AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state  (Read 3017 times)

Tonytone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 584
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Delaware
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:49 AM
    • LawnCare Website
Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2019, 10:13:40 PM »

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
« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 10:17:35 PM by Tonytone »
Logged
Working on Civil Engineer Degree/Creator of Valuez Lawn-Care

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3261
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:20 AM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2019, 10:14:53 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.

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
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4417
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:31:02 AM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #52 on: January 14, 2019, 12:47:18 AM »

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.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

formulanone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6508
  • Age: 45
  • Location: HSV
  • Last Login: Today at 07:41:41 AM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #53 on: January 14, 2019, 06:34:05 AM »

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
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 06:39:37 AM by formulanone »
Logged

abefroman329

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3147
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
  • Last Login: Today at 07:43:25 AM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2019, 09:07:55 AM »

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
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.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4417
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:31:02 AM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2019, 10:13:28 AM »

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."
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 10:19:49 AM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4106
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 15
  • Location: boston metro area
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 11:13:20 PM
    • Interstate plans
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2019, 10:21:33 AM »

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.
Logged
I'm a young roadgeek who has been interested in roads since I was a little kid.

SP Cook

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1809
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 01:06:48 PM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2019, 10:24:09 AM »



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.

Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6632
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 08:46:17 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2019, 10:25:49 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.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐22.40.99.10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚127.141.159
NH 27,111A; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32

Flickr

Tonytone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 584
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Delaware
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:49 AM
    • LawnCare Website
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2019, 10:32:14 AM »

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
Logged
Working on Civil Engineer Degree/Creator of Valuez Lawn-Care

abefroman329

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3147
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
  • Last Login: Today at 07:43:25 AM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2019, 10:44:22 AM »

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.
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).
Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6632
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 08:46:17 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #61 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.

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.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐22.40.99.10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚127.141.159
NH 27,111A; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32

Flickr

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4106
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 15
  • Location: boston metro area
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 11:13:20 PM
    • Interstate plans
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2019, 10:51:56 AM »

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.
Logged
I'm a young roadgeek who has been interested in roads since I was a little kid.

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1048
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 28
  • Location: East Amherst, New York
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 11:20:54 PM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2019, 10:54:35 AM »

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.
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

Tonytone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 584
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Delaware
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:49 AM
    • LawnCare Website
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2019, 10:57:26 AM »

Since nobody figured out what my proposals in Reply #31 were about:

Italics were added in this reply.

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
Logged
Working on Civil Engineer Degree/Creator of Valuez Lawn-Care

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2385
  • Roadgeek Forever.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 04:20:06 PM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2019, 11:03:28 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.
Logged
Left Lane is For Passing, Not Camping!
Threads Started
Counties Clinched

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4106
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 15
  • Location: boston metro area
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 11:13:20 PM
    • Interstate plans
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2019, 01:10:10 PM »

Since nobody figured out what my proposals in Reply #31 were about:

Italics were added in this reply.

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.
Logged
I'm a young roadgeek who has been interested in roads since I was a little kid.

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9857
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 05:35:31 PM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #67 on: January 14, 2019, 02:23:08 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.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3261
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:20 AM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #68 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
Logged

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4106
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 15
  • Location: boston metro area
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 11:13:20 PM
    • Interstate plans
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #69 on: January 14, 2019, 05:40:39 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.
Logged
I'm a young roadgeek who has been interested in roads since I was a little kid.

US 81

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 222
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: Today at 08:19:33 AM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #70 on: January 14, 2019, 10:12:31 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:



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"
Logged

Takumi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3601
  • #yogapantsbutnotstance

  • Age: 33
  • Location: Greater Richmond
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 10:38:10 PM
    • Flashing Lights (blog)
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #71 on: January 15, 2019, 11:09:12 AM »

Since nobody figured out what my proposals in Reply #31 were about:

Italics were added in this reply.

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.
Logged
Don't pick apart my vision of complete psychotic breakdown, please.  I'm trying to make a point here.

Insta | Kinja

inkyatari

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1338
  • Widen I-80 through all of Illinois!

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Morris, IL
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 11:35:01 PM
    • Pie Factory Podcast - Classic Arcade gaming talk
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #72 on: January 15, 2019, 12:04:42 PM »

Since nobody figured out what my proposals in Reply #31 were about:

Italics were added in this reply.

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.
Logged
I'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2160
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 05:23:22 PM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #73 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 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?
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

cabiness42

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1279
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Munster, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 08:41:31 AM
Re: Petition created to merge Dakotas into one state
« Reply #74 on: January 15, 2019, 01:05:13 PM »

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.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.