New design USA flag coming?

[webny99]

with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

A simple majority is not enough. You'd have to have a 2/3 majority, which is not happening in the House or the Senate anytime soon, for either party.

...
Admitting a new state only requires the assent of a majority of each house of congress, no presidential signature needed (see: Article. IV., Section. 3., Constitution of the United States of America).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. So making DC a state could easily be done with a simple majority, and would not require a constitutional amendment?

[SEWIGuy]

with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

A simple majority is not enough. You'd have to have a 2/3 majority, which is not happening in the House or the Senate anytime soon, for either party.

...
Admitting a new state only requires the assent of a majority of each house of congress, no presidential signature needed (see: Article. IV., Section. 3., Constitution of the United States of America).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. So making DC a state could easily be done with a simple majority, and would not require a constitutional amendment?

There is some question about that.  The Constitution says Congress has the right "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States..."

To some, that implies that a Constitutional amendment would be needed.  Especially since Maryland's cession was to create the national capital and that you can't create additional states from another state without a state's permission.

So would be it be a simple Congressional act?  A Congressional act with Maryland's approval?  Or a Constitutional amendment?

I think the courts would have to sort it out.

[Roadgeekteen]

with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

A simple majority is not enough. You'd have to have a 2/3 majority, which is not happening in the House or the Senate anytime soon, for either party.

...
Admitting a new state only requires the assent of a majority of each house of congress, no presidential signature needed (see: Article. IV., Section. 3., Constitution of the United States of America).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. So making DC a state could easily be done with a simple majority, and would not require a constitutional amendment?

Not DC, but I don't see why Puerto Rico can't happen. If they want it, it seems like a golden opportunity for the dems if they ever get the majority back.

[hotdogPi]

There are two possible ways I know of to balance PR or DC statehood:

* Split Illinois into Chicagoland and Downstate, where downstate leans Republican
* Split New York into NYC area and Upstate, where upstate leans Republican

In both cases, the Electoral College will go toward Republicans (DC keeps its electoral votes, PR gets 6; upstate NY gets 11, and downstate IL gets 8), while the Senate will go toward Democrats (if the new IL/NY rural state was safe R, the states would cancel out, but since they only lean, there's a decent chance of more Democratic senators).

[Roadgeekteen]

There are two possible ways I know of to balance PR or DC statehood:

* Split Illinois into Chicagoland and Downstate, where downstate leans Republican
* Split New York into NYC area and Upstate, where upstate leans Republican

In both cases, the Electoral College will go toward Republicans (DC keeps its electoral votes, PR gets 6; upstate NY gets 11, and downstate IL gets 8), while the Senate will go toward Democrats (if the new IL/NY rural state was safe R, the states would cancel out, but since they only lean, there's a decent chance of more Democratic senators).

Also, a way to balance out DC statehood would be to give Northern Virginia to DC, causing rest of Virginia to lean red.

[dvferyance]

There are two possible ways I know of to balance PR or DC statehood:

* Split Illinois into Chicagoland and Downstate, where downstate leans Republican
* Split New York into NYC area and Upstate, where upstate leans Republican

In both cases, the Electoral College will go toward Republicans (DC keeps its electoral votes, PR gets 6; upstate NY gets 11, and downstate IL gets 8), while the Senate will go toward Democrats (if the new IL/NY rural state was safe R, the states would cancel out, but since they only lean, there's a decent chance of more Democratic senators).

Also, a way to balance out DC statehood would be to give Northern Virginia to DC, causing rest of Virginia to lean red.

DC cannot be a state after Puerto Rico Guam would be the most likely candidate for a new state.

[NWI_Irish96]

Guam, with a population of under 200K, is never going to be its own state.  More likely, though still pretty unlikely, would be annexation into Hawaii.

Even DC with a population of 700K is unlikely to become its own state despite being bigger than Wyoming. A more likely solution is to return the portion of DC that has little or no Federal property back to Maryland.

[kkt]

DC couldn't really be a state, as that would leave DC with a lot of control over federal government operations.  Possibly DC might be allowed to elect representatives and one or two senators, but a constitutional amendment would be required which would have a lot of trouble getting passed.  I don't think Congress would ever give away the power to override the DC government if they wished to.

Puerto Rico would only be an option if a right-leaning state were admitted at the same time, and there don't seem to be any obvious candidates.  Guam is awfully small for a state by modern standards.  (A population of 60,000 was the minimum written into the Northwest Ordinance but I don't see anyone today arguing that 167,000 people in Guam should be entitled to two senators).

[Roadgeekteen]

DC couldn't really be a state, as that would leave DC with a lot of control over federal government operations.  Possibly DC might be allowed to elect representatives and one or two senators, but a constitutional amendment would be required which would have a lot of trouble getting passed.  I don't think Congress would ever give away the power to override the DC government if they wished to.

Puerto Rico would only be an option if a right-leaning state were admitted at the same time, and there don't seem to be any obvious candidates.  Guam is awfully small for a state by modern standards.  (A population of 60,000 was the minimum written into the Northwest Ordinance but I don't see anyone today arguing that 167,000 people in Guam should be entitled to two senators).

Why would there need to be a balance if the dems control both chambers of congress?

[kkt]

DC couldn't really be a state, as that would leave DC with a lot of control over federal government operations.  Possibly DC might be allowed to elect representatives and one or two senators, but a constitutional amendment would be required which would have a lot of trouble getting passed.  I don't think Congress would ever give away the power to override the DC government if they wished to.

Puerto Rico would only be an option if a right-leaning state were admitted at the same time, and there don't seem to be any obvious candidates.  Guam is awfully small for a state by modern standards.  (A population of 60,000 was the minimum written into the Northwest Ordinance but I don't see anyone today arguing that 167,000 people in Guam should be entitled to two senators).

Why would there need to be a balance if the dems control both chambers of congress?

It takes 60 out of 100 senators to invoke cloture (end debate so they can vote) on most questions.

[Roadgeekteen]

DC couldn't really be a state, as that would leave DC with a lot of control over federal government operations.  Possibly DC might be allowed to elect representatives and one or two senators, but a constitutional amendment would be required which would have a lot of trouble getting passed.  I don't think Congress would ever give away the power to override the DC government if they wished to.

Puerto Rico would only be an option if a right-leaning state were admitted at the same time, and there don't seem to be any obvious candidates.  Guam is awfully small for a state by modern standards.  (A population of 60,000 was the minimum written into the Northwest Ordinance but I don't see anyone today arguing that 167,000 people in Guam should be entitled to two senators).

Why would there need to be a balance if the dems control both chambers of congress?

It takes 60 out of 100 senators to invoke cloture (end debate so they can vote) on most questions.

Fuck American politics

[Scott5114]

DC couldn't really be a state, as that would leave DC with a lot of control over federal government operations.  Possibly DC might be allowed to elect representatives and one or two senators, but a constitutional amendment would be required which would have a lot of trouble getting passed.  I don't think Congress would ever give away the power to override the DC government if they wished to.

Puerto Rico would only be an option if a right-leaning state were admitted at the same time, and there don't seem to be any obvious candidates.  Guam is awfully small for a state by modern standards.  (A population of 60,000 was the minimum written into the Northwest Ordinance but I don't see anyone today arguing that 167,000 people in Guam should be entitled to two senators).

Why would there need to be a balance if the dems control both chambers of congress?

It takes 60 out of 100 senators to invoke cloture (end debate so they can vote) on most questions.

This, however, is simply due to the rules of the Senate, not the Constitution. Changing this rule to get a bill passed is often referred to as the "nuclear option" and has been threatened several times before, but has not yet been done for regular bills. It's a fascinating procedure that basically boils down to this:

A senator: I'd like to lodge a complaint that the guy in charge isn't letting this bill pass with 50 votes.
The guy in charge: That's cause the rule book says you need 60 votes.
A senator: I call for a vote that says the guy in charge can't read the rule book right.
More than 50 senators: Yeah, that guy can't read.
The guy in charge: I guess it's been decided I can't read. Everyone has to pretend the book says 50 instead of 60 now, or else they'll be accused of not being able to read, too.

The Democrats first did this in 2013 to allow Obama's second-term Cabinet and judicial nominees to be confirmed, as the Republicans were voting all of them down. In 2017, the Republicans could not get to 60 votes in favor of Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination, so they did the same thing.

So essentially, the only thing that needs to happen to get the votes needed set to 50 for anything would be a bill that the majority party desperately wants passed and the minority party doesn't, with 50 to 59 votes on the majority side. Both parties have been reluctant to do this, though, because once it's done, it makes things essentially the same as they are in the House, where the minority party has zero say in anything and has no tools to check the majority party. Both parties know they'll never hold the majority forever.

But, on the other hand, obstructionism has become such a part and parcel of Senate procedure that the only way any major legislation gets done is through stupid procedural tricks (like reconciliation) to get around the 60-vote threshold anyway. So it's possible that the 60-vote threshold's days are numbered.

[kphoger]

Requiring more than 51% agreement on anything, in my opinion, is a good thing.  It makes for a greater likelihood that the minority won't be trampled on by the majority, and also that actual compromise will be accomplished.

[SEWIGuy]

Another option for DC to grant them some representation in Congress beyond the current non-voting delegate.  For instance, give them an actual voting member in Congress and simultaneously increase the House to 437 members.  I know this was debated at least in committee about a decade ago because the state that would have benefitted from another extra member would have been Utah, which would have liklely been a Republican district.

I believe they could do this with a simple bill and not a constitutional amendment.

If you wanted to get really weird, you could do an amendment that not only gives them a member of Congress, but also gives them one Senator.  But not not official statehood.

[Scott5114]

Requiring more than 51% agreement on anything, in my opinion, is a good thing.  It makes for a greater likelihood that the minority won't be trampled on by the majority, and also that actual compromise will be accomplished.

The problem is that there is no longer any incentive to compromise now that earmarks have been stamped out by public demand. Previously, you could get minority support for a bill by saying something to a Kansas senator like "If you vote for my bill I'll put some money in it to upgrade US-400 to an Interstate." This led to a lot of money being spent, some of it on stupid stuff, but bills got passed with bipartisan support more often.

Now, with that incentive gone, there's no real benefit to voting across party lines. If you do it too much, you get primaried for being a "[party] in name only". (Before, you could sidestep this criticism by saying "Yes, but I helped Kansas by getting US-400 upgraded to Interstate.") So the minority party tends to vote as a bloc and shut down anything the majority wants to do.

And that's probably as far as I'll go with that, lest we start talking about actual politicians and parties.

[webny99]

There are two possible ways I know of to balance PR or DC statehood:

Depends on what you mean by "balance". I know in this context you mean balance between the 2 parties, but another interpretation is balance so that we still only have 50 states. The obvious solution for keeping 50 states would be to merge the Dakotas, but of course that's never happening, as it would be an automatic flip of 2 senators from Republican to Democrat.

* Split Illinois into Chicagoland and Downstate, where downstate leans Republican
* Split New York into NYC area and Upstate, where upstate leans Republican

In both cases, the Electoral College will go toward Republicans (DC keeps its electoral votes, PR gets 6; upstate NY gets 11, and downstate IL gets 8), while the Senate will go toward Democrats (if the new IL/NY rural state was safe R, the states would cancel out, but since they only lean, there's a decent chance of more Democratic senators).

In the case of Puerto Rico, where do the EV's come from? Would there be 544 instead of 538?

I have stated before, and will maintain, that Upstate NY would be the swing state if it was its own state, supplanting Ohio as the national bellwether. Upstate voted much more heavily for the Democratic senators than they did for president in both 2016 and 2018, so it is likely that it would have at least one and possibly two Democratic senators if it was its own state.

[oscar]

If you wanted to get really weird, you could do an amendment that not only gives them a member of Congress, but also gives them one Senator.  But not not official statehood.

A similar amendment (two Senators instead of one) was proposed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Not nearly enough states ratified it before the proposal expired in 1985.

[mgk920]

Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

[SEWIGuy]

Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

The issue is that Puerto Rico is just so sizable.  If it were a state, it would rank between Connecticut and Utah population wise.

The Pacific Territories (Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands), even if you combined all of them, would have a population less than half of Wyoming.  (The other issue is that culturally, Samoa as a Polynesian nation is different that Guam and the Mariana Islands as Micronesian nations.)

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

But there is no harm in simply keeping them as territories.

[1995hoo]

....

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

....

Something tells me the people of the Virgin Islands would be extremely displeased with that arrangement given Puerto Rico's unique (for the USA) situation as 94% Spanish-speaking with a government that legally operates in Spanish (except for federal institutions there, such as the federal district court in San Juan), whereas in the Virgin Islands less than 20% of the population speaks Spanish. Hard to imagine a combined state going for a Canadian-style arrangement with everything in two languages.

[Roadgeekteen]

Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

The issue is that Puerto Rico is just so sizable.  If it were a state, it would rank between Connecticut and Utah population wise.

The Pacific Territories (Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands), even if you combined all of them, would have a population less than half of Wyoming.  (The other issue is that culturally, Samoa as a Polynesian nation is different that Guam and the Mariana Islands as Micronesian nations.)

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

But there is no harm in simply keeping them as territories.

Fold them into Hawaii, distances will suck but what can you do. Or keep them as territories and give them limited reps in congress, like one senator, one house rep, and one electoral vote.

[kphoger]

Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

The issue is that Puerto Rico is just so sizable.  If it were a state, it would rank between Connecticut and Utah population wise.

The Pacific Territories (Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands), even if you combined all of them, would have a population less than half of Wyoming.  (The other issue is that culturally, Samoa as a Polynesian nation is different that Guam and the Mariana Islands as Micronesian nations.)

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

But there is no harm in simply keeping them as territories.

Fold them into Hawaii, distances will suck but what can you do. Or keep them as territories and give them limited reps in congress, like one senator, one house rep, and one electoral vote.

Need a new birth certificate?  Fly to Honolulu!

[GaryV]

Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

Residents of American Samoa aren't even US Citizens - they are Nationals instead.

[SEWIGuy]

Every admission of a new state has involved immense amounts of horsetrading, power politics and fine timing going all the way back to state #14 (Vermont), and I would expect this one to be no different.

I have thought about places like Guam, American Samoa and so forth every now and then and the best solution that I came up with in my mind was to gather all of the USA islands in the Pacific Ocean that are not now a part of any existing state and create a (for lack of a better name) 'State of Pacifica'.  Capitol to be in HagÃ¥tña, GU and each of the existing territories would be counties in that state.

Mike

The issue is that Puerto Rico is just so sizable.  If it were a state, it would rank between Connecticut and Utah population wise.

The Pacific Territories (Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands), even if you combined all of them, would have a population less than half of Wyoming.  (The other issue is that culturally, Samoa as a Polynesian nation is different that Guam and the Mariana Islands as Micronesian nations.)

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

But there is no harm in simply keeping them as territories.

Fold them into Hawaii, distances will suck but what can you do. Or keep them as territories and give them limited reps in congress, like one senator, one house rep, and one electoral vote.

I really don't even know if giving them reps in Congress is necessary.  In Puerto Rico's case, you are taking about 3 million people.  The pacific islands, 200,000.

[SEWIGuy]

....

You could fold the Virgin Islands in to Puerto Rico too.

....

Something tells me the people of the Virgin Islands would be extremely displeased with that arrangement given Puerto Rico's unique (for the USA) situation as 94% Spanish-speaking with a government that legally operates in Spanish (except for federal institutions there, such as the federal district court in San Juan), whereas in the Virgin Islands less than 20% of the population speaks Spanish. Hard to imagine a combined state going for a Canadian-style arrangement with everything in two languages.

Yeah you are probably right.