51st state?

[Avalanchez71]

The founders did not want DC to become part of a state or a state itself because it is the country's capital.

Because of DC's proximity to the capital compared to the other states.  The airplane sort of rendered that point moot.

Also, if we're playing "the founders didn't want it," we may as well go back to letting state legislatures elect Senators.

That sounds like a good idea actually.

[kphoger]

The capitals of Mexico and Australia are not states; they're their own district the same way Washington DC is. The US is not alone in having its capital not be part of a state.

In Mexico, there has not been such a thing as the Distrito Federal since January 2016.  Mexico City is prevented by the Constitution from becoming a state, but it is now considered a "federal entity," which is the same designation given to states.  It now or will shortly have its own congress, draft its own constitution, elect municipal mayors and councils, be eligible for state and municipal funding from the federal government, etc.  The federal government will continue to have its seat in Mexico City per the Constitution, and it will also fund the health care and education systems there, but in a great many respects Mexico City is now indistinguishable from any other state.

[abefroman329]

Now, that said, if you look at the electorial map with shading by counties (multiple sites have these on line) and at election results in California for other races, it is clear that the voices of the productive people inland are being drowned out by the coastal elites.

Those maps are meaningless, since counties have wildly different populations.  I'm sure it's really impressive to you to see ten red counties and one blue county, but that one blue county could have a larger population than all ten combined.

[dvferyance]

California should split up becasue no state should ever have 55 electoral votes too much power for one state in the electoral college.

[abefroman329]

I still say that the top five  metro areas should be their own states.  Otherwise the heavily blue urban areas have too much pull over heavily red rural areas, at least when it comes to state politics.

It's the opposite for national politics - since blue voters are concentrated in cities and red voters are spread across the rest of the state, and electoral districts have to have an equal number of residents, you could have a situation where a state is 50% blue voters and 50% red voters, but has 3-4 times as many red Members of Congress as blue Members.

[abefroman329]

California should split up becasue no state should ever have 55 electoral votes too much power for one state in the electoral college.

Texas has 38, should we split up Texas?  Or is it OK because those 38 will always go to the Republican candidate?

[dvferyance]

California should split up becasue no state should ever have 55 electoral votes too much power for one state in the electoral college.

Texas has 38, should we split up Texas?  Or is it OK because those 38 will always go to the Republican candidate?

I was afraid this was going to get too political. I should have also made the point that California has more people than Canada. Can a state government still function on it's own with such a huge population? The new state of Jefferson proposal would still leave California with about 49 electoral votes that is still more than Texas. New York never had 55 electoral votes during it's peak.

[Max Rockatansky]

The water rights issues from the Sierras alone make splitting up California a non-starter. 

Those water rights are a knot tied up in a corundum, mixed up in a clusterfuck.

Not to mention the Colorado River watershed and the rights there.  You start carving up California and that becomes even more a disaster. 

[kalvado]

California should split up becasue no state should ever have 55 electoral votes too much power for one state in the electoral college.

Texas has 38, should we split up Texas?  Or is it OK because those 38 will always go to the Republican candidate?

I was afraid this was going to get too political. I should have also made the point that California has more people than Canada. Can a state government still function on it's own with such a huge population? The new state of Jefferson proposal would still leave California with about 49 electoral votes that is still more than Texas. New York never had 55 electoral votes during it's peak.

But Canada is still able to operate under the single government? 
Leaving electoral college thing aside, are there any other fundamental issues with government of entity with 40 million people?
If anything, that may include internal restructure with counties and/or megacities  getting more authority within the state, as counties further away from big cities do have different priorities than LA or SF area. It may be somewhat close idea to some NYS laws not applying to either NYC or "cities over 1 million" (still NYC) - and city taking over those matters.

[NWI_Irish96]

If it is to happen it would probably take away electoral votes from the Democratic Party.

Also it will change the makeup of the House and Senate slightly but probably not that much.


iPhone

Because of this reason, I can't see any splitting or merging of existing states ever happening.  The party that the split would hurt would filibuster the act in Congress (and splitting states would require Congressional approval.)

[webny99]

New York should split into two, along the 42nd parallel.

This could, but would not have to, be done in conjunction with splits in other states, such as California.

[bing101]

Hell no No way that's going to happen where Sacramento and Solano counties would be fractured for two California's  also how will water deals come into play.

[Brandon]

Hell no No way that's going to happen where Sacramento and Solano counties would be fractured for two California's  also how will water deals come into play.

That's where the Water Rights Clusterfuck^TM comes into play.

[inkyatari]

All I know is that I am tired of the way that illinois is governed, making those of us not in the chicago metro have little say in statewide politics.

[Brandon]

All I know is that I am tired of the way that illinois is governed, making those of us not in the chicago metro have little say in statewide politics.

FIFY.  Even those of us supposedly in the Metro Chicago (Will, Kane, McHenry) lack any real say.

[bing101]

How will roads be funded? Also how will Solano County residents get to work?

I notice the map shows that if someone from Solano county wants to drive to the Bay Area or Sacramento they have to cross state borders twice to get to their destination like Sacramento and San Francisco. This has to be poorly executed.

[bandit957]

Let's face it, greater Chicago has most of Illinois's population.

[Roadgeekteen]

I would like Puerto Rico to become a state eventually. I would also like to see all the pacific territories and Hawaii become one state called the Pacific Union (or PU).

[kkt]

California should split up becasue no state should ever have 55 electoral votes too much power for one state in the electoral college.

Texas has 38, should we split up Texas?  Or is it OK because those 38 will always go to the Republican candidate?

There's no guarantee if Texas were split up, all the successor states would be red states.  There's a substantial liberal population in Texas and dividing the state might bring it out.  LBJ, arguably the most liberal president ever, was from Texas...

[Roadgeekteen]

California should split up becasue no state should ever have 55 electoral votes too much power for one state in the electoral college.

Texas has 38, should we split up Texas?  Or is it OK because those 38 will always go to the Republican candidate?

There's no guarantee if Texas were split up, all the successor states would be red states.  There's a substantial liberal population in Texas and dividing the state might bring it out.  LBJ, arguably the most liberal president ever, was from Texas...

The state with Austin and San Antonio would vote democrat.

[bing101]

I would like Puerto Rico to become a state eventually. I would also like to see all the pacific territories and Hawaii become one state called the Pacific Union (or PU).

How about the U.S. Virgin Islands they should be considered for 51st state status.

[nexus73]

Remember Obama's "57 states" comment?  It would be next to impossible to get that many but we could get Puerto Rico as one.  Is there enough in common with the Virgin Islands, which were bought by the USA from Denmark in 1917, with the former Spanish colony won by the USA in the Spanish-American War?  Doubtful and given the tiny population of the Virgin Islands, I would see them remaining as a territory. 

Guam and the Northern Marianas would seem logical to merge but that will never happen since the Guamians remember the Japanese atrocities from WW2 vividly while the Northern Marianas was a League of Nations mandate given to Japan since Germany (the original Great Power owner) and their Central Powers partners lost WW1.  These two groups do not like each other. That also makes for two tiny populations getting 4 Senators and 2 Reps, which is overproportionate.  Kiss this idea goodbye.

American Samoa would be another case of too few people. Heck, there's more of us in Coos County than there is on those islands!  Looking at the tiny islands like Wake. Johnson and Midway shows hardly any people living on them so they are out as well.

Puerto Rico or bust for the 51st state is what the situation looks like to me and the short term odds of that are lousy since the Puerto Ricans are in debt up to their eyeballs and anyone they send to Congress would be Demo.  Clear up their debts and wait for a Demo cycle, then see if there is a majority on that island and among the current 50 states to admit them would be the most likely path for them to become #51.

Rick

[theroadwayone]

Anyone wanna hear a good idea?

Make L.A. County it's own state.

Dredge up land along the coast, wrap it southeast to O.C. and north to Ventura, and make that part of the rest of California, effectively marooning the new state in.

Watch as people lose their s**t over it.

There. Problem solved.

[Scott5114]

I still say that the top five  metro areas should be their own states.  Otherwise the heavily blue urban areas have too much pull over heavily red rural areas, at least when it comes to state politics.

Nationally, I would think things would still tend to balance out.

Rural states tend to be over-represented in Congress. You are guaranteed two senators and one representative, no matter your population. The two-senators thing is by design (because the Senate is intended to put the brakes on populous states), but the House representation throws everything out of whack. There are only 435 representatives, no matter what. That means, in the case of states with very low population, like Wyoming, you end up with a representative with far fewer constituents than a rep in a higher-population state. For example, Oklahoma has 9.3 million residents and 5 House seats, meaning each rep has 780,000 people they represent. Wyoming has 585,000 people in the whole state, all of which share one rep, so one voter's say is more influential in Wyoming than it is in Oklahoma (since they have 195,000 people fewer that their vote has to compete against).

This would be simple to fix, by increasing the size of the House until the average population of one congressional district was 585,000, but the House chamber is too small to fit the appropriate number of representatives. Which is the original reason they put the cap at 435 in the first place–the House did not want to appropriate money to build a larger chamber. Decades later, due to population growth patterns nobody really saw coming when that rule was passed, it's causing these imbalance issues, which of course have deeper, if subtle, implications on policy in a 21st-century America.

[kalvado]

I still say that the top five  metro areas should be their own states.  Otherwise the heavily blue urban areas have too much pull over heavily red rural areas, at least when it comes to state politics.

Nationally, I would think things would still tend to balance out.

Rural states tend to be over-represented in Congress. You are guaranteed two senators and one representative, no matter your population. The two-senators thing is by design (because the Senate is intended to put the brakes on populous states), but the House representation throws everything out of whack. There are only 435 representatives, no matter what. That means, in the case of states with very low population, like Wyoming, you end up with a representative with far fewer constituents than a rep in a higher-population state. For example, Oklahoma has 9.3 million residents and 5 House seats, meaning each rep has 780,000 people they represent. Wyoming has 585,000 people in the whole state, all of which share one rep, so one voter's say is more influential in Wyoming than it is in Oklahoma (since they have 195,000 people fewer that their vote has to compete against).

This would be simple to fix, by increasing the size of the House until the average population of one congressional district was 585,000, but the House chamber is too small to fit the appropriate number of representatives. Which is the original reason they put the cap at 435 in the first place–the House did not want to appropriate money to build a larger chamber. Decades later, due to population growth patterns nobody really saw coming when that rule was passed, it's causing these imbalance issues, which of course have deeper, if subtle, implications on policy in a 21st-century America.

First of all, you realize you're talking about a total of maybe 10 seats being oh-so-disproportional?  This issue may be a good subject for a term paper, but nowhere close to endangering the system.
Second, as long as congress districts are restricted to state boundaries, there is no way to improve ratios without increasing congress size to 4-digits.
Simple: South Dakota has 1.5x population of WY, and also has 1 seat. Once you increase chamber size to 1 per WY population, SD either is underrepresented by a factor of 1.5 if they have 1 seat, or over-represented   by 1.5, if they have 2 seats.
You need to give WY 2 seats and SD 3 seats to make things work. That means 1200 representative total, give or take. Can we afford 3x increase in pork?
And we didn't try to make it fair for AK and ND yet.

But in total, currently seven single-representative states have an average representation of 1:753k (2010 census numbers) - compared to 1:708k average for 50 states. Those 7 states would probably get 8 seats if pooled together. So most rural states are UNDERrepresented overall.
On a same spreadsheet, 20 least populated states have 46 seats - but should have 45 at average representation rate. 25 least populated states are 71 seats and a touch below average with 71.124 expected seats.  Are you sure there is a problem?

Truly fair solutions include either crossing state lines (gerrymandering brought to a new level), fractional votes (imagine tragedy of a bill defeated by 0.05 votes!) or 4-digit (better 5-digit) congress headcounts.