The unofficial name is MegaKota, but I would just prefer it to be called Dakota.
https://www.nbc4i.com/news/u-s-world/more-than-10k-people-sign-petition-to-merge-north-and-south-dakota-into-one-megakota/1696350316
It was originally Dakota Territory so Dakota makes sense. However, Republicans will never countenance losing 2 Senate seats. So no go.
But both states are very Republican.
Quote from: golden eagle on January 11, 2019, 07:29:39 PM
But both states are very Republican.
Do they tend to lean authoritarian or libertarian?
Quote from: golden eagle on January 11, 2019, 07:29:39 PM
But both states are very Republican.
Yes, but you'd be going from 4 Rs to 2. That won't fly in today's razor-thin majority age.
In any case this whole petition is based on the premise of "it'd just be cool to do it" so this isn't even that serious anyway.
I'll support this if they bring back that sweet Indian head route marker for the new combined state.
Quote from: golden eagle on January 11, 2019, 07:29:39 PM
But both states are very Republican.
Which was one reason why the Dakota Territory was split into two states in 1889 -- 4 Republican Senators and 2 Republican House members instead of 2 and 1, respectively.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 11, 2019, 08:12:01 PM
I'll support this if they bring back that sweet Indian head route marker for the new combined state.
AMEN!
Quote from: Road Hog on January 11, 2019, 06:50:18 PM
It was originally Dakota Territory so Dakota makes sense. However, Republicans will never countenance losing 2 Senate seats. So no go.
Actually believe it or not from 1996-2004 all 4 seats were held by Democrats and 3 out of 4 from 2004-2010. It wasn't until as recent as just this year that all 4 become Republican.
I vote South Dakota's DOT takes over.
Changing it to East and West Dakota would make more sense IMHO.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 11:06:54 PM
Changing it to East and West Dakota would make more sense IMHO.
Ever been there? There's a reason for the north-south split over an east-west one. Most of the population of these two states lives in the eastern third of each.
Quote from: golden eagle on January 11, 2019, 06:46:22 PM
The unofficial name is MegaKota, but I would just prefer it to be called Dakota.
https://www.nbc4i.com/news/u-s-world/more-than-10k-people-sign-petition-to-merge-north-and-south-dakota-into-one-megakota/1696350316
MegaKota?? >ugh<
I've heard of merging other spots before, such as counties and school districts, but 2 states merging sounds like a logistical cluster, even if there weren't the political party/makeup-of-Congress issue. Almost as bad as the state secession or division-of-a-state talk that crops up sometimes.
And why would they want to give up that amount of power that they now collectively have in the USSenate and Electoral College?
Mike
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 11:06:54 PM
Changing it to East and West Dakota would make more sense IMHO.
How about Legends & Leaders?
Plot twist: the people signing it are all out-of-state Democrats looking for an edge.
Tom "Puff" Daschle
Quote from: texaskdog on January 12, 2019, 05:32:37 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 11:06:54 PM
Changing it to East and West Dakota would make more sense IMHO.
How about Legends & Leaders?
:-D :-D
It's always funny when local TV reports internet bullshit as "news".
in Toastmasters we had a South Dakota District (41), North Dakota/NW Minnesota district (20), and Montana District (17). Due to low population they merged them all together. They added all the numbers up and got 78 which was coming up in the queue at the time.
One could make arguments to merge Maryland/Delaware, Connecticut/Rhode Island, and New Hampshire/Vermont. You could probably add Massachusetts in with Conn/RI as well. It's not going to happen. A lot of residents won't want the change, and political leaders (no matter their leaning) won't want to get rid of any political power they might have.
Quote from: Brandon on January 11, 2019, 11:56:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 11:06:54 PM
Changing it to East and West Dakota would make more sense IMHO.
Ever been there? There's a reason for the north-south split over an east-west one. Most of the population of these two states lives in the eastern third of each.
I assumed that's what he meant, but he actually thought that was a
good thing.
Quote from: golden eagle on January 11, 2019, 07:29:39 PM
But both states are very Republican.
Merge Connecticut and Rhode Island as a counterbalance.
What if we just trade North Dakota for a Province to be named later?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2019, 02:01:55 PM
What if we just trade North Dakota for a Province to be named later?
North Dakota does have a lot in common with Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but it should remain part of the US.
Quote from: golden eagle on January 11, 2019, 06:46:22 PM
The unofficial name is MegaKota, but I would just prefer it to be called Dakota.
I would just prefer to call it bullshit.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 12, 2019, 05:32:37 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 11:06:54 PM
Changing it to East and West Dakota would make more sense IMHO.
How about Legends & Leaders?
Wasn't that the name of the Big Ten divisions when the expanded and split into the two divisions?
^^Yes, that's the joke.
One of the historical reasons for admitting the Dakota Territory as 2 states was to get four additional GOP senators instead of two.
Quote from: Life in Paradiseand New Hampshire/Vermont
Really? Hell, I could make an argument that Vermont should be SPLIT 3 ways...not merged.
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2019, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradiseand New Hampshire/Vermont
Really? Hell, I could make an argument that Vermont should be SPLIT 3 ways...not merged.
Split three ways? But Vermont is already the third smallest state.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 12, 2019, 09:32:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2019, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradiseand New Hampshire/Vermont
Really? Hell, I could make an argument that Vermont should be SPLIT 3 ways...not merged.
Split three ways? But Vermont is already the third smallest state.
True but, if you go out to dinner with friends at Applebee's, it often makes sense to split the bill three ways. And a whole state–even Vermont–is much, much bigger than that.
While we're at it:
1. Give the Florida Panhandle to Alabama.
2. Split California into three states (without splitting metro areas).
3. Give the Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin. (Unlike the others, this change is cosmetic with rare exceptions.)
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
5. Anything in Illinois north of Chicago becomes part of Wisconsin.
6. Dissolve Idaho by giving it to Washington, Oregon, and Montana – but not too much into Oregon.
7. North Carolina west of Charlotte becomes part of Tennessee.
8. Give the extended Texas Panhandle (basically Lubbock to Wichita Falls) to Oklahoma and everything east of Houston/Tyler/Paris to Louisiana, and then split Texas into two states. Splitting without giving those portions away will have the opposite of the intended effect.
9. Split NYC proper and Long Island from the rest of New York. Yes, this means Yonkers goes into upstate. (This one could backfire even as written, but putting the line farther north would have a greater chance of backfiring.)
10. Create the first majority African-American state from the western half of Mississippi, a bit of Arkansas, and Memphis and immediate suburbs. The rest of Mississippi gets merged into Alabama.
Did I miss anything? (Some of you will figure out what I'm doing with these proposals.)
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
While we're at it:
1. Give the Florida Panhandle to Alabama.
2. Split California into three states (without splitting metro areas).
3. Give the Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin. (Unlike the others, this change is cosmetic with rare exceptions.)
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
5. Anything in Illinois north of Chicago becomes part of Wisconsin.
6. Dissolve Idaho by giving it to Washington, Oregon, and Montana — but not too much into Oregon.
7. North Carolina west of Charlotte becomes part of Tennessee.
8. Give the extended Texas Panhandle (basically Lubbock to Wichita Falls) to Oklahoma and everything east of Houston/Tyler/Paris to Louisiana, and then split Texas into two states. Splitting without giving those portions away will have the opposite of the intended effect.
9. Split NYC proper and Long Island from the rest of New York. Yes, this means Yonkers goes into upstate. (This one could backfire even as written, but putting the line farther north would have a greater chance of backfiring.)
10. Create the first majority African-American state from the western half of Mississippi, a bit of Arkansas, and Memphis and immediate suburbs. The rest of Mississippi gets merged into Alabama.
Did I miss anything? (Some of you will figure out what I'm doing with these proposals.)
Everything except #4, as well as the proposal to merge the Dakotas, will require consent of one or more state legislatures, as well as Congress. Even one of the simpler ones (splitting up California or New York, which would require consent of only one legislature and Congress) has been a tough sell in California lately, as discussed in multiple threads on this forum.
The other one not on your list, but often discussed on this forum (so no need to repeat that discussion here), is returning most or all of the District of Columbia to Maryland. Good luck with pulling that off!
I used to fantasize about Oklahoma merging into Kansas and having KDOT take over our roads.
The panhandle would look REALLY silly then, though.
Obviously, this is an academic exercise, as there will never be any shifting of state lines, and the difficulty of splitting or merging the 1000 functions of state governments is beyond complex.
However, due, in the east, to crazy western claims of the original states (compounded in WV's case by the tragic separation of WV from VA) ; and in the rest of the country, by rushing states to statehood before full settlement and crazy borders drawn in Washington by people who, mostly, had never been west of Cincinnati, the states often comprise people with little in common with one another, and of vastly different sizes.
It is not hard to come up with 50 units, even using current county lines, of people with similar interests, culture, and economy.
Quote from: golden eagle on January 12, 2019, 06:26:51 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 12, 2019, 05:32:37 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 11, 2019, 11:06:54 PM
Changing it to East and West Dakota would make more sense IMHO.
How about Legends & Leaders?
Wasn't that the name of the Big Ten divisions when the expanded and split into the two divisions?
I think
Norris and
Smythe sounds better.
"MegaKota" sounds like either a bad supermarket chain or an intestinal disorder.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
(Some of you will figure out what I'm doing with these proposals.)
Nope, not sure what reference your making, though a couple things on your list reminded me of this:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/state_borders.png)
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
While we're at it:
1. Give the Florida Panhandle to Alabama.
2. Split California into three states (without splitting metro areas).
3. Give the Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin. (Unlike the others, this change is cosmetic with rare exceptions.)
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
5. Anything in Illinois north of Chicago becomes part of Wisconsin.
6. Dissolve Idaho by giving it to Washington, Oregon, and Montana – but not too much into Oregon.
7. North Carolina west of Charlotte becomes part of Tennessee.
8. Give the extended Texas Panhandle (basically Lubbock to Wichita Falls) to Oklahoma and everything east of Houston/Tyler/Paris to Louisiana, and then split Texas into two states. Splitting without giving those portions away will have the opposite of the intended effect.
9. Split NYC proper and Long Island from the rest of New York. Yes, this means Yonkers goes into upstate. (This one could backfire even as written, but putting the line farther north would have a greater chance of backfiring.)
10. Create the first majority African-American state from the western half of Mississippi, a bit of Arkansas, and Memphis and immediate suburbs. The rest of Mississippi gets merged into Alabama.
Did I miss anything? (Some of you will figure out what I'm doing with these proposals.)
Wisconsin will gladly take the U.P. because the people are just like us. Illinois can keep Chicago, however. We want no part of anything to do with the FIBs. 😁
Quote from: Buck87 on January 13, 2019, 11:22:37 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
(Some of you will figure out what I'm doing with these proposals.)
Nope, not sure what reference your making, though a couple things on your list reminded me of this:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/state_borders.png)
At this point give all of Alaska to Canada.
How about correcting the fact that Maryland got all of the Potomac River?
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:51:05 PM
How about correcting the fact that Maryland got all of the Potomac River?
That's no different than Kentucky and West Virginia getting all the Ohio, or West Virginia getting all of the Big Sandy.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
Not until they adopt English as their official language.
Quote from: SP Cook on January 13, 2019, 10:13:39 AM
Obviously, this is an academic exercise, as there will never be any shifting of state lines, and the difficulty of splitting or merging the 1000 functions of state governments is beyond complex.
Actually, wasn't there a shift of the NC/SC line in the past few years?
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2019, 08:40:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:51:05 PM
How about correcting the fact that Maryland got all of the Potomac River?
That's no different than Kentucky and West Virginia getting all the Ohio, or West Virginia getting all of the Big Sandy.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
Not until they adopt English as their official language.
Why? States don't have to speak english. It would help Puerto Rico to be in the union as a state and it would be tough for them to switch everything to English.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 13, 2019, 08:44:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2019, 08:40:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:51:05 PM
How about correcting the fact that Maryland got all of the Potomac River?
That's no different than Kentucky and West Virginia getting all the Ohio, or West Virginia getting all of the Big Sandy.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
Not until they adopt English as their official language.
Why? States don't have to speak english. It would help Puerto Rico to be in the union as a state and it would be tough for them to switch everything to English.
The United States has NO official language. Period. It would take a Constitutional amendment to assign one, and that just ain't gonna happen.
It wouldn't matter if Puerto Ricans spoke English, Spanish, Chinese, or Gibberish. They are still American citizens and have the same rights as all other Americans, save for voting for President, since only citizens of states can do that.
Some states have English as their official language, but that's usually only for official government business outside of elections. That's OK, per the 10th Amendment.
22/50 states do not have English as an official language, including some of the largest and most-populated.
Texas, yes TEXAS, never adopted it.
Hawaiian is an official language for Hawaii (alongside English), and Alaska recognizes 20 indigenous languages as their official ones for symbolic use (but not English).
Trying to force the English-only issue is really stupid and pointless. It goes against the very principles that America was founded on.
---
Back on topic: Puerto Rico, DC, Guam, and American Samoa should all be admitted at states, given the decades-long bullshit they've had to put up with as territories.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:51:05 PM
How about correcting the fact that Maryland got all of the Potomac River?
DC got some of it.
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 13, 2019, 09:09:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:51:05 PM
How about correcting the fact that Maryland got all of the Potomac River?
DC got some of it.
The part that used to be Maryland
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 13, 2019, 08:54:49 PM
The United States has NO official language. Period.
Actually, it does (at least for governmental purposes -- what individuals and businesses speak is pretty much up to them), even if there is no law saying so explicitly. For example, the Constitution and all our other laws are written in English, and with uncommon exceptions (such as treaties, where there is an official translation into the other country's official language(s)) it is only the English text that is binding.
In any case, the language barrier is an issue with Puerto Rico statehood, though there are other and probably more serious issues, starting with a significant independence movement that the U.S. might not want to inherit.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 13, 2019, 08:54:49 PM
The United States has NO official language.
Have you heard of lingua franca?
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2019, 08:40:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:51:05 PM
How about correcting the fact that Maryland got all of the Potomac River?
That's no different than Kentucky and West Virginia getting all the Ohio, or West Virginia getting all of the Big Sandy.
Two wrongs don't make a right! :-)
I always wondered why Delaware didnt get all the land that it sits on.
But looking at that map with fixes, the surveyors, did a pretty decent job without using a telescope from space.
iPhone
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 13, 2019, 08:54:49 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 13, 2019, 08:44:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2019, 08:40:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:51:05 PM
How about correcting the fact that Maryland got all of the Potomac River?
That's no different than Kentucky and West Virginia getting all the Ohio, or West Virginia getting all of the Big Sandy.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
Not until they adopt English as their official language.
Why? States don't have to speak english. It would help Puerto Rico to be in the union as a state and it would be tough for them to switch everything to English.
The United States has NO official language. Period. It would take a Constitutional amendment to assign one, and that just ain't gonna happen.
It wouldn't matter if Puerto Ricans spoke English, Spanish, Chinese, or Gibberish. They are still American citizens and have the same rights as all other Americans, save for voting for President, since only citizens of states can do that.
Some states have English as their official language, but that's usually only for official government business outside of elections. That's OK, per the 10th Amendment.
IIRC, New Mexico is majorly, if not primarily, Spanish-speaking, too.
There was also a time, after statehood, when English was a minority language here Wisconsin. At about the turn of the 19th to the 20th centuries, a plurality of people in Wisconsin (about 40-45%) spoke German. About a third spoke English and most of the rest spoke other primarily European languages (ie, Polish, Dutch, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, Gaelic, Spanish, various Scandinavian languages, etc) and about 1% spoke various aboriginal languages. By the time of WWII, nearly everyone had assimilated to English.
Mike
Quote from: Tonytone on January 13, 2019, 10:13:40 PM
I always wondered why Delaware didnt get all the land that it sits on.
Maryland and Virginia each wanted part of the Chesapeake Bay and land on each side of it. The configuration of those states makes more sense when looked at that way.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 13, 2019, 08:54:49 PM
The United States has NO official language.
Have you heard of lingua franca?
You sort of answered your own debate: Latin is not America's official language...except when it is: law, medicine, science, literature, religion, and others. In terms of governance, some states have left open ability to provide options in different languages. We do not currently speak the exact language of 240 years ago, though it bears resemblance.
I don't know the exact term for "lack of a better word", but using "lingua franca" would be a perfect example (without saying it's our
de facto language). English* has relied heavily on loan-words from other languages and also returns a good deal of it to other languages. It would be extremely difficult to pin down exactly which words and phrases are to be used to constitute a formal language, as new words and terms are created all the time.
* et al
Quote from: mgk920 on January 13, 2019, 10:14:53 PMThere was also a time, after statehood, when English was a minority language here Wisconsin. At about the turn of the 19th to the 20th centuries, a plurality of people in Wisconsin (about 40-45%) spoke German. About a third spoke English and most of the rest spoke other primarily European languages (ie, Polish, Dutch, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, Gaelic, Spanish, various Scandinavian languages, etc) and about 1% spoke various aboriginal languages. By the time of WWII, nearly everyone had assimilated to English.
Mike
Bringing the thread full circle...it was more or less the same in North Dakota. Lawrence Welk was born there, yet spoke English with a pronounced accent because German was his first language.
The "my ancestors moved here and immediately learned to speak English, why can't immigrants do the same today?" hooey you hear from nativists is largely that, hooey.
Quote from: formulanone on January 14, 2019, 06:34:05 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 13, 2019, 08:54:49 PM
The United States has NO official language.
Have you heard of lingua franca?
You sort of answered your own debate: Latin is not America's official language...except when it is: law, medicine, science, literature, religion, and others. In terms of governance, some states have left open ability to provide options in different languages. We do not currently speak the exact language of 240 years ago, though it bears resemblance.
I don't know the exact term for "lack of a better word", but using "lingua franca" would be a perfect example (without saying it's our de facto language). English* has relied heavily on loan-words from other languages and also returns a good deal of it to other languages. It would be extremely difficult to pin down exactly which words and phrases are to be used to constitute a formal language, as new words and terms are created all the time.
This issue is not the history of the development of particular languages, or what other languages that they got words from, the issue is what exists today, and 2019 English like most languages is very well defined as to spelling, grammar, syntax, definitions and construct.
The still widely used King James Bible of 1611 shows how the language has changed, but people don't typically speak exactly that way today, or as with the beginnings of the language in the 12th century.
English as a lingua franca (ELF) is the only global lingua franca, but there are several major sub-lingua francas such as Spanish (central and South American and a few other places), and Mandarin Chinese (mainly China's 1.4 billion people of various indigenous languages).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_a_lingua_franca
"While lingua francas have been used for centuries, what makes ELF a novel phenomenon is the extent to which it is used — both functionally and geographically. A typical ELF conversation might involve an Italian and a Swede chatting at a coffee break of an international conference held in Brussels, a Spanish tourist asking a local for the way in Berlin, or a Punjabi Indian negotiating with a Tamil Indian salesperson in Chennai. "
"Extensive technological advances in the 21st century have enabled instant global communication, breaking the barriers of space and time, thereby changing the nature of globalization. With the world turned into an interconnected global system, there is a need for a mutual language. English has fulfilled this need by becoming the global lingua franca of the 21st century. Its presence in large parts of the world due to colonisation has led to it becoming the main language in which global trade, business, and cultural interactions take place. ELF is a unique lingua franca because of its global spread, its highly diverse nature, and its interactions which include native speakers."
"Because of the use of English as a lingua franca, there is an unprecedented linguistic situation in which native speakers are outnumbered by non-native speakers of English."
Quote from: oscar on January 13, 2019, 09:33:50 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 13, 2019, 08:54:49 PM
The United States has NO official language. Period.
Actually, it does (at least for governmental purposes -- what individuals and businesses speak is pretty much up to them), even if there is no law saying so explicitly. For example, the Constitution and all our other laws are written in English, and with uncommon exceptions (such as treaties, where there is an official translation into the other country's official language(s)) it is only the English text that is binding.
In any case, the language barrier is an issue with Puerto Rico statehood, though there are other and probably more serious issues, starting with a significant independence movement that the U.S. might not want to inherit.
Most government officials would be able to speak English. The US District court in Puerto Rico already uses English.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2019, 08:40:23 PM
Not until they adopt English as their official language.
The current in power political party wants to do that. PR has a political party system similar to Canada, where there are a set of political parties at the state-equilivent level, and another unrelated set at the national level. The New Progressive Party, currently in power, wants to radically change the commonwealth's schools to have a goal for HS graduates to have English fluency equal to other American citizens.
The issue with PR statehood is, IMHO, simply that it is at an economic level well below even the worst US states, and thus the burden of welfare programs would be enormous.
Quote
Actually, wasn't there a shift of the NC/SC line in the past few years?
Yes, you are right. But that involved 18 homes and corrected a survey error. WV and VA had a similar issue, involving even less land, recently too. I was talking about wholesale things like dividing California in half or uniting the Dakotas or like that. That won't happen.
Quote from: SP Cook on January 14, 2019, 10:24:09 AM
WV and VA had a similar issue, involving even less land, recently too.
If you were referring to the one in 1997, that one was defining something previously undefined (peak of the mountains can be interpreted in different ways), not a shift in the border.
So it looks like the Government will slowly but surely tackle the surveying errors, this is just not on their priority right now. They will do it when they are running out of issues to fight about.
iPhone
Quote from: Bruce on January 13, 2019, 08:58:35 PMBack on topic: Puerto Rico, DC, Guam, and American Samoa should all be admitted at states, given the decades-long bullshit they've had to put up with as territories.
As noted previously, more or less, there are pros to all of these (plus Saipan, plus the USVI, plus any other territories I've omitted) remaining territories that may or may not outweigh the cons of remaining territories. With regards to the Pacific territories, there's also the enormous travel time from DC to the territories, which would mean their Congressional representatives couldn't spend their weeks in DC and their weekends in their home state/district, the way Members of Congress from the continental US do (not sure what those from Alaska and Hawaii do).
Since nobody figured out what my proposals in Reply #31 were about:
Italics were added in this reply.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
1. Give the Florida Panhandle to Alabama.
Florida now leans blue instead of being a true swing state.
2. Split California into three states (without splitting metro areas).
+4 D senators.
3. Give the Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin. (Unlike the others, this change is cosmetic with rare exceptions.)
"Cosmetic" because it makes almost no difference in the long run, although it would have changed the Presidential outcome of one state in 2016.
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
Adding a blue state. 6 electoral votes, 2 Senators, and 4 representatives that will probably go 4-0 or 3-1.
5. Anything in Illinois north of Chicago becomes part of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin now leans blue.
6. Dissolve Idaho by giving it to Washington, Oregon, and Montana – but not too much into Oregon.
-2 R senators, and WA and/or OR might get an extra electoral college vote.
7. North Carolina west of Charlotte becomes part of Tennessee.
NC now leans blue instead of red
8. Give the extended Texas Panhandle (basically Lubbock to Wichita Falls) to Oklahoma and everything east of Houston/Tyler/Paris to Louisiana, and then split Texas into two states. Splitting without giving those portions away will have the opposite of the intended effect.
Giving those two portions away will turn Texas from lean/usually R to lean/usually D, and then splitting it into 2 will add 2 D senators.
9. Split NYC proper and Long Island from the rest of New York. Yes, this means Yonkers goes into upstate. (This one could backfire even as written, but putting the line farther north would have a greater chance of backfiring.)
+2 D senators. Putting the line where upstate usually is would create a true swing state, which is the backfiring that I'm talking about.
10. Create the first majority African-American state from the western half of Mississippi, a bit of Arkansas, and Memphis and immediate suburbs. The rest of Mississippi gets merged into Alabama.
+2 D senators, -2 R senators. The new state has 6±1 votes in the Electoral College.
Quote from: Bruce on January 13, 2019, 08:58:35 PM
22/50 states do not have English as an official language, including some of the largest and most-populated.
Texas, yes TEXAS, never adopted it.
Hawaiian is an official language for Hawaii (alongside English), and Alaska recognizes 20 indigenous languages as their official ones for symbolic use (but not English).
Trying to force the English-only issue is really stupid and pointless. It goes against the very principles that America was founded on.
---
Back on topic: Puerto Rico, DC, Guam, and American Samoa should all be admitted at states, given the decades-long bullshit they've had to put up with as territories.
American Samoa can't be a state due to some quirky agreements that they want to keep the islands culture intact. American Samoa residents aren't even citizens.
Quirky agreements can always be fixed, but the idea of 56 states (if you promote them all), will cause some serious changes in the government structure.
Quote from: 1 on January 14, 2019, 10:50:29 AM
Since nobody figured out what my proposals in Reply #31 were about:
Italics were added in this reply.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
1. Give the Florida Panhandle to Alabama.
Florida now leans blue instead of being a true swing state.
2. Split California into three states (without splitting metro areas).
+4 D senators.
3. Give the Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin. (Unlike the others, this change is cosmetic with rare exceptions.)
"Cosmetic" because it makes almost no difference in the long run, although it would have changed the Presidential outcome of one state in 2016.
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
Adding a blue state. 6 electoral votes, 2 Senators, and 4 representatives that will probably go 4-0 or 3-1.
5. Anything in Illinois north of Chicago becomes part of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin now leans blue.
6. Dissolve Idaho by giving it to Washington, Oregon, and Montana – but not too much into Oregon.
-2 R senators, and WA and/or OR might get an extra electoral college vote.
7. North Carolina west of Charlotte becomes part of Tennessee.
NC now leans blue instead of red
8. Give the extended Texas Panhandle (basically Lubbock to Wichita Falls) to Oklahoma and everything east of Houston/Tyler/Paris to Louisiana, and then split Texas into two states. Splitting without giving those portions away will have the opposite of the intended effect.
Giving those two portions away will turn Texas from lean/usually R to lean/usually D, and then splitting it into 2 will add 2 D senators.
9. Split NYC proper and Long Island from the rest of New York. Yes, this means Yonkers goes into upstate. (This one could backfire even as written, but putting the line farther north would have a greater chance of backfiring.)
+2 D senators. Putting the line where upstate usually is would create a true swing state, which is the backfiring that I'm talking about.
10. Create the first majority African-American state from the western half of Mississippi, a bit of Arkansas, and Memphis and immediate suburbs. The rest of Mississippi gets merged into Alabama.
+2 D senators, -2 R senators. The new state has 6±1 votes in the Electoral College.
Holy shit 1, those are some good arguments, would you like to work on a bill & send it to congress to be looked at? (We are allowed to do that)!
iPhone
Quote from: 1 on January 14, 2019, 10:50:29 AM
9. Split NYC proper and Long Island from the rest of New York. Yes, this means Yonkers goes into upstate. (This one could backfire even as written, but putting the line farther north would have a greater chance of backfiring.)
+2 D senators. Putting the line where upstate usually is would create a true swing state, which is the backfiring that I'm talking about.
Creating a true swing state -- one that I would be living in -- would be excellent.
Upstate NY is the country's true bellwether, not Ohio. Looked at how many counties flipped between 2012 and 2016, and then back in 2018. Unfortunately, we're attached to downstate for the time being. If we weren't, we would get
a lot of attention during presidential election cycles. Our votes would actually start mattering, which would be incredibly empowering.
Quote from: 1 on January 14, 2019, 10:50:29 AM
Since nobody figured out what my proposals in Reply #31 were about:
Italics were added in this reply.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
1. Give the Florida Panhandle to Alabama.
Florida now leans blue instead of being a true swing state.
2. Split California into three states (without splitting metro areas).
+4 D senators.
3. Give the Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin. (Unlike the others, this change is cosmetic with rare exceptions.)
"Cosmetic" because it makes almost no difference in the long run, although it would have changed the Presidential outcome of one state in 2016.
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
Adding a blue state. 6 electoral votes, 2 Senators, and 4 representatives that will probably go 4-0 or 3-1.
5. Anything in Illinois north of Chicago becomes part of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin now leans blue.
6. Dissolve Idaho by giving it to Washington, Oregon, and Montana – but not too much into Oregon.
-2 R senators, and WA and/or OR might get an extra electoral college vote.
7. North Carolina west of Charlotte becomes part of Tennessee.
NC now leans blue instead of red
8. Give the extended Texas Panhandle (basically Lubbock to Wichita Falls) to Oklahoma and everything east of Houston/Tyler/Paris to Louisiana, and then split Texas into two states. Splitting without giving those portions away will have the opposite of the intended effect.
Giving those two portions away will turn Texas from lean/usually R to lean/usually D, and then splitting it into 2 will add 2 D senators.
9. Split NYC proper and Long Island from the rest of New York. Yes, this means Yonkers goes into upstate. (This one could backfire even as written, but putting the line farther north would have a greater chance of backfiring.)
+2 D senators. Putting the line where upstate usually is would create a true swing state, which is the backfiring that I'm talking about.
10. Create the first majority African-American state from the western half of Mississippi, a bit of Arkansas, and Memphis and immediate suburbs. The rest of Mississippi gets merged into Alabama.
+2 D senators, -2 R senators. The new state has 6±1 votes in the Electoral College.
You could even split up NH and give the south to MA and the north to VT. That would get rid of a swing state and make the senate in New England solidly blue. I love the African American state idea to.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2019, 08:40:23 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
Not until they adopt English as their official language.
English is
already an official language in Puerto Rico, and has been since 1902–except for a brief period between 1991 and 1993. Meanwhile, English is
not an official language in one-third of the states already in the union.
I've mildly mused at times about creating a new state out of all of the USA's current Pacific Ocean islands that are not already parts of existing states ('Pacifica'?). Yes, it would be pretty far flung but also likely kind of like Hawaii in its politics.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on January 14, 2019, 03:00:37 PM
I've mildly mused at times about creating a new state out of all of the USA's current Pacific Ocean islands that are not already parts of existing states ('Pacifica'?). Yes, it would be pretty far flung but also likely kind of like Hawaii in its politics.
Mike
I would rather not make them a state, but give them 1 senator and give them presidential voting rights. If the Republicans really don't want PR to get senators, at least give them presidential voting rights.
Quote from: Buck87 on January 13, 2019, 11:22:37 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
(Some of you will figure out what I'm doing with these proposals.)
Nope, not sure what reference your making, though a couple things on your list reminded me of this:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/state_borders.png)
I would add: arrow pointing to the Oklahoma panhandle "This is a panhandle" and another arrow pointing to the 'panhandle' of Texas "Not a panhandle; rename or re-draw"
Quote from: 1 on January 14, 2019, 10:50:29 AM
Since nobody figured out what my proposals in Reply #31 were about:
Italics were added in this reply.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
1. Give the Florida Panhandle to Alabama.
Florida now leans blue instead of being a true swing state.
2. Split California into three states (without splitting metro areas).
+4 D senators.
3. Give the Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin. (Unlike the others, this change is cosmetic with rare exceptions.)
"Cosmetic" because it makes almost no difference in the long run, although it would have changed the Presidential outcome of one state in 2016.
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
Adding a blue state. 6 electoral votes, 2 Senators, and 4 representatives that will probably go 4-0 or 3-1.
5. Anything in Illinois north of Chicago becomes part of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin now leans blue.
6. Dissolve Idaho by giving it to Washington, Oregon, and Montana – but not too much into Oregon.
-2 R senators, and WA and/or OR might get an extra electoral college vote.
7. North Carolina west of Charlotte becomes part of Tennessee.
NC now leans blue instead of red
8. Give the extended Texas Panhandle (basically Lubbock to Wichita Falls) to Oklahoma and everything east of Houston/Tyler/Paris to Louisiana, and then split Texas into two states. Splitting without giving those portions away will have the opposite of the intended effect.
Giving those two portions away will turn Texas from lean/usually R to lean/usually D, and then splitting it into 2 will add 2 D senators.
9. Split NYC proper and Long Island from the rest of New York. Yes, this means Yonkers goes into upstate. (This one could backfire even as written, but putting the line farther north would have a greater chance of backfiring.)
+2 D senators. Putting the line where upstate usually is would create a true swing state, which is the backfiring that I'm talking about.
10. Create the first majority African-American state from the western half of Mississippi, a bit of Arkansas, and Memphis and immediate suburbs. The rest of Mississippi gets merged into Alabama.
+2 D senators, -2 R senators. The new state has 6±1 votes in the Electoral College.
So it was just good old-fashioned gerrymandering, just with state lines.
Quote from: 1 on January 14, 2019, 10:50:29 AM
Since nobody figured out what my proposals in Reply #31 were about:
Italics were added in this reply.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2019, 10:45:50 PM
1. Give the Florida Panhandle to Alabama.
Florida now leans blue instead of being a true swing state.
2. Split California into three states (without splitting metro areas).
+4 D senators.
3. Give the Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin. (Unlike the others, this change is cosmetic with rare exceptions.)
"Cosmetic" because it makes almost no difference in the long run, although it would have changed the Presidential outcome of one state in 2016.
4. Admit Puerto Rico into the Union.
Adding a blue state. 6 electoral votes, 2 Senators, and 4 representatives that will probably go 4-0 or 3-1.
5. Anything in Illinois north of Chicago becomes part of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin now leans blue.
6. Dissolve Idaho by giving it to Washington, Oregon, and Montana – but not too much into Oregon.
-2 R senators, and WA and/or OR might get an extra electoral college vote.
7. North Carolina west of Charlotte becomes part of Tennessee.
NC now leans blue instead of red
8. Give the extended Texas Panhandle (basically Lubbock to Wichita Falls) to Oklahoma and everything east of Houston/Tyler/Paris to Louisiana, and then split Texas into two states. Splitting without giving those portions away will have the opposite of the intended effect.
Giving those two portions away will turn Texas from lean/usually R to lean/usually D, and then splitting it into 2 will add 2 D senators.
9. Split NYC proper and Long Island from the rest of New York. Yes, this means Yonkers goes into upstate. (This one could backfire even as written, but putting the line farther north would have a greater chance of backfiring.)
+2 D senators. Putting the line where upstate usually is would create a true swing state, which is the backfiring that I'm talking about.
10. Create the first majority African-American state from the western half of Mississippi, a bit of Arkansas, and Memphis and immediate suburbs. The rest of Mississippi gets merged into Alabama.
+2 D senators, -2 R senators. The new state has 6±1 votes in the Electoral College.
I was going to respond, but if I do, this thread will get locked.
You know, when the Constitution was drawn up, the difference in population between small states and large states was in the tens of thousands. Today the difference in population between small states and large states is in the tens of millions. What was crafted as a safeguard against large states running roughshod over small states in federal matters has become the exact opposite as population has concentrated in large cities. Now a bunch of mostly empty states hold dramatically outsized power.
The founders just kind of assumed this would be a country of mostly farmers with few big cities; much like it had been for their entire lives. But civilization had other ideas. Yes it's important that low population states feel like they are not being drowned out, but in my opinion, the balance has swung way too far in their favor. It's one thing if State A has 5 million people and State B has 2 million people. That's still fair to have the same representation. But when State A has 35 million people and State B has under 1 million people, now we are getting undemocratic.
At this point, the US Senate (and the Electoral College) is basically affirmative action for rural states. They can't get by on their own so they get a special dispensation to make up for the fact that no one wants to move there. A minority gets special treatment. Isn't that something don't like in most of the "population-challenged" states?
The rules on the Electoral College and 2 Senators per state have been known for 230 years. When people choose to move to or remain in a higher population state, they are voluntarily giving themselves diminished representation in the Senate. It's not special treatment because it's available to anybody who wants it.
The 2 Senator per state rule is never changing.
The Electoral College is never changing.
The boundaries of states are never changing unless both political parties perceive the effect to be neutral at worst.
The only thing a political party is going to allow that will have a negative effect is the admission of a new state. I don't think the Republicans can get away with denying statehood to Puerto Rico solely on the grounds that it disadvantages them in the Senate.
Quote from: Takumi on January 15, 2019, 11:09:12 AM
So it was just good old-fashioned gerrymandering, just with state lines.
Yep. Nobody on here complains about gerrymandering as long as the blue states come out ahead, though.
Quote from: kphoger on January 15, 2019, 01:56:43 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 15, 2019, 11:09:12 AM
So it was just good old-fashioned gerrymandering, just with state lines.
Yep. Nobody on here complains about gerrymandering as long as the blue states come out ahead, though.
You're right, other than the people who complain about blue states being gerrymandered, no one on here complains about gerrymandering as long as blue states come out ahead.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 15, 2019, 12:47:12 PM
You know, when the Constitution was drawn up, the difference in population between small states and large states was in the tens of thousands. Today the difference in population between small states and large states is in the tens of millions. What was crafted as a safeguard against large states running roughshod over small states in federal matters has become the exact opposite as population has concentrated in large cities. Now a bunch of mostly empty states hold dramatically outsized power.
The only way to change this is to increase the size of the House. There's no Constitutional limitation of how many seats the House can have, but Federal law has limited it to 435 seats since 1912, when AZ and NM were admitted. The only exception was in 1959-61, when AK and HI were admitted before the post-1960 census redistricting. The House had 437 until 1962, when it returned to 435.
If the size of the House were doubled, each Congresscritter would represent roughly 375,000 seats instead of the current 750,000 max. All single-digit states would get 2 Representatives instead of the current 1, and most of the others would double as well. California would be one that would not. It currently has 53 for 37.2M people (2010 census). Using that same census figure, it would have 99 Representatives, not 106 -- lost power. I haven't figured out all the states, but I don't think the balance of power would change all that much.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 15, 2019, 03:05:33 PM
If the size of the House were doubled, each Congresscritter would represent roughly 375,000 seats instead of the current 750,000 max. All single-digit states would get 2 Representatives instead of the current 1, and most of the others would double as well. California would be one that would not. It currently has 53 for 37.2M people (2010 census). Using that same census figure, it would have 99 Representatives, not 106 -- lost power. I haven't figured out all the states, but I don't think the balance of power would change all that much.
I've gone ahead and done the math, and my calculations don't quite agree with yours. I have each state having at least two representatives, as you do, but I have CA with 105, and not 99. I admit though that I may have made a mistake. The calculations involved aren't difficult, but there are a lot of them.
For the record, this is the apportionment I get:
435 870 State
053 105 California
036 071 Texas
027 055 New York
027 053 Florida
018 036 Illinois
018 036 Pennsylvania
016 032 Ohio
014 028 Michigan
014 027 Georgia
013 027 North Carolina
012 025 New Jersey
011 023 Virginia
010 019 Washington
009 018 Massachusetts
009 018 Indiana
009 018 Arizona
009 018 Tennessee
008 017 Missouri
008 016 Maryland
008 016 Wisconsin
008 015 Minnesota
007 014 Colorado
007 013 Alabama
007 013 South Carolina
006 013 Louisiana
006 012 Kentucky
005 011 Oregon
005 011 Oklahoma
005 010 Connecticut
004 009 Iowa
004 008 Mississippi
004 008 Arkansas
004 008 Kansas
004 008 Utah
004 008 Nevada
003 006 New Mexico
003 005 West Virginia
003 005 Nebraska
002 004 Idaho
002 004 Hawaii
002 004 Maine
002 004 New Hampshire
002 003 Rhode Island
001 003 Montana
001 003 Delaware
001 002 South Dakota
001 002 Alaska
001 002 North Dakota
001 002 Vermont
001 002 Wyoming
The bigger point here is, "Who pays any attention to a change.org petition anyway?" They aren't worth the paper they're not printed on.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2019, 04:34:27 PM
The bigger point here is, "Who pays any attention to a change.org petition anyway?" They aren't worth the paper they're not printed on.
I thought that the US government looked at petitions with enough signatures.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 15, 2019, 05:10:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2019, 04:34:27 PM
The bigger point here is, "Who pays any attention to a change.org petition anyway?" They aren't worth the paper they're not printed on.
I thought that the US government looked at petitions with enough signatures.
Generally if the target signatures are reached, the government responds with "fuck off and stop wasting our time" , and that's it. I can't ever remember them acquiescing to the demands of a petition.
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 12, 2019, 01:20:53 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on January 11, 2019, 07:29:39 PM
But both states are very Republican.
Merge Connecticut and Rhode Island as a counterbalance.
Alternatively, split off the state of Jefferson from California/Oregon as they really don't want to belong to either anyway and lean Republican. I feel for those who live near the coast and have to deal with those who have had brain cells corroded by saltwater.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 15, 2019, 05:10:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2019, 04:34:27 PM
The bigger point here is, "Who pays any attention to a change.org petition anyway?" They aren't worth the paper they're not printed on.
I thought that the US government looked at petitions with enough signatures.
That's a different website, and responding to those was only the policy under Obama.
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 15, 2019, 02:20:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 15, 2019, 01:56:43 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 15, 2019, 11:09:12 AM
So it was just good old-fashioned gerrymandering, just with state lines.
Yep. Nobody on here complains about gerrymandering as long as the blue states come out ahead, though.
You're right, other than the people who complain about blue states being gerrymandered, no one on here complains about gerrymandering as long as blue states come out ahead.
So it's ok to manipulate things when your side comes out ahead? (This is the part where I mention I did not vote for Trump nor do I support him.)
Quote from: Takumi on January 15, 2019, 06:01:49 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 15, 2019, 02:20:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 15, 2019, 01:56:43 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 15, 2019, 11:09:12 AM
So it was just good old-fashioned gerrymandering, just with state lines.
Yep. Nobody on here complains about gerrymandering as long as the blue states come out ahead, though.
You're right, other than the people who complain about blue states being gerrymandered, no one on here complains about gerrymandering as long as blue states come out ahead.
So it's ok to manipulate things when your side comes out ahead? (This is the part where I mention I did not vote for Trump nor do I support him.)
Where did I say that?
Quote from: Takumi on January 15, 2019, 06:01:49 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 15, 2019, 02:20:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 15, 2019, 01:56:43 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 15, 2019, 11:09:12 AM
So it was just good old-fashioned gerrymandering, just with state lines.
Yep. Nobody on here complains about gerrymandering as long as the blue states come out ahead, though.
You're right, other than the people who complain about blue states being gerrymandered, no one on here complains about gerrymandering as long as blue states come out ahead.
So it's ok to manipulate things when your side comes out ahead? (This is the part where I mention I did not vote for Trump nor do I support him.)
Gerrymandering is more of a tool used by republicans as most democrats are concentrated is small areas, like cities. I heard though the dems do do some in Maryland.
Baby Shark do do dooo
Quote from: kphoger on January 15, 2019, 09:40:43 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 15, 2019, 09:03:39 PM
I heard though the dems do do
pooing is cool
Vomit stinks and it curves and it makes a sickening sound when it hits the floor.
In before lock
Ok so back on track, How would we fix all these problems with state borders? Do we send in bills from our respective homes to our congresspeople?
iPhone
Aside from a possible few minor surveying errors from centuries past, there are no more problems with state borders.
Quote from: Takumi on January 15, 2019, 11:03:17 PM
Aside from a possible few minor surveying errors from centuries past, there are no more problems with state borders.
I might agree with that.
I think the main proposal in this thread I think would be most worthwhile could be admitting Puerto Rico to the union. Doing so does have its obstacles, but I would be interested to see if it could happen.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190116/4e3f80ee51ddb32d0c102ab94a2f5170.jpg)i was referring to this pic, the arguments it presents are pretty good.
iPhone
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 15, 2019, 05:32:32 PM
Alternatively, split off the state of Jefferson from California/Oregon as they really don't want to belong to either anyway and lean Republican. I feel for those who live near the coast and have to deal with those who have had brain cells corroded by saltwater.
Same could be said about all the fine, upstanding city dwellers in 'flyover country' surrounded by those who have brain cells corroded by trucker hats and chewing tobacco. ;)
For arguement's sake, I'll propose the one Dakota offset to be DC Statehood. (Even though I would prefer it just be re-attached to Maryland. Who cares if the national capital is in a specific state? Why is that a problem in the 21st Century? Most federal offices are outside of the District anyway.)
Quote from: Tonytone on January 15, 2019, 11:56:46 PM
i was referring to this pic, the arguments it presents are pretty good.
That's from a webcomic (https://xkcd.com/1902/). It's not meant to be taken seriously.
IMHO,
- change.org and all other such stuff is just nonsense.
- there will never be a major shuffle of states like dividing, merging, or such, involving more than a minor survey error correction. The unscrambling and or mergin of the complex state government would be impossible.
As to the territories:
- The USVI should be merged with the BVI and made independent. As a side note, the original idea the British had of the entire BWI and what is now Belize forming a single country was better and would have created a country of actual world status and heft.
- Puerto Rico should not become a state until its economy is at least on the level of the poorest state (currently it is about half that). As a "commonwealth" (that is a poorly translated term, the literal Spanish is better "freely associated state" ) it can pick and choose which federal programs can work there and which do not, as a state every law would automatically apply, which would destroy its economy. PR also should teach English in schools such that every HS graduate is 100% fluent in both languages.
- The various pacific possessions should become part of Hawaii.
- DC should be merged with the surrounding counties and cities in Virginia and Maryland, say Montgomery, Prince Georges, Howard, Fairfax, Prince William, and Loudoun along with the cities there in, and form a 51st state, leaving the rest of Maryland and Virginia to be free of those people.
- People that are "sure" about the "blue" or "red" status of this or that idea, need to look at a little history. First the entire map has changed many times, just in my lifetime and more over the type of people who make up the two parties has changed at least 3 times just in the last 50 years. Both will change again, and soon.
Quote from: SP Cook on January 16, 2019, 09:39:52 AM
PR also should teach English in schools such that every HS graduate is 100% fluent in both languages.
I still fail to see what language has to do with statehood. Not every high school graduate in the 50 states we already have is 100% fluent in English–let alone both languages.
And the original expectations from the 1940s and 1950s regarding Alaska and Hawaii were that Alaska would be solid Democrats and Hawaii would be bedrock Republican.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on January 16, 2019, 02:25:17 PM
And the original expectations from the 1940s and 1950s regarding Alaska and Hawaii were that Alaska would be solid Democrats and Hawaii would be bedrock Republican.
Mike
Hawaii is Republican? Im shocked
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on January 16, 2019, 02:27:02 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 16, 2019, 02:25:17 PM
And the original expectations from the 1940s and 1950s regarding Alaska and Hawaii were that Alaska would be solid Democrats and Hawaii would be bedrock Republican.
Mike
Hawaii is Republican? Im shocked
iPhone
Was, it's democrat now.
Quote from: Tonytone on January 16, 2019, 02:27:02 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 16, 2019, 02:25:17 PM
And the original expectations from the 1940s and 1950s regarding Alaska and Hawaii were that Alaska would be solid Democrats and Hawaii would be bedrock Republican.
Mike
Hawaii is Republican? Im shocked
States can and do change from R to D and D to R over time.
/IMHO, Hawai'i should've become a state in 1899-1900.
Quote from: Brandon on January 16, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
/IMHO, Hawai'i should've become a state in 1899-1900.
Even if anyone had considered it, I doubt it would have been acted on until the last four mainland territories (Oklahoma/Indian Country, New Mexico, and Arizona) were admitted as states.
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 15, 2019, 05:32:32 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 12, 2019, 01:20:53 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on January 11, 2019, 07:29:39 PM
But both states are very Republican.
Merge Connecticut and Rhode Island as a counterbalance.
Alternatively, split off the state of Jefferson from California/Oregon as they really don't want to belong to either anyway and lean Republican. I feel for those who live near the coast and have to deal with those who have had brain cells corroded by saltwater.
Just so you know, the Republicans from the Northwest have historically been much different (and more "liberal" leaning) than Republicans in other regions. One of our last Republican governors was very big on immigration, an income tax, public transit, and bipartisanship...all very foreign to the GOP of today.
Quote from: Brandon on January 16, 2019, 05:30:24 PM
States can and do change from R to D and D to R over time.
Kentucky is a prime example. Two decades ago, we were solidly D. The state voted for Bill Clinton twice, and the governor and both houses of the state legislature were solidly D. R's were beginning to make some inroads into federal races, starting with Mitch McConnell's election back in 1984 and Jim Bunning a few years later. Except for a handful of traditionally R counties in the south-central and what I will describe as the "near southeast" (the old 5th District from when Kentucky had seven congressional districts) and in the far northern part of the state, D's dominated local races.
Now, the governor is an R, there are GOP supermajorities in both houses of the legislature, six of seven US representatives are Republicans, and for the first time, the majority of county judges-executive (the top official in each county) are Republicans. And voter registration, which for years was close to a 2:1 advantage for the Ds, is now darn close to 50-50. It certainly took long enough.
Quote from: SP Cook on January 16, 2019, 09:39:52 AM
- Puerto Rico should not become a state until its economy is at least on the level of the poorest state (currently it is about half that). As a "commonwealth" (that is a poorly translated term, the literal Spanish is better "freely associated state" ) it can pick and choose which federal programs can work there and which do not, as a state every law would automatically apply, which would destroy its economy.
Meanwhile, the fact that not every law applied is also the reason why Puerto Rico was able to get into so much debt.
Honestly, I'm not sure how this whole idea of "not all laws apply here" makes any kind of sense. At the very least, such things should be limited to whole system discontinuities like mainland China vs. Hong Kong and Macau or American Samoa vs. the rest of the US. Especially with respect to the Constitution... no amendment has an "except unincorporated territories or near borders" clause, so the exceptions are IMO unconstitutional.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 16, 2019, 08:06:04 PM
six of seven US representatives are Republicans
There is no 7th district, and you even implied that in the previous paragraph.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 12, 2019, 09:32:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2019, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradiseand New Hampshire/Vermont
Really? Hell, I could make an argument that Vermont should be SPLIT 3 ways...not merged.
Split three ways? But Vermont is already the third smallest state.
Actually, Connecticut is the third smallest state, ahead of Rhode Island and Delaware. Vermont is 45th out of 50.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 16, 2019, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 12, 2019, 09:32:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2019, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradiseand New Hampshire/Vermont
Really? Hell, I could make an argument that Vermont should be SPLIT 3 ways...not merged.
Split three ways? But Vermont is already the third smallest state.
Actually, Connecticut is the third smallest state, ahead of Rhode Island and Delaware. Vermont is 45th out of 50.
In land area. In population, Vermont is second smallest (if excluding DC).
^ Per Census estimates, D.C. overtook Vermont in population in 2012 so Vermont is the 2nd smallest in population even if you include D.C.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:51:56 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 13, 2019, 08:58:35 PM
....
Back on topic: Puerto Rico, DC, Guam, and American Samoa should all be admitted at states, given the decades-long bullshit they've had to put up with as territories.
American Samoa can't be a state due to some quirky agreements that they want to keep the islands culture intact. American Samoa residents aren't even citizens.
That last sentence is not entirely accurate. For the most part, people born and residing in American Samoa are US "nationals," not US citizens, but there are exceptions. The most notable has to do with if the person has a parent who's a US citizen. One of the Democrats who's said she's running for president in 2020–Tulsi Gabbard, who is presently a congressman representing Hawaii–was born in American Samoa and is eligible as a natural-born citizen because her father (maybe her mother too, I'm not sure) was a US citizen.
(Edited to fix mangled quotes)
Quote from: 1 on January 16, 2019, 09:55:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 16, 2019, 08:06:04 PM
six of seven US representatives are Republicans
There is no 7th district, and you even implied that in the previous paragraph.
Kentucky lost a congressional district after the 1990 census. We had seven districts, now there are six.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 16, 2019, 10:32:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:51:56 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 13, 2019, 08:58:35 PM
....
Back on topic: Puerto Rico, DC, Guam, and American Samoa should all be admitted at states, given the decades-long bullshit they've had to put up with as territories.
American Samoa can't be a state due to some quirky agreements that they want to keep the islands culture intact. American Samoa residents aren't even citizens.
That last sentence is not entirely accurate. For the most part, people born and residing in American Samoa are US "nationals," not US citizens, but there are exceptions. The most notable has to do with if the person has a parent who's a US citizen. One of the Democrats who's said she's running for president in 2020–Tulsi Gabbard, who is presently a congressman representing Hawaii–was born in American Samoa and is eligible as a natural-born citizen because her father (maybe her mother too, I'm not sure) was a US citizen.
(Edited to fix mangled quotes)
I think that anyone with a us citizen parent is natural born no matter where they are born.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 17, 2019, 01:16:51 PM
I think that anyone with a us citizen parent is natural born no matter where they are born.
In general, yes, but there are exceptions. Basically, if only one parent is a US citizen, then that parent must have lived in the USA for a certain amount of time prior to the child's birth in order for the child to be a citizen. The amount of time required depends on the status of the spouse: 1 year if the spouse is a US national, 5 years since age 14 if not. If the child's parents aren't married, then things get even more complicated.
What's the reason for it being different if the parents are married or not? One's parents are one's parents, regardless of marriage.
Quote from: vdeane on January 17, 2019, 07:18:03 PM
What's the reason for it being different if the parents are married or not? One's parents are one's parents, regardless of marriage.
I assume the reason has to do with the obvious situation of a male US citizen having a one-night stand, knocking up a noncitizen woman and getting her pregnant, and then disappearing. Certainly it's well-known that soldiers fighting abroad have fathered children in other countries, and those children generally are not US citizens (nor is there really any logical reason why they should be).
I believe the general rule used to be similar to the rule Judaism uses–you looked to the mother's citizenship, and if she is a US citizen, her child will be too. I assume part of the reason for that was that it's not reasonable to disqualify a child from being a citizen simply because his mother happens to be abroad when he is born, given that there are plenty of legitimate reasons why she might be abroad (either planned or unexpectedly). The same logic doesn't apply if a man gets a woman pregnant.
But I think the rules have been modified in the past few years. I haven't taken the time to sort through this: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html
Edited to add: Glancing through that page I linked, it sounds like whatever I remember reading before was a major oversimplification.
Quote from: Bruce on January 16, 2019, 07:56:14 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 15, 2019, 05:32:32 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 12, 2019, 01:20:53 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on January 11, 2019, 07:29:39 PM
But both states are very Republican.
Merge Connecticut and Rhode Island as a counterbalance.
Alternatively, split off the state of Jefferson from California/Oregon as they really don't want to belong to either anyway and lean Republican. I feel for those who live near the coast and have to deal with those who have had brain cells corroded by saltwater.
Just so you know, the Republicans from the Northwest have historically been much different (and more "liberal" leaning) than Republicans in other regions. One of our last Republican governors was very big on immigration, an income tax, public transit, and bipartisanship...all very foreign to the GOP of today.
Up until the Reagan years, there was an active GOP moderate-edging-partially-into-liberal wing in the Northeast (think Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Edward Brooke, etc.). But once the Nixon-initiated "Southern Strategy", built upon regional disdain for the '64 Civil Rights Act and follow-up measures, started "transferring" the former highly conservative Southern Democrats (the old segregationists) wholesale into Republican ranks, the "northeast wing" saw their intra-party influence rapidly waning; by the end of the Reagan years and the Bush #41 presidency, the GOP was completely dominated by elements from the country's southern tier -- and much more conservative -- primarily in terms of social concepts -- than the party as a whole had ever been. Most holdover moderates saw the writing on the wall by the '90's and simply retired or were handed their asses in the primaries by more conservative opponents availing themselves of campaign funds bolstered by southern-based donors. The typical "northern Republican" -- socially moderate to liberal but fiscally conservative -- became all but a nonentity by the turn of the century. Today's GOP -- for better or worse -- is the product of the last 55 years of sociopolitical shifting and the reaction to that phenomenon.
^ "Northern Republicans" haven't totally disappeared. They still exist in numbers at the local and state levels, at least in New England (where two governors are such "Northern Republicans"). I would agree that they've disappeared at the Federal/Congressional level, although Susan Collins pays lip service to the concept.
Quote from: sparker on January 18, 2019, 04:48:35 PM
Up until the Reagan years, there was an active GOP moderate-edging-partially-into-liberal wing in the Northeast (think Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Edward Brooke, etc.). But once the Nixon-initiated "Southern Strategy", built upon regional disdain for the '64 Civil Rights Act and follow-up measures... [/QUTOE]
The existance of a "southern strategy" in the way the term is generally used by revisionist historians, is among the greatest myths taught in the academy.
Blunty, it never happened. What happened requires, of course, requires us to go back much further than Nixon. Back to the beginning of the modern political party systems. 1860.
Following "reconstruction" the democrat party formed a broad coalition of corrupt northern big city bosses and racist southerners. Eventually joined by proto-populists like Bryan. These were opposed by mostly, everyone else. Small business people, farmers, and, of course, black people opressed by the democrat party.
No matter what your view on any other subject, white southereners voted straight democrat, because democrat=segregation. Then, after 100 years, the democrat party finally gave in and adopted what had been the Republican view all along.
The "southern strategy" was simply an invitation, and it goes back well before Nixon, to the south to rejoin the party system and vote their actual interests and views on the whole set of issues of that time. And, it worked. The south, not because of race at all, but because of the end of the racist rule of the party of race, the democrats, rejoined the rest of the nation and voted what it thought about other issues.
The revisionist historians, mostly disaffected leftists, invented the myth of a some sort of "flip" in the racist views, rather than the democrats simply being eventualy defeated in their racist system, mostly out of sour grapes and a desire to fool the esoteric student into believing there is this great racist mass in the South. There isn't.
Quote from: SP Cook on January 19, 2019, 12:38:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 18, 2019, 04:48:35 PM
Up until the Reagan years, there was an active GOP moderate-edging-partially-into-liberal wing in the Northeast (think Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Edward Brooke, etc.). But once the Nixon-initiated "Southern Strategy", built upon regional disdain for the '64 Civil Rights Act and follow-up measures...
The existance of a "southern strategy" in the way the term is generally used by revisionist historians, is among the greatest myths taught in the academy.
Blunty, it never happened. What happened requires, of course, requires us to go back much further than Nixon. Back to the beginning of the modern political party systems. 1860.
Following "reconstruction" the democrat party formed a broad coalition of corrupt northern big city bosses and racist southerners. Eventually joined by proto-populists like Bryan. These were opposed by mostly, everyone else. Small business people, farmers, and, of course, black people opressed by the democrat party.
No matter what your view on any other subject, white southereners voted straight democrat, because democrat=segregation. Then, after 100 years, the democrat party finally gave in and adopted what had been the Republican view all along.
The "southern strategy" was simply an invitation, and it goes back well before Nixon, to the south to rejoin the party system and vote their actual interests and views on the whole set of issues of that time. And, it worked. The south, not because of race at all, but because of the end of the racist rule of the party of race, the democrats, rejoined the rest of the nation and voted what it thought about other issues.
The revisionist historians, mostly disaffected leftists, invented the myth of a some sort of "flip" in the racist views, rather than the democrats simply being eventualy defeated in their racist system, mostly out of sour grapes and a desire to fool the esoteric student into believing there is this great racist mass in the South. There isn't.
The Tammany Hall political machine in New York City, and the Daley political machine in Chicago, played major roles in all of this, as well.
The parties definitely switched, but it seems to have been a bit later than 1964.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/1968_House_Districts.png/640px-1968_House_Districts.png)
By Deturtlemon1 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52082376
1968 House map; lighter colors indicate a change from 1966 and can be treated as if they were the darker color. 243 D, 192 R. The South is blue, and the North is red. In the eastern half of the country, there was a full reversal, while the western half stayed mostly the same. The main exception is that extremely urban areas like NYC and Chicago are blue both then and now.
California redistricted in 1966; the 1966 map (not shown here) in California is red on the coasts and blue inland. The reason I chose to show the 1968 map was because 1966 had many more changes, and more of the lighter colors would have caused more confusion.
Even the 1988 map looks a lot like the 1968 map. The "flip" seemed to happen in the 1990s.
^^^^^^^^^
The 1964 election (LBJ vs. Goldwater) was both an anomaly and a premonition. Happening on the heels of the passage of the Civil Rights Act earlier that year, the Solid South (sorry, SPC, history doesn't back your reductionist play here) previously reliably Democratic states from LA to SC (featuring senators such as Thurmond, Stennis, Russell, etc.) were, besides his home state of AZ, the sole states in the Barry Goldwater column. To be fair, this was one of the few times the Democrats were able to successfully marshal fear & loathing (e.g., the famous "kid picking daisies before a nuclear explosion" advertisement -- hardly their finest hour -- came out of that campaign) to defeat a Republican candidate. Four years later came the emergence of a sort of "southern independence" movement, characterized by the formation of George Wallace's "American Independent Party", whose presence arguably shunted enough Southern Democrats away from the national ticket headed by Humphrey to give Nixon his narrow victory. In a way, the Southern movement from Democrat to Republican had this "mezzanine" step through the Wallace movement, which dissipated after the 1972 election.
Nevertheless, while the pre-'64 Republican party was in the aggregate more overtly conservative than the "northern wing" of the Democratic party -- and the few notable Southern Republicans of the time were generally less prone to countenance racism and segregation than their regional Democratic counterparts -- the legislative successes of the Johnson administration in the mid-'60's in terms of expansion of civil liberties and the administrative apparatus to expedite those individually-expressed rights (which often did, to the consternation of some, cross over into the "entitlement" category) did being about the creation of a "rear guard" movement intent upon limiting or even rolling back the new measures and liberties. And with the largest consistent bloc of adherents to this movement occupying the southern tier of the nation, the first "new era" (post-'64) Republican activists (the group responsible for Ronald Reagan's ascent to the CA governorship in '66 among other activities) sought to "slide" the masses of Southern Democrats disaffected by the nation party's wholesale endorsement of not only the Civil Rights Act but also the subsequent expansion of public-sector institutions during the LBJ administration ('63-'69) over to the Republican Party -- a process essentially completed by Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign. The old multipartite Republican party that accommodated moderate-to-liberal viewpoints along with its intrinsic pluralitarian conservative viewpoints became more and more monolithic in its conservatism, partially due to the absorption of large numbers of ecumenical fundamentalist and/or evangelic Christian groups primarily situated in the southern states; as iterated in a previous post (subsequently editorialized by another poster). Today -- at least in the aggregate -- the face of the Republican party is a southern one, just as 60 years ago that would have been a nominally Democratic face.
Everyone has experienced the horror stories about the evils of the two major American political parties -- the "big city corruption" purportedly intrinsic to Democrats, or the "greedhead conduit for corporate interests" often attributed to Republicans. The truth likely contains elements that corroborate these viewpoints as part of each parties' history -- but with little revelation as to how the parties function today. Much has been said (thankfully, not too much in this forum!) about national polarization; lately, that has been reflected in an almost linear fashion in the parties' general directions. I'm certainly not going to "laundry-list" the differences between the parties except to say their juxtaposed positions used to resemble a "Venn diagram" whereas today the common area is relatively minimal. Unfortunately, that's where getting things done resides -- which provide reasons #1-50 for national dysfunction. Maybe the parties will eventually split and re-form (like amoebae) into a form more amenable to realistically addressing modern issues absent the dysfunctional detours into ideological territory. At this point, what's "on the ground" isn't working; it only functions to exacerbate the existing problems.
Daniel Tosh tried this as a stunt a bunch of years ago on the Presidential Petition page. It was quickly pulled down. He had these people beat by a long time.
Quote from: SectorZ on January 19, 2019, 05:13:18 PM
Daniel Tosh tried this as a stunt a bunch of years ago on the Presidential Petition page. It was quickly pulled down. He had these people beat by a long time.
Maybe it was pulled down because the President can't grant petitions relating to statehood. Congress, and the legislatures of any affected states, would have to take the lead, since their consent is required.
Was the Dakota merger petition addressed to (at least) the legislatures of North Dakota and South Dakota? That would be better as a matter of form, unless the proposal was just a joke from the outset.
A president could, however, start a dialog between the states and Congress. Or just say "it isn't happening" - Obama's policy was that the petition would receive a response, not that it would actually be implemented.
Quote from: vdeane on January 19, 2019, 10:58:41 PM
A president could, however, start a dialog between the states and Congress. Or just say "it isn't happening" - Obama's policy was that the petition would receive a response, not that it would actually be implemented.
A President has no say-so whatsoever when it comes to adding states or proposing Constitutional amendments. Only the states and Congress have authority in these matters. In fact, my feeling is that a President would be smart to keep his mouth shut, and have no opinion whatsoever. His input would be a borderline-impeachable case of Presidential abuse of power.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 19, 2019, 11:22:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 19, 2019, 10:58:41 PM
A president could, however, start a dialog between the states and Congress. Or just say "it isn't happening" - Obama's policy was that the petition would receive a response, not that it would actually be implemented.
A President has no say-so whatsoever when it comes to adding states or proposing Constitutional amendments. Only the states and Congress have authority in these matters. In fact, my feeling is that a President would be smart to keep his mouth shut, and have no opinion whatsoever. His input would be a borderline-impeachable case of Presidential abuse of power.
This is a media thing. Even if the President says he won't say anything, the media will say "President remains mum on (subject), fueling speculation that he will (make up random idea). Then the public gets all pissed off anyway..
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 19, 2019, 11:22:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 19, 2019, 10:58:41 PM
A president could, however, start a dialog between the states and Congress. Or just say "it isn't happening" - Obama's policy was that the petition would receive a response, not that it would actually be implemented.
A President has no say-so whatsoever when it comes to adding states or proposing Constitutional amendments. Only the states and Congress have authority in these matters. In fact, my feeling is that a President would be smart to keep his mouth shut, and have no opinion whatsoever. His input would be a borderline-impeachable case of Presidential abuse of power.
A lot of government work, both for elected officials and career civil servants, is convincing someone you have no authority over to do something. Isn't that the idea of starting a dialog? To broach the issue with the people who DO have the power to do something? President Carter had no authority over Israel or Palestine, yet that didn't stop him from inviting the leaders to Camp David.
Quote from: vdeane on January 20, 2019, 09:26:33 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 19, 2019, 11:22:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 19, 2019, 10:58:41 PM
A president could, however, start a dialog between the states and Congress. Or just say "it isn't happening" - Obama's policy was that the petition would receive a response, not that it would actually be implemented.
A President has no say-so whatsoever when it comes to adding states or proposing Constitutional amendments. Only the states and Congress have authority in these matters. In fact, my feeling is that a President would be smart to keep his mouth shut, and have no opinion whatsoever. His input would be a borderline-impeachable case of Presidential abuse of power.
A lot of government work, both for elected officials and career civil servants, is convincing someone you have no authority over to do something. Isn't that the idea of starting a dialog? To broach the issue with the people who DO have the power to do something? President Carter had no authority over Israel or Palestine, yet that didn't stop him from inviting the leaders to Camp David.
I'd agree with that - even if the president has zero power in making that final decision, why must they be censored and strictly forbidden from making suggestions, or simply coming up with an idea that they think might work best. It doesn't mean they are the one implementing it, or that it actually has to happen (and 99% of the people could even think it was bogus), but as you say, it is simply having a dialogue. Separation of powers is good and essential, and it has been ingrained in the idea of the American government since the Constitution was created - but I don't think that simply making suggestions or talking about these issues is an over-reach of the President's power - I just see it as different parts of the government working together to try to find a solution and a plan. It may be other sections of the government (and not the president) that actually has the power and final-decision-making in this area, but I don't see why they simply can't just discuss it together. I don't care who the president is, I think it might be reasonable for them to at least have that right to simply converse about the topic.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 19, 2019, 11:22:44 PM
A President has no say-so whatsoever when it comes to adding states or proposing Constitutional amendments. Only the states and Congress have authority in these matters. In fact, my feeling is that a President would be smart to keep his mouth shut, and have no opinion whatsoever. His input would be a borderline-impeachable case of Presidential abuse of power.
I disagree with your opinion that a president shouldn't offer an opinion on public policy matters, and find your "borderline-impeachable" comment laughable and absurd on its face. I think a president has an absolute duty to weigh in on matters up for public debate, even if he or she (and thank God that's not the case right now) has no say-so in the matter, if the president is so inclined.
The House is currently considering the censure of one of its members. Why shouldn't the president say he agrees or disagrees with that decision? Some in the Senate, which has no say whatsoever in the matter, have weighed in.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 20, 2019, 09:37:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 20, 2019, 09:26:33 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 19, 2019, 11:22:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 19, 2019, 10:58:41 PM
A president could, however, start a dialog between the states and Congress. Or just say "it isn't happening" - Obama's policy was that the petition would receive a response, not that it would actually be implemented.
A President has no say-so whatsoever when it comes to adding states or proposing Constitutional amendments. Only the states and Congress have authority in these matters. In fact, my feeling is that a President would be smart to keep his mouth shut, and have no opinion whatsoever. His input would be a borderline-impeachable case of Presidential abuse of power.
A lot of government work, both for elected officials and career civil servants, is convincing someone you have no authority over to do something. Isn't that the idea of starting a dialog? To broach the issue with the people who DO have the power to do something? President Carter had no authority over Israel or Palestine, yet that didn't stop him from inviting the leaders to Camp David.
I'd agree with that - even if the president has zero power in making that final decision, why must they be censored and strictly forbidden from making suggestions, or simply coming up with an idea that they think might work best. It doesn't mean they are the one implementing it, or that it actually has to happen (and 99% of the people could even think it was bogus), but as you say, it is simply having a dialogue. Separation of powers is good and essential, and it has been ingrained in the idea of the American government since the Constitution was created - but I don't think that simply making suggestions or talking about these issues is an over-reach of the President's power - I just see it as different parts of the government working together to try to find a solution and a plan. It may be other sections of the government (and not the president) that actually has the power and final-decision-making in this area, but I don't see why they simply can't just discuss it together. I don't care who the president is, I think it might be reasonable for them to at least have that right to simply converse about the topic.
Yeah, that's my opinion to. The president should sort of be the head guy in the government (but not a dictator), leading the whole thing and giving his/her opinions on important matters. A good president should care about this stuff.
Not to mention that a large part of what presidential candidates promise to do is actually a promise to get Congress to do something for them. Increasingly, the Congressional agenda is set by the President. The days of the President being a "chief bureaucrat" who also did foreign policy but left domestic policy to Congress are long gone (not that they every really existed in the first place).
Please limit discussion of presidential powers to the topic of petitions, nothing about the current administration or any previous ones.