New design USA flag coming?

[Scott5114]

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.

[SP Cook]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[SP Cook]

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.   

[hotdogPi]

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.)

[hbelkins]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

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.

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

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.

[SP Cook]

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.

[Scott5114]

Although it's nice and civil so far, discussion of individual politicians is definitely on the wrong side of our no-politics rule.

[mgk920]

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

[hbelkins]

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.

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

[LM117]

A bill for DC statehood has been reintroduced in the Senate...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/536052-senate-democrats-reintroduce-dc-statehood-bill

[hotdogPi]

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.

[LM117]

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 () majority leader anymore.

[bwana39]

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 () 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.....

[kphoger]

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?

[hotdogPi]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[LM117]

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/

[kkt]

Cool

[roadman65]

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.