but only within one. It would also make sense that, when population is too dense to carve up an area, that multiple representatives could be elected from a single geographic district. In the latter case, a district that is at least 40% or so one party and mostly the other might get one representative out of the 3 or 4 instead of carving up area into districts so that the 40%party is completely shut out

Quote from: kkt on November 07, 2020, 08:19:15 PM
Expanding the House would be a good idea in a few ways.  The 30,000 population per representative allowed campaigning to be done in person on a shoestring budget.  People could meet their candidates and make up their own minds.  A big campaign budget for TV commercials or even mailers would be unnecessary.  Now, you have candidates who are either personally wealthy, or owe their officers to big donors.

A much bigger house would also reduce the overrepresentation of small states in the electoral college.  The extra two seats corresponding to the senators of each state would be a much smaller proportion of the electoral votes.

But a very large House would also become unwieldly.  The size of the Capitol Building aside, once you get to over 600 people they would no longer know each other, and once they don't know each other it becomes much harder to negotiate - how do you make deals or compromise with someone you don't know?  It's already a so much easier to torpedo legislation than it is to get it passed that very important problems end up unaddressed for years and years.

I don't think it would be any harder to make deals among a group of 1000 than among 435. There are already sub-groups within each party that have de facto leaders, so an expansion could work.

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 07, 2020, 02:28:00 PM
I don't know how anyone can effectively represent all of those areas, because there are going to be votes that benefit one area at the expense of the others and the representative is going to have to play favorites with parts of his district every time he makes a decision on those.

The same way a Senator can represent an entire state, I suppose? 

Heck, I don't know.  Let's just divide the USA into three separate nations, and then we can make some real progress on the issue.

Quote from: kphoger on November 09, 2020, 02:20:09 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 07, 2020, 02:28:00 PM
I don't know how anyone can effectively represent all of those areas, because there are going to be votes that benefit one area at the expense of the others and the representative is going to have to play favorites with parts of his district every time he makes a decision on those.

The same way a Senator can represent an entire state, I suppose? 

Heck, I don't know.  Let's just divide the USA into three separate nations, and then we can make some real progress on the issue.

Yeah, the Senate doesn't work, either.

If we go with "break it all apart" as a solution, hopefully I qualify for Californian citizenship, since my wife was born there.

Gross gerrymandering, some of which is required by the incorrectly named "Voting Rights Act" and some done by state politicians on their own, is an issue.  In an ideal world, legislative districts would be drawn more like they are in Canada or most other Commonwealth countries, regular shapes covering logical geographic entities. 

Remember that all states have to redistrict before 22 (even if a state does not gain or lose seats, it has to in order to keep the population of each district nearly equal). 

My state will almost certainly lose a congress seat, which will set up a complex fight, as it is impossible to have two districts when you previously had 3 and not have (at least) 2 incumbents in the same one.   It will eventually come down to something E-W or something N-S.  N-S would be my choice.   

State senates and state houses also have to be redistricted.  Here, the state house will be interesting, as the current practice is to have these huge districts where you vote of 3, 4, 5, or even 6 seats, which is designed to allow house members to all live in the same (rich) neighborhoods in our (by our standards) larger cities.  The GOP (which holds a supermajority) platform has promised 100 single member districts, which would be a huge change, as one member would represent about 17000 people, and would have lots of new members from (poorer) parts of our state.

Quote from: SP Cook on November 09, 2020, 02:55:01 PM
Gross gerrymandering, some of which is required by the incorrectly named "Voting Rights Act" and some done by state politicians on their own, is an issue.  In an ideal world, legislative districts would be drawn more like they are in Canada or most other Commonwealth countries, regular shapes covering logical geographic entities. 

Remember that all states have to redistrict before 22 (even if a state does not gain or lose seats, it has to in order to keep the population of each district nearly equal). 

My state will almost certainly lose a congress seat, which will set up a complex fight, as it is impossible to have two districts when you previously had 3 and not have (at least) 2 incumbents in the same one.   It will eventually come down to something E-W or something N-S.  N-S would be my choice.

I don't even begin to know how you could logically split West Virginia into just two districts, especially given the varied socioeconomic drivers in each area (industrial northern panhandle, DC suburb eastern panhandle, oil and gas in the north-central counties, coal mining in the southwestern counties, and so on.) I think it would be pretty easy to divide the state if not for the eastern panhandle. I'd run it from southwest to northeast. Start at the river and then work east and then north when drawing the line. Wayne and Cabell would be in the northern district, Mingo and Lincoln in the southern district. This would probably result in the southern district being a lot bigger in terms of geography, since Huntington, Charleston, and Wheeling would all be in one district.

Do you think WV will lose a representative because it's lost population, or other states have gained so much? IIRC, Kentucky lost a seat in 1992 because other states had gained. I've seen projections of Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania losing seats.

Quote from: kphoger on November 09, 2020, 02:20:09 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 07, 2020, 02:28:00 PM
I don't know how anyone can effectively represent all of those areas, because there are going to be votes that benefit one area at the expense of the others and the representative is going to have to play favorites with parts of his district every time he makes a decision on those.

The same way a Senator can represent an entire state, I suppose? 

Senators were originally meant to represent state legislatures.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 09, 2020, 06:06:28 PM


I don't even begin to know how you could logically split West Virginia into just two districts, especially given the varied socioeconomic drivers in each area

---

Do you think WV will lose a representative because it's lost population, or other states have gained so much? IIRC, Kentucky lost a seat in 1992 because other states had gained. I've seen projections of Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania losing seats.

Remember that the oil and gas counties, and the timber counties, pretty much anything along the first 110 miles of I-79, all of Corridor H, and all of Corridor D, don't amount in population to much of anything.  WV kind of has six "pods" of population.  The triangle formed by I-77 and I-64 (and the Ohio) including Huntington-Charleston and Parkersburg; Fairmont-Clarksburg-Morgantown; the DC suburbs and exurbs; the dying but still populated northern panhandle; the dying but still populated coal fields; and Beckley-Bluefield-Lewisburg, which has diversified to a degree and separated itself from the coal economy.  The parts outside that are pretty much unpopulated.

My choice for West Virginia with 2 districts would be one centered on Huntington-Charleston and Parkersburg.  Pretty much any county getting its TV from the Huntington Charleston TV market plus Parkersburg.  Toss in a few of the oil and gas counties to top off, and that is half the state's population.  This results in a district that is compact, logical, more educated (vastly more educated) than the rest of the state, with a more diverse non-coal economy, and easy road connections between its areas.  With 90% living in one media market.  And then the rest, which would be coal regions, the left liberal college town of Morgantown, the dying northern panhandle, the empty part of the state, and the booming DC suburbs.  The issue in that would be that Huntington politicians and Charleston politicians really don't like one another; and the "remainder" district would be pretty much a "swing" district, which the GOP that draws the lines really would like to avoid. 

As to the population, WV has replaced Michigan as the state losing the most %age of its population.  Projections are 3.3% loss.  The 2030 census will be far worse.  I look for about 20 to 30 % of the population to leave in the next few years.
Without coal, there is simply nothing to do in three-fourths of the state.  Note that WV had SIX congress seats following the 1950 census, roughly 6/435ths (with knitpicky exceptions) of the population.  Now down to two. 

The projections I have seen are Alabama, California (for the first time ever), Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia to lose one each; with Texas and Florida gaining two each, and Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon gaining one each.   

Quote from: SP Cook on November 10, 2020, 10:24:16 AM
The projections I have seen are Alabama, California (for the first time ever), Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia to lose one each; with Texas and Florida gaining two each, and Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon gaining one each.

Texas gains 3, not 2. (You listed 10 losses and 9 gains.)

These districts would look a lot like Kentucky's First and Second districts. The Second is fairly compact, concentrated on Owensboro and Bowling Green. The First is artificially stretched from the Purchase to the Appalachians.

Sounds like it would be a stretch to get Weirton and White Sulphur Springs in the same district, but that's what you'd end up with. You'd have to have a sliver of counties one deep along the Pennsylvania border to get a contiguous district. What I don't like is when counties are split. There are a handful of precincts in some of the central Kentucky counties that are in the Second District.

As far as forcing incumbents to run against each other, any chance that one of the reps might try to knock off either Manchin or Capito for the Senate? Of course, there's no requirement that a congresscritter actually live in the district they represent. This resulted in a Montgomery County resident, Carl Chris Perkins, representing the old Seventh District of the southeastern Kentucky mountains when he replaced his dad, Carl D. "I wanna be like Robert Byrd and have everything in the mountains named for me" Perkins.  Everybody called him Chris Perkins, but he appeared on the ballot as Carl C. Perkins. There were actually people who thought they were still voting for Carl D. despite him being dead.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 10, 2020, 11:45:29 AM
Sounds like it would be a stretch to get Weirton and White Sulphur Springs in the same district, but that's what you'd end up with. You'd have to have a sliver of counties one deep along the Pennsylvania border to get a contiguous district. What I don't like is when counties are split. There are a handful of precincts in some of the central Kentucky counties that are in the Second District.

Another alternative is to have a perfectly straight line with half the population in each, even though it will split counties. For example, if you're north of 38°48'14", you're in District 1. If you're south of that line of latitude, you're in District 2. (I don't know where the actual dividing line would be, and it would be dependent on the 2020 Census results anyway.)

I feel like Morgantown and the DC suburbs should be in the same district.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 10, 2020, 11:45:29 AM
As far as forcing incumbents to run against each other, any chance that one of the reps might try to knock off either Manchin or Capito for the Senate?

West Virginia has no Senate race in 2022.

Quote from: 1 on November 10, 2020, 11:51:41 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on November 10, 2020, 11:45:29 AM
Sounds like it would be a stretch to get Weirton and White Sulphur Springs in the same district, but that's what you'd end up with. You'd have to have a sliver of counties one deep along the Pennsylvania border to get a contiguous district. What I don't like is when counties are split. There are a handful of precincts in some of the central Kentucky counties that are in the Second District.

Another alternative is to have a perfectly straight line with half the population in each, even though it will split counties. For example, if you're north of 38°48'14", you're in District 1. If you're south of that line of latitude, you're in District 2. (I don't know where the actual dividing line would be, and it would be dependent on the 2020 Census results anyway.)

I feel like Morgantown and the DC suburbs should be in the same district.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 10, 2020, 11:45:29 AM
As far as forcing incumbents to run against each other, any chance that one of the reps might try to knock off either Manchin or Capito for the Senate?

West Virginia has no Senate race in 2022.

Splitting counties isn't a problem, but you're going to have a hard time drawing any line that doesn't follow boundaries of Census blocks when it comes to determining what district voters are in.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 10, 2020, 11:45:29 AM

As far as forcing incumbents to run against each other, any chance that one of the reps might try to knock off either Manchin or Capito for the Senate? Of course, there's no requirement that a congresscritter actually live in the district they represent. This resulted in a Montgomery County resident, Carl Chris Perkins, representing the old Seventh District of the southeastern Kentucky mountains when he replaced his dad, Carl D. "I wanna be like Robert Byrd and have everything in the mountains named for me" Perkins.  Everybody called him Chris Perkins, but he appeared on the ballot as Carl C. Perkins. There were actually people who thought they were still voting for Carl D. despite him being dead.

Capito was just reelected against a nut-fringe candidate, no one serious really even wanted to waste their time running against her.  Manchin, won 49 - 46, against a really poor Republican candidate, with the Libertarian (as in the recent national election) spoiling the result, in 18, so he is not up until 24.

As to our 3 current congressmen, McKinley lives in Wheeling, is 72, and is sharp as a tack.  Like super smart, understands any issue.  Mooney lives in the eastern panhandle, is 49, and represents the contorted 2nd district.   He is one of a growing crop of WV politicians who moved to the EP to escape MD or VA.  Not just him, but our AG, and like almost all of the state reps from over there are multi generationals from MD or VA suburbs of DC and moved to this deep red state (my, how times have changed).  That plays well there, but not so much in the rest of the state.  Miller lives in Huntington,  is 70, and the widow of a big car dealer.   She is probably the least well known candidate of the three, but she works her district hard.

Our gov is term limited for 24, and Manchin's popularity declines every day.  The gov is not interested in the senate and will retire.   I would not be surprised to see McKinley just take 2 years off and run for one or the other job.   Mooney will probably run for which ever one he doesn't. 

I remember the Perkins clan well, as we get KY ads and news on our TV.  When KY lost a seat he was the one who went, with his district split between an Ohio river one and one centered on southeast and southcentral KY.  IIRC he did not even run, and everybody wondered why, and then he went to the slammer.

Although it's nice and civil so far, discussion of individual politicians is definitely on the wrong side of our no-politics rule.

When my home state of Wisconsin lost a USHouse seat in the Y2K USCensus, going from 9 to 8 seats, redistricting was made much easier when one of the two representatives from the City of Milwaukee, which was until then pretty evenly split north-south between two districts that each contained several closer in suburbs, retired from office.  The new map then put all of the city along with a couple of close-in suburbs into one district with the state's other 7 districts then being spread out a bit southeastward to fill everything in, and no incumbents had to run against each other.

Mike

Quote from: SP Cook on November 10, 2020, 12:19:22 PM
I remember the Perkins clan well, as we get KY ads and news on our TV.  When KY lost a seat he was the one who went, with his district split between an Ohio river one and one centered on southeast and southcentral KY.  IIRC he did not even run, and everybody wondered why, and then he went to the slammer.

That was another attempt at gerrymandering that failed. Chris Perkins did indeed get in trouble, but I've forgotten the circumstances.

But as to the gerrymandering ... young folks today have a hard time understanding it, but for years Kentucky was a D stronghold. "Blue state" didn't just describe the state's affinity for Wildcat basketball. The only R district was the Fifth District, which was mostly south-central Kentucky, stretching from near cave country east to the Appalachians. Tim Lee Carter was a long-time representative for the old Fifth, and he hailed from the southwesternmost county in the district (Monroe County) and incidentally, now the congressman from the new First District is also from Monroe, which is now the southeasternmost county in that far-flung district.

But back to the Fifth -- when the congressional boundaries were drawn in 1992 after Kentucky's loss of a seat, the Fifth District congressman was Hal Rogers from Somerset. In the old Fifth, Somerset was squarely in the center of the district. After redistricting, Pulaski County became the westernmost district. The old Fifth counties were divided between the First and Second districts, but the majority of the counties were put in with the old Seventh District, the one represented by the aforementioned Carl D. Perkins and a very heavy D stronghold. The idea was that Rogers would lose re-election. But Rogers has surprisingly become very popular in his new district and has never been seriously challenged for re-election. A Democrat governor ordered the name change from the Daniel Boone Parkway to the Hal Rogers Parkway.

And I've mentioned the current Second District (the one that was gerrymandered to ease the path for the hand-picked successor to someone who used to have a Kentucky parkway named for him.) The hand-picked successor, speaker of the Kentucky House at the time, went down in a bribery scandal, and then the district started electing Republicans.

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 10, 2020, 02:50:17 PM
Although it's nice and civil so far, discussion of individual politicians is definitely on the wrong side of our no-politics rule.

No discussion on the boundaries of Kentucky's congressional districts can be had without at least naming the players and their roles in why things worked out the way they did. This isn't an end-around on the political ban; but a narrative on the events.

It's logical that Owensboro and Bowling Green be in the same congressional district. But it makes no sense whatsoever that Owensboro and Henderson aren't in the same district. Yet that's what happened to ensure that Owensboro and BG got put in the same district. I think it's more logical to put Owensboro and Henderson in the same district, and BG and Elizabethtown in the same district. I certainly realize that population is the overriding and legally controlling factor in drawing up districts, but logical geographical and socioeconomic considerations are often cast aside. Wolfe County, Ky., is in the Sixth District (the Bluegrass-area district). It doesn't belong there by any rational explanation. It's a rural, mountainous county and has little in common with Fayette, Clark, Scott, Franklin, Madison, or even nearby Estill or adjacent Powell. It would make more sense to put Wolfe in the Fifth.

Quote from: SP Cook on November 10, 2020, 10:24:16 AM
As to the population, WV has replaced Michigan as the state losing the most %age of its population.  Projections are 3.3% loss.  The 2030 census will be far worse.  I look for about 20 to 30 % of the population to leave in the next few years.

Illinois is likely to be in second place for the losing population this time around.  Three guesses as to why, and weather isn't one of them.

Quote from: Brandon on November 11, 2020, 08:58:31 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on November 10, 2020, 10:24:16 AM
As to the population, WV has replaced Michigan as the state losing the most %age of its population.  Projections are 3.3% loss.  The 2030 census will be far worse.  I look for about 20 to 30 % of the population to leave in the next few years.

Illinois is likely to be in second place for the losing population this time around.  Three guesses as to why, and weather isn't one of them.

Some nice houses for sale in my area. Getting a South Shore station by 2025.

A bill for DC statehood has been reintroduced in the Senate...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/536052-senate-democrats-reintroduce-dc-statehood-bill (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/536052-senate-democrats-reintroduce-dc-statehood-bill)

I think Puerto Rico statehood is more likely to reach 60 votes in the Senate than DC statehood. Puerto Rico isn't obviously blue like DC is (Puerto Rico's status is currently unknown, with the best estimates leaning but not solid blue), and there are two Hispanic Republican senators. Puerto Rico also passed a statehood referendum recently.

Quote from: 1 on January 27, 2021, 12:19:43 PM
I think Puerto Rico statehood is more likely to reach 60 votes in the Senate than DC statehood. Puerto Rico isn't obviously blue like DC is (Puerto Rico's status is currently unknown, with the best estimates leaning but not solid blue), and there are two Hispanic Republican senators. Puerto Rico also passed a statehood referendum recently.

Agreed. A few GOP senators have spoken in favor of PR statehood in the past. It'll be interesting to see if that's still the case now that they can't hide behind the former (:bigass:) majority leader anymore.

Quote from: LM117 on January 27, 2021, 02:48:55 PM

Quote from: 1 on January 27, 2021, 12:19:43 PM
I think Puerto Rico statehood is more likely to reach 60 votes in the Senate than DC statehood. Puerto Rico isn't obviously blue like DC is (Puerto Rico's status is currently unknown, with the best estimates leaning but not solid blue), and there are two Hispanic Republican senators. Puerto Rico also passed a statehood referendum recently.

Agreed. A few GOP senators have spoken in favor of PR statehood in the past. It'll be interesting to see if that's still the case now that they can't hide behind the former (:bigass:) majority leader anymore.

While I think the minimum wage is woefully below a living wage in the current US States, instituting the US  minimum wage in Puerto Rico will decimate their economy worse than it already is.....This is not the only thing that would be harmful. On the other hand.....

Quote from: bwana39 on January 27, 2021, 02:57:56 PM
instituting the US  minimum wage in Puerto Rico will decimate their economy worse than it already is.....

Decimate?  The only employees in Puerto Rico with a minimum wage lower than the federal $7.25/hour are those not covered by FLSA.

Non-FLSA employees in Kansas are likewise exempt from the state minimum wage.

In 2010, Kansas raised its state minimum wage from the previous $2.65/hour, to $7.25/hour.  This was right around the same time the federal minimum wage increased from the previous $5.15/hour to that same $7.25/hour.  In other words, non-FLSA employees in Kansas were bumped up from $5.15/hour to $7.25/hour.

Puerto Rico's current minimum wage already matches the current federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour, so FLSA employees would stay the same.  Non-FLSA employees in Puerto Rico currently have a minimum wage of $5.08/hour, which is roughly the same as what their counterparts in Kansas had been making prior to the bump.

Considering that the Kansas economy was not 'decimated' when the minimum wage increase happened here a decade ago, I have my doubts that the economy of Puerto Rico would be 'decimated' if an almost identical increase were to happen there.

Or am I missing something specific about Puerto Rico that would make it get hit especially hard?

Quote from: kphoger on January 27, 2021, 03:21:10 PM

Or am I missing something specific about Puerto Rico that would make it get hit especially hard?

I think he's referring to the proposed $15/hr, not the current $7.25/hr.

Quote from: 1 on January 27, 2021, 03:43:25 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 27, 2021, 03:21:10 PM
Or am I missing something specific about Puerto Rico that would make it get hit especially hard?

I think he's referring to the proposed $15/hr, not the current $7.25/hr.

So then, it's literally no different from any other state whose state minimum wage matches the federal.

Quote from: 1 on January 27, 2021, 12:19:43 PM
I think Puerto Rico statehood is more likely to reach 60 votes in the Senate than DC statehood. Puerto Rico isn't obviously blue like DC is (Puerto Rico's status is currently unknown, with the best estimates leaning but not solid blue), and there are two Hispanic Republican senators. Puerto Rico also passed a statehood referendum recently.

I guess we'll find out soon.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/puerto-rico-statehood-bill/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/puerto-rico-statehood-bill/)

Cool :)

Quote from: 1 on January 27, 2021, 03:43:25 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 27, 2021, 03:21:10 PM

Or am I missing something specific about Puerto Rico that would make it get hit especially hard?

I think he's referring to the proposed $15/hr, not the current $7.25/hr.

Well thanks to John Morgan Florida got $15 which will take four years to implement.

I, too, am thinking that Puerto Rico would likely be a swing state.  Donald Trump did particularly well in Latino areas in 2020, including places with a heavy Puerto Rican presence.  Also, many of the Island's recent governors and non-voting delegates to Congress have been Republicans.

Mike

I think the Democratic party do take for granted that Puerto Rico would be all democrat.  There is no doubt that DC would be all democrat.  The big push for this DC statehood is for one reason; solidify the Democratic voting block.

As well stated heretofore, there is a constitutional issue with DC statehood.  I read it that way as well.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 02:30:33 PM
I think the Democratic party do take for granted that Puerto Rico would be all democrat.  There is no doubt that DC would be all democrat.  The big push for this DC statehood is for one reason; solidify the Democratic voting block.

As well stated heretofore, there is a constitutional issue with DC statehood.  I read it that way as well.

IIRC, back in 1978, a Constitution amendment that would have for all purposes declared DC a state cleared Congress and was submitted to the states for ratification.

The text:

"ARTICLE ____

"SECTION 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.

"SEC. 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.

"SEC. 3. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

"SEC. 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission."

It failed to win the needed 38 state approval.

https://www.dcvote.org/1978-dc-voting-representation-constitutional-amendment-0

Mike

Hard to imagine why 38 states didn't vote to give away a little slice of their power to Washington...

DC should just be reattached to Maryland.
That would add 0 Senators and just one Representative and keep down the whining by those who'd say it's unfair for a city of 700,000 people to have two Senators even though there are two states with fewer people than DC.

It's a little crazy that Puerto Rico isn't a state.  It's more populous than 20 other states and has more people than the four smallest states combined.  What was the threshold for statehood back in the day?  60,000?  These are US Citizens and that's too many of them not to have the full representation in the federal government.  Whatever shortcomings one can find with Puerto Rico's economy or whatever, that's a poor excuse for 3.1 million people living as second-class citizens in this supposed democracy.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 03, 2021, 04:44:18 PM
Whatever shortcomings one can find with Puerto Rico's economy or whatever, that's a poor excuse for 3.1 million people living as second-class citizens in this supposed democracy.

But all the Puerto Ricans who don't want statehood–now, that's a better excuse.

Quote from: kphoger on March 03, 2021, 04:55:39 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 03, 2021, 04:44:18 PM
Whatever shortcomings one can find with Puerto Rico's economy or whatever, that's a poor excuse for 3.1 million people living as second-class citizens in this supposed democracy.

But all the Puerto Ricans who don't want statehood–now, that's a better excuse.

They held a statehood referendum, and it passed.

I've brought this up in other threads, but if anyone is at all interested in the different territories that the U.S. owns and why they aren't states, I could not recommend How To Hide an Empire by Daniel Immerwahr (https://www.amazon.com/How-Hide-Empire-History-Greater/dp/1784703915/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=how+to+hide+an+empire&qid=1614810559&sr=8-2) more highly.  Talks about Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Guano Islands, etc.  Super, super interesting to realize the weird three tier system we have of what's considered "The United States".

Chris

Quote from: mgk920 on March 03, 2021, 03:47:11 PM
IIRC, back in 1978, a Constitution amendment that would have for all purposes declared DC a state cleared Congress and was submitted to the states for ratification.

The text:
(omitted)
It failed to win the needed 38 state approval.

https://www.dcvote.org/1978-dc-voting-representation-constitutional-amendment-0

There might also have been a problem with the Constitution Article 5 provision that no state can be deprived of equal representation in the Senate.  That is the only provision of the constitution that amendment is not allowed to change.  The argument would be that DC is NOT a state, and granting Senate representation to it is dilluting the represenation of all the ACTUAL states.  I won't attempt to predict whether that argument would succeed before the Supreme Court, it would be interesting.

Another approach to DC represenation is defining the seat of government as a small enclave, roughly the Mall and a couple of blocks around it, and up to the White House and Lafayette Park.  No one really lives there (maybe some of the White House staff live on site?) so no one would be left unrepresented.  The rest of what is now DC could be admitted as a state by the normal admission process, that doesn't require a supermajority.

Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2021, 05:36:31 PM
Another approach to DC represenation is defining the seat of government as a small enclave, roughly the Mall and a couple of blocks around it, and up to the White House and Lafayette Park.  No one really lives there (maybe some of the White House staff live on site?) so no one would be left unrepresented.  The rest of what is now DC could be admitted as a state by the normal admission process, that doesn't require a supermajority.

And the small enclave would still get 3 electoral votes.

...and has more people than a couple of states.

Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2021, 06:06:16 PM
...and has more people than a couple of states.

DC has more people than a couple of states. The federal district cut out from the state of DC, as you had described earlier, contains very few people living there, plus some homeless. This is nowhere near even 100,000. This would still get 3 electoral votes because of the 23rd Amendment.

The area of DC southwest of the Potomac was ceded back to Virginia. The area remaining should be absorbed back into Maryland. I've probably said that before but I will say it again.

I'd be OK with Puerto Rico statehood, but under certain conditions.

Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2021, 06:17:30 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2021, 06:06:16 PM
...and has more people than a couple of states.

DC has more people than a couple of states. The federal district cut out from the state of DC, as you had described earlier, contains very few people living there, plus some homeless. This is nowhere near even 100,000. This would still get 3 electoral votes because of the 23rd Amendment.

Wut.

Quote from: the 23rd AmendmentThe District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

If you carve off the populated portion of the District to either form a new state (let's call it Douglass, since that's what I hear the current proposed name is) or add it to Maryland, this amendment doesn't go away. The area containing the White House, Capitol, etc. that you do not put in either Douglass or Maryland remains "the district constituting the seat of Government of the United States", and thus retains the right to appoint electors.

This is not an impossible situation to resolve (simply pass a 28th amendment that repeals the 23rd), but doing so can be lengthy. In the meantime, Congress could pass legislation specifying "in such manner as Congress may direct" to be something like always having the electors be people pledged to vote for George Washington, or who conveniently forget to submit votes to the Electoral College, or something like that. Or to flat out say no electors can be appointed at all, and just hope that nobody has any standing to sue over it.

Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2021, 08:24:26 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2021, 06:17:30 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2021, 06:06:16 PM
...and has more people than a couple of states.

DC has more people than a couple of states. The federal district cut out from the state of DC, as you had described earlier, contains very few people living there, plus some homeless. This is nowhere near even 100,000. This would still get 3 electoral votes because of the 23rd Amendment.

Wut.

Constitution of the United States of America - Amendment XXIII:

"Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

It was ratified on 1961-03-29.

Mike

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 08:35:33 PM

Quote from: the 23rd AmendmentThe District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

If you carve off the populated portion of the District to either form a new state (let's call it Douglass, since that's what I hear the current proposed name is) or add it to Maryland, this amendment doesn't go away. The area containing the White House, Capitol, etc. that you do not put in either Douglass or Maryland remains "the district constituting the seat of Government of the United States", and thus retains the right to appoint electors.

This is not an impossible situation to resolve (simply pass a 28th amendment that repeals the 23rd), but doing so can be lengthy. In the meantime, Congress could pass legislation specifying "in such manner as Congress may direct" to be something like always having the electors be people pledged to vote for George Washington, or who conveniently forget to submit votes to the Electoral College, or something like that. Or to flat out say no electors can be appointed at all, and just hope that nobody has any standing to sue over it.

Passing constitutional amendments can be lengthy if they are controversial, but when they're uncontroversial they can sail through in a year.

Sure, theoretically. But the last time the Constitution was amended was in the 1990s, before the concept of "red states" and "blue states" had really gained hold. More bluntly, I don't trust the people of the United States to allow anything to not be controversial anymore. (Hell, "covid is bad and we should take steps to keep people from catching it" somehow managed to become a controversial statement here.)

In any event, I would imagine a theoretical election where both the rump DC and the state of Douglass sent electors to the Electoral College would make this last election look like a walk in the park. The rump DC could, unless stripped of its electors, easily be compared to the old rotten boroughs in British Parliament.

Quote from: mgk920 on March 03, 2021, 10:17:03 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2021, 08:24:26 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2021, 06:17:30 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2021, 06:06:16 PM
...and has more people than a couple of states.

DC has more people than a couple of states. The federal district cut out from the state of DC, as you had described earlier, contains very few people living there, plus some homeless. This is nowhere near even 100,000. This would still get 3 electoral votes because of the 23rd Amendment.

Wut.

Constitution of the United States of America - Amendment XXIII:

"Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

It was ratified on 1961-03-29.

Mike

I wasn't talking to you.  "1" thought he was responding to someone else.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 10:57:52 PM
More bluntly, I don't trust the people of the United States to allow anything to not be controversial anymore. (Hell, "covid is bad and we should take steps to keep people from catching it" somehow managed to become a controversial statement here.)

Yeah, unlike other countries, where people thought the coronavirus was a fictional thing made up by American politicians.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 10:57:52 PM
But the last time the Constitution was amended was in the 1990s, before the concept of "red states" and "blue states" had really gained hold.

There was plenty of vicious partisanship in all eras.  Just because someone decided to associate colors with the parties in the aftermath of the 2000 election doesn't mean there was an increase in partisanship then.

Quote from: kkt on March 04, 2021, 10:42:52 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 10:57:52 PM
But the last time the Constitution was amended was in the 1990s, before the concept of "red states" and "blue states" had really gained hold.

There was plenty of vicious partisanship in all eras.  Just because someone decided to associate colors with the parties in the aftermath of the 2000 election doesn't mean there was an increase in partisanship then.

Partisanship was at a minimum in the 1950s to 1970s. There has been a continuous increase in partisanship from then to the present.

For example, in the 1972 and 1984 Republican landslides for the presidential race, Democrats kept the House, and in both cases, it was more of a majority than what Democrats had after the 2018 midterms.

Cable news/the internet are largely responsible for the drastic increase in polarization. The attitudes of the voters became more homogonized.

The mythology that some unnamed past time had a more gentle politics is unsupported by history.

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 04, 2021, 11:14:29 AM
Cable news/the internet are largely responsible for the drastic increase in polarization. The attitudes of the voters became more homogonized.

I am not sure if it is news that making folks think that way, I think it is the news portraying that is the way it is.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 04, 2021, 12:56:01 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 04, 2021, 11:14:29 AM
Cable news/the internet are largely responsible for the drastic increase in polarization. The attitudes of the voters became more homogonized.

I am not sure if it is news that making folks think that way, I think it is the news portraying that is the way it is.

If your argument is that the major media outlets are unbiased and uninterested at getting a reaction out of their audience, then good luck getting people to agree with you.

Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 12:57:44 PM
If your argument is that the major media outlets are unbiased and uninterested at getting a reaction out of their audience, then good luck getting people to agree with you.

Most are, but some aren't. Finding the ones that aren't is the hard part because, first of all, many people don't even want unbiased coverage, and second of all, they seem to be getting fewer and farther between.

Quote from: webny99 on March 04, 2021, 01:16:45 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 12:57:44 PM
If your argument is that the major media outlets are unbiased and uninterested at getting a reaction out of their audience, then good luck getting people to agree with you.

Most are, but some aren't. Finding the ones that aren't is the hard part because, first of all, many people don't even want unbiased coverage, and second of all, they seem to be getting fewer and farther between.

Many of the paywalled online newspapers are good. The problem is that they're paywalled. The Guardian, however, is not paywalled. NPR is also good (and not paywalled), but they seem to cover specific stories and aren't in the format of your typical newspaper or TV news broadcast.

They still have attention-grabbing headlines, but that doesn't mean they're biased.

Quote from: kkt on March 04, 2021, 10:42:52 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2021, 10:57:52 PM
But the last time the Constitution was amended was in the 1990s, before the concept of "red states" and "blue states" had really gained hold.

There was plenty of vicious partisanship in all eras.  Just because someone decided to associate colors with the parties in the aftermath of the 2000 election doesn't mean there was an increase in partisanship then.

For a couple of decades before the 1860s, it was 'slave states' v. 'free states'.  The Missouri Compromise came from that era.

Mike

Quote from: 1 on March 04, 2021, 01:20:57 PM
Many of the paywalled online newspapers are good. The problem is that they're paywalled.

I'm looking right at you, New York Times.

(I know many people would call them biased, and rightly so, but they do have good data journalism.)

Quote from: webny99 on March 04, 2021, 03:20:30 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 04, 2021, 01:20:57 PM
Many of the paywalled online newspapers are good. The problem is that they're paywalled.

I'm looking right at you, New York Times.

(I know many people would call them biased, and rightly so, but they do have good data journalism.)

Washington Post...

Quote from: SP Cook on March 04, 2021, 11:55:40 AM
The mythology that some unnamed past time had a more gentle politics is unsupported by history.

I remember when a wave of Reps retired with Pat Schroeder and they were all bemoaning how miserable Congress had become.

Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 03:24:01 PM

Quote from: webny99 on March 04, 2021, 03:20:30 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 04, 2021, 01:20:57 PM
Many of the paywalled online newspapers are good. The problem is that they're paywalled.

I'm looking right at you, New York Times.

(I know many people would call them biased, and rightly so, but they do have good data journalism.)

Washington Post...

A full online WaPo subscription is ludicrously cheap if you have Amazon Prime (since Jeff Bezos owns both of them). They also make certain stories they consider important enough available for free to anyone.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2021, 08:46:08 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 03:24:01 PM

Quote from: webny99 on March 04, 2021, 03:20:30 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 04, 2021, 01:20:57 PM
Many of the paywalled online newspapers are good. The problem is that they're paywalled.

I'm looking right at you, New York Times.

(I know many people would call them biased, and rightly so, but they do have good data journalism.)

Washington Post...

A full online WaPo subscription is ludicrously cheap if you have Amazon Prime (since Jeff Bezos owns both of them). They also make certain stories they consider important enough available for free to anyone.

I get ads all the time to subscribe to the WaPo for a year for $1. But I wouldn't even pay that small amount for that rag.

Now that I got the smartphone monkey off my back, I no longer have any desire to read a WaPo article anyway.  I just remember them and NYT having headlines that grabbed my attention.  You know, back then.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart

This company analyzed the biases of various media sources. It seems pretty accurate based on my experience.

Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 12:57:44 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 04, 2021, 12:56:01 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 04, 2021, 11:14:29 AM
Cable news/the internet are largely responsible for the drastic increase in polarization. The attitudes of the voters became more homogonized.

I am not sure if it is news that making folks think that way, I think it is the news portraying that is the way it is.

The opposite.  I am saying that they are making the reaction rather than reporting it.  News has become entertainment and opinion pieces rather than reporting the news.

If your argument is that the major media outlets are unbiased and uninterested at getting a reaction out of their audience, then good luck getting people to agree with you.

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 07:16:34 AM
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart

This company analyzed the biases of various media sources. It seems pretty accurate based on my experience.

That is really interesting. There's a bunch of sources clustered slightly to the left of center, while there's a void slightly to the right of center. It actually makes sense: most sources are either part of the mainstream, or attacking the mainstream, and the latter inherently leads to a stronger bias.

Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2021, 10:00:40 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 07:16:34 AM
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart

This company analyzed the biases of various media sources. It seems pretty accurate based on my experience.

That is really interesting. There's a bunch of sources clustered slightly to the left of center, while there's a void slightly to the right of center. It actually makes sense: most sources are either part of the mainstream, or attacking the mainstream, and the latter inherently leads to a stronger bias.

I was amused that (1) they rated the Weather Channel and (2) it rated left of center

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 10:05:46 AM

Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2021, 10:00:40 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 07:16:34 AM
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart

This company analyzed the biases of various media sources. It seems pretty accurate based on my experience.

That is really interesting. There's a bunch of sources clustered slightly to the left of center, while there's a void slightly to the right of center. It actually makes sense: most sources are either part of the mainstream, or attacking the mainstream, and the latter inherently leads to a stronger bias.

I was amused that (1) they rated the Weather Channel and (2) it rated left of center

Maybe it has to do with choosing which places to cover. For example, refusing to cover Puerto Rico for Hurricane Maria (which I believe was not the case) would push it to the right.

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 10:05:46 AM

Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2021, 10:00:40 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 07:16:34 AM
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart

This company analyzed the biases of various media sources. It seems pretty accurate based on my experience.

That is really interesting. There's a bunch of sources clustered slightly to the left of center, while there's a void slightly to the right of center. It actually makes sense: most sources are either part of the mainstream, or attacking the mainstream, and the latter inherently leads to a stronger bias.

I was amused that (1) they rated the Weather Channel and (2) it rated left of center

Have you looked at the weather channel recently?  Web sources are much better at local weather forecasts so they don't spend a lot of time reporting the weather any more...

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 10:05:46 AM

Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2021, 10:00:40 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 07:16:34 AM
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart

This company analyzed the biases of various media sources. It seems pretty accurate based on my experience.

That is really interesting. There's a bunch of sources clustered slightly to the left of center, while there's a void slightly to the right of center. It actually makes sense: most sources are either part of the mainstream, or attacking the mainstream, and the latter inherently leads to a stronger bias.

I was amused that (1) they rated the Weather Channel and (2) it rated left of center

I would imagine that it has to do with the fact that the Weather Channel runs climate change stories.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 02:28:56 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 10:05:46 AM

Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2021, 10:00:40 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 07:16:34 AM
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart

This company analyzed the biases of various media sources. It seems pretty accurate based on my experience.

That is really interesting. There's a bunch of sources clustered slightly to the left of center, while there's a void slightly to the right of center. It actually makes sense: most sources are either part of the mainstream, or attacking the mainstream, and the latter inherently leads to a stronger bias.

I was amused that (1) they rated the Weather Channel and (2) it rated left of center

I would imagine that it has to do with the fact that the Weather Channel runs climate change stories.

So factually accurate scientific information is now left of center?

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 02:38:51 PM
So factually accurate scientific information is now left of center?

If that accurate scientific information is used primarily for the purposes of the Left and argued against primarily by the Right, then I can understand.

But, really, it was just ba-a-a-a-rely left of center on that chart.  It hardly damns it as Marxist propaganda.

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 02:38:51 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 02:28:56 PM
I would imagine that it has to do with the fact that the Weather Channel runs climate change stories.

So factually accurate scientific information is now left of center?

Not necessarily. It probably has more to do with how it's framed.

Being "right of center" or "left of center" is all relative anyway.  Where's the center?

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 03:35:42 PM
Being "right of center" or "left of center" is all relative anyway.  Where's the center?

There is no center anymore, which is part of the problem.

Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2021, 03:45:08 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 03:35:42 PM
Being "right of center" or "left of center" is all relative anyway.  Where's the center?

There is no center anymore, which is part of the problem.

The vast majority of Democrats in this country would be considered center-right in Europe.

Chris

Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2021, 03:45:08 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 03:35:42 PM
Being "right of center" or "left of center" is all relative anyway.  Where's the center?

There is no center anymore, which is part of the problem.

If there's a left and a right, then there has to be a center–or a middle, if you prefer.  That is to say, whether you put XYZ Media on the right or left of the line depends on where the line falls in the first place.

Center also changes over time, and can be dragged left and right by politicians over time. For instance, say you want, I dunno, minimum wage to be $15/hour. Easiest way to get it to happen is to very loudly repeatedly campaign for it to be $30/hour. Your opponents say that's ridiculous and favor keeping it at $7.25/hour. Guess what falls roughly in the center?

Things fall apart.  The center does not hold.