New design USA flag coming?

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

[mgk920]

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

It passed.

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)???



Mike

[Roadgeekteen]

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

It passed.

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)???



Mike

The filibuster maybe?

[Road Hog]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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. 

[kphoger]

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

It passed.

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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

It passed.

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.

[wxfree]

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

It passed.

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.

[LM117]

Puerto Rico voted in favor of statehood.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/524590-puerto-rico-votes-in-favor-of-us-statehood

[NWI_Irish96]

Puerto Rico voted in favor of 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.

[Rothman]

I am still looking forward to a flag with 3 rows of 17 stars.

[SP Cook]

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.

[mgk920]

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

[US 89]

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" 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.

[SP Cook]

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. 

[hotdogPi]

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).

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

[1995hoo]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[michravera]

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

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

[kphoger]

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.