Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Presidential Election Trends => Topic started by: Kevin on September 22, 2006, 08:36:13 PM



Title: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Kevin on September 22, 2006, 08:36:13 PM
What will be Americas 51st and 52nd States? That is the question I am asking. I'll make a prediction.

My prediction

Purto Rico- Inresing Hispanic population along with a growing sense of comman feeling with the mainland America will lead to Purto Rico becoming a state.

Politcal Leaning-Democratic

Cuba- Once Castro kicks the bucket along with the collsape of the communist regime will lead to Cuba becoming an extentsion of Florida along with the same reasons os Purto Rico will also lead to Cuba becoming a state.

Politcal Leaning-Republican   

 


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Frodo on September 22, 2006, 09:13:36 PM
What will be Americas 51st and 52nd States? That is the question I am asking. I'll make a prediction.

My prediction

Purto Rico- Inresing Hispanic population along with a growing sense of comman feeling with the mainland America will lead to Purto Rico becoming a state.


On what basis do you make the claim that Puerto Ricans are feeling a growing sense of emotional connection to mainland America?  I'm not saying you're wrong -I'm just surprised and curious.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Kevin on September 22, 2006, 09:18:03 PM
What will be Americas 51st and 52nd States? That is the question I am asking. I'll make a prediction.

My prediction

Purto Rico- Incresing Hispanic population along with a growing sense of comman feeling with the mainland America will lead to Purto Rico becoming a state.


On what basis do you make the claim that Puerto Ricans are feeling a growing sense of emotional connection to mainland America?  I'm not saying you're wrong -I'm just surprised and curious.

With the growing Hispanic population in this country along with the fact the Purto Rico is a commanwealth and US territory I feel it is only a matter of time before Purto Rico becomes a state. 


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: ag on September 22, 2006, 09:53:07 PM
Puerto Rico - possible, may be even probable. Cuba - not before Mexico and Canada do the same. It's not an extension of Florida, believe it or not, Castro or no Castro. 


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on September 23, 2006, 12:44:04 AM
The anti-Castroites are deluding themselves if they think they will be quickly gaining power in Cuba after the Castroes are gone.

51st State could be the State of Mariana (Guam plus Northern Marianas) or the State of Puerto Rico.  Mariana is a bit small at only 250K in population, but has the political will to become a U.S. State should the situation allow.  Puerto Rico could become a State now but its support for Statehood is unlikely to creep past the ~45% level it has been at for the past few decades.  Both the USVI and AS are too small and if AS tried to grow by reuniting with Samoa, it would be to gain independence, not Statehood.

There is no external territory at this time that has both the desire to become a State and any chance of being admitted as one.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on September 23, 2006, 07:55:43 AM
If left-leaning Puerto Rico enters, a right-leaning state is needed to balance it out.

I'd love to see N. and S. Jersey different or NY State seperated from NYC


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Kevin on September 23, 2006, 08:18:13 AM
With Cuba I'm talking about maybe 30-40 years after the death of Castro and the fall of his regime. Sorry about not stating that before.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Adlai Stevenson on September 23, 2006, 08:50:17 AM
Puerto Rico or Guam seem the most likely.  I hardly think the Cubans, who have had Castro since 1959 and were independent before that are suddenly going to discover American nationalism.  Mexico is an interesting idea, didn't someone in history once famously think it would eventually become a part of the US?  But in the immediate future that doesn't seem feasible either. 


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: dazzleman on September 23, 2006, 10:12:40 AM
Neither seems likely at this point.  Nor do I think either one of them should become a state.  Cuba is a foreign country, and unless there's a groundswell in Cuba to join the US, which I doubt, there's no reason to even consider it as a potential state.

I don't think we should admit as states places that don't speak English as their primary language.  And I don't think we should be looking to expand in this way.  Let's just keep the 50 states we have.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: MasterJedi on September 23, 2006, 10:14:14 AM
Puerto Rico and Canada (though Canada would be more than one state).


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 23, 2006, 10:30:40 AM
Puerto Rico and Canada (though Canada would be more than one state).

Why the hell would Canada join and how do they benefit from it? All it would do is hurt their economy (and parts of the US to some extent, but Canada would be harder hit)


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 23, 2006, 11:53:46 AM
One little remanent from when Australia formed out of 6 colonies in 1901 - New Zealand was offered the chance to join Australia. They turned it down BUT they reserved the right to accept at a later date. They STILL have that option.

AHHHHHHHHHHH!

Mind you our Rugby team would be UNSTOPPABLE.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: ag on September 23, 2006, 12:54:51 PM
With Cuba I'm talking about maybe 30-40 years after the death of Castro and the fall of his regime. Sorry about not stating that before.

Not even then.  The chance that Cuba would enter, at this point, is no higher than that for any other neighboring country.  Why Cuba and not, say, Panama? At least, there are anglophone areas (though small) in that country.

Except for Puerto Rico, none of the countries in the region are at all likely.  Guam +, of course, could be another possibility w/ somewhat larger population.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: bgwah on September 23, 2006, 03:20:34 PM
Puerto Rico is the most likely. I would support Puerto Rican statehood if they wanted it.

Guam would probably be stopped because of its small population.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 23, 2006, 11:32:09 PM
The only possible two likely additional states:

1-Puerto Rico
2-A state combined of all the Pacific colonies. Their populations are too low to be one on their own.

The Republican belief that Cuba might/will become a state is based on the delusional premise that Castro's death will result in Cuba being transformed into a pro-US free market democracy overnight, and that a hypothetical Cuban state would be vote Republican. Places like Jamaica are more likely than Cuba due to being Anglophone, though the odds there are still quite low.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Joel the Attention Whore on September 24, 2006, 08:27:55 AM
I'd say a more likely option would be DC.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on September 24, 2006, 08:30:31 AM
I'd say a more likely option would be DC.

No, simply because the whole point of DC is that is not a state.  Plus states usually come in 2s, and adding DC and Puerto Rico would really throw off polticial balance as Puerto Rico is equal to MA, and DC is far, far worse.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: dazzleman on September 24, 2006, 09:33:20 AM
I'd say a more likely option would be DC.

DC is not a state.  If anything, it should be included in Maryland for purposes of congressional representation.  But to call it a state is absurd.  It's a city -- and a highly dysfunctional one.  Nothing more.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Soaring Eagle on September 24, 2006, 10:21:41 AM
What will be Americas 51st and 52nd States? That is the question I am asking. I'll make a prediction.

My prediction

Purto Rico- Inresing Hispanic population along with a growing sense of comman feeling with the mainland America will lead to Purto Rico becoming a state.

Politcal Leaning-Democratic

Cuba- Once Castro kicks the bucket along with the collsape of the communist regime will lead to Cuba becoming an extentsion of Florida along with the same reasons os Purto Rico will also lead to Cuba becoming a state.

Politcal Leaning-Republican   

 
I agree with you, but why would Cuba lean Republican? The reason Cuban-Americans are Republicans is because they had the money to get out of Cuba. Average Cubans would likely be Democrats.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Fritz on September 24, 2006, 11:18:14 AM
Puerto Rico will be 51, sometime within the next 40 years.

Cuba?  Never.

There will be no other new states entering the union after Puerto Rico, ever.  Except perhaps our colony on Mars, 400-500 years from now.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Nym90 on September 24, 2006, 12:05:21 PM
I'd support Puerto Rico becoming a state, and DC as well, although it would probably make more sense to simply merge DC into Maryland.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: ottermax on September 24, 2006, 12:56:29 PM
What about a state spliting into two, like Eastern and Western Washington, or Upstate NY, and NYC? Those seem more likely than Cuba.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: 7,052,770 on September 24, 2006, 03:14:50 PM
Adding Puerto Rico and a EasternWashington/Idaho Panhandle state would be a balance.

American Samoa wouldn't fit into a transPacific state because of the IDL difference.  But Guam/N.Marianas could make a state.

Those 3 seem plausible, unforunately nothing else does now.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on September 24, 2006, 03:18:43 PM
Adding Puerto Rico and a EasternWashington/Idaho Panhandle state would be a balance.

We already have enough Republican gerrymandered states.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: ag on September 24, 2006, 10:14:48 PM

Puerto Rico is not "equal" to MA. At present, there are no Rep or Dem organizations in the country, so any prediction is difficult, since the local party system would change after statehood.  However, at present there are two major parties of similar strength on the island, and it is not unlikely that one of them would become the basis for the local Republican Party organization (given that one of the two parties is already affiliated to national Dems, this becomes even more likely).  Now, this might be a very peculiar Republican organization, dissident within the national party on many issues, but it would still be a Republican Party, and it would be a locally important force. A moderate and/or Hispanic Republican candidate would have a good chance of winning PR in a presidential election.  I don't believe MA could be, at present, competitive, given almost any realistic Republican candidate.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: MaC on September 25, 2006, 12:14:49 AM
Sealand!


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: minionofmidas on October 01, 2006, 06:52:18 AM

Puerto Rico is not "equal" to MA. At present, there are no Rep or Dem organizations in the country, so any prediction is difficult, since the local party system would change after statehood.  However, at present there are two major parties of similar strength on the island, and it is not unlikely that one of them would become the basis for the local Republican Party organization (given that one of the two parties is already affiliated to national Dems, this becomes even more likely).  Now, this might be a very peculiar Republican organization, dissident within the national party on many issues, but it would still be a Republican Party, and it would be a locally important force. A moderate and/or Hispanic Republican candidate would have a good chance of winning PR in a presidential election.  I don't believe MA could be, at present, competitive, given almost any realistic Republican candidate.

Given that the New Progressive Party once *was* the state's Republican Party, and split away for some pretty good reasons... it's sort of unlikely they'd go back to that, or at least that many of their voters would follow them there.
Although... given the remaining strength at the nonfederal level of Republicans in Southern New England ... I could imagine PR having a competitive state New Progressives sort-of-affiliated with the Republican, and a Popular Democrat lock on congressional representation. I could *imagine* it - but competitive congressional elections, and PDs and NPs then both caucussing with the Dems, sounds more likely.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: 12th Doctor on October 01, 2006, 12:05:09 PM
Fools.  Cuba has been a part of the United States all along, and once Castro is dead, it will "officially" join the Union.  Castro is just an agent for the United States who was put in power by us to fool the Soveit Union and heighten domestic tensions over the Cold War.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: YRABNNRM on October 02, 2006, 04:42:44 PM
If left-leaning Puerto Rico enters, a right-leaning state is needed to balance it out.

I'd love to see N. and S. Jersey different or NY State seperated from NYC

New York isn't a right-leaning state.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Kevinstat on October 12, 2006, 10:39:24 PM
I'd love to see N. and S. Jersey different or NY State seperated from NYC

New York isn't a right-leaning state.

I think DownWithTheLeft was referring to New York State minus New York City, possibly minus (non-NYC) Long Island as well.  Upstate New York would at least be competitive for the Republicans on the Presidential and Senatorial levels as an independent state, and at the state government level (not that people outside New York would care much about that) would have a clear Republican lean.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: bullmoose88 on October 13, 2006, 12:45:03 AM
Err...Lets say Alberta and Puerto Rico...But its not likely for either anytime soon and dependant on several factors...like Ottawa contiuning to piss that conservative bastion off.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Mike in Maryland on October 13, 2006, 10:22:23 AM
The US considered annexing Cuba in the mid-1800s and split it into several states (actually, that was driven by southerners who wanted more slave states.)  It didn't happen, and probably won't ever; even if Castro's gone that doesn't mean the Cubans want to become a full-fledged part of the US.  It's more likely that the 51st state will be "Saudi Israelia" (a "Simpsons" reference) :)

Washington DC is more likely to become a state than Cuba, and DC isn't becoming a state anytime soon.   Puerto Rico is somewhat more likely, but not much so (maybe it could be united with the Virgin Islands?)  Maybe the Pacific Islands we control (Guam, Wake Island, etc.) if put together could qualify, but such a state would be too far flung to be coherent; imagine trying to run for governor or senator while having to island-hop for thousands of miles. 

Maybe if the Canada/Quebec tensions get bad enough, the Quebecois might look south?


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on November 14, 2006, 06:27:20 PM
The US considered annexing Cuba in the mid-1800s and split it into several states (actually, that was driven by southerners who wanted more slave states.)  It didn't happen, and probably won't ever; even if Castro's gone that doesn't mean the Cubans want to become a full-fledged part of the US.  It's more likely that the 51st state will be "Saudi Israelia" (a "Simpsons" reference) :)

Washington DC is more likely to become a state than Cuba, and DC isn't becoming a state anytime soon.   Puerto Rico is somewhat more likely, but not much so (maybe it could be united with the Virgin Islands?)  Maybe the Pacific Islands we control (Guam, Wake Island, etc.) if put together could qualify, but such a state would be too far flung to be coherent; imagine trying to run for governor or senator while having to island-hop for thousands of miles. 

Maybe if the Canada/Quebec tensions get bad enough, the Quebecois might look south?

Quebec would want independence, not union with the US. I agree that it's highly unlikely Cuba will ever become a state, and if it does, it probably won't vote Republican. Cuban-Americans in Miami vote Republican because of fidel, and with him gone, they'll have no reason to do so. Besides, the average Cuban has very different priorities and ideas, though it's difficult to say what those are due to censorship on the island.

A Pacific state made up of Guam, the Northern Marianas, and American Samoa, plus Palau, the FSM, and the Marshall Islands (which are all currently nominally independent, but so small and dependent on the US that they might benefit from annexation) would be a more realistic possiblity than either of those two.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Gabu on November 15, 2006, 12:22:21 AM
Maybe if the Canada/Quebec tensions get bad enough, the Quebecois might look south?

If there's one thing that Quebeckers hate more than Canada, it's the United States.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: NewFederalist on November 15, 2006, 08:00:43 AM

If there's one thing that Quebeckers hate more than Canada, it's the United States.


The United States, perhaps, but I don't believe they hate Americans. Whenever I have travelled throughout Quebec just as soon as people understand that I am not from Ontario (I grew up in Michigan and still sound like I could be from Ontario) they have been very friendly and quite understanding that I don't speak French.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Padfoot on December 07, 2006, 12:18:07 AM
I would guess Puerto Rico and DC as the next two states most likely to join.  DC was actually very close to becoming a state in the 70's and I think that with Democrats now controlling Congress and a majority of state legislatures it could happen in the near future.  It appears as though the 110th will at least be giving DC a real representative instead of a non-voting delegate.  Many top Democrats have said that a proposed bill to give DC a vote and Utah a new vote will be a high priority for the 110th Congress since it appears unlikely that the 109th will get to it this year.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Verily on December 07, 2006, 01:12:13 PM
I would guess Puerto Rico and DC as the next two states most likely to join.  DC was actually very close to becoming a state in the 70's and I think that with Democrats now controlling Congress and a majority of state legislatures it could happen in the near future.  It appears as though the 110th will at least be giving DC a real representative instead of a non-voting delegate.  Many top Democrats have said that a proposed bill to give DC a vote and Utah a new vote will be a high priority for the 110th Congress since it appears unlikely that the 109th will get to it this year.

Why Utah? Isn't it Montana that gets the next new seat?


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 07, 2006, 02:23:53 PM
I would guess Puerto Rico and DC as the next two states most likely to join.  DC was actually very close to becoming a state in the 70's and I think that with Democrats now controlling Congress and a majority of state legislatures it could happen in the near future.  It appears as though the 110th will at least be giving DC a real representative instead of a non-voting delegate.  Many top Democrats have said that a proposed bill to give DC a vote and Utah a new vote will be a high priority for the 110th Congress since it appears unlikely that the 109th will get to it this year.

Why Utah? Isn't it Montana that gets the next new seat?

Nope, under the formula used to apportion Representatives, the 436th seat goes to Utah, Montana doesn't get a second seat under the 2000 Census until the 441st seat is handed out.  The next available seat goes not to the state that has the highest average population per district (in which case Montana would already have 2 seats) but the state which has the highest value under the method known as the method of equal proportions


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 07, 2006, 03:04:04 PM
I tried some other apportionment methods just to see the result.  If as the divisor used to generate priority values, instead of using the geometric mean of n and n+1 (where n is the number of seats the State has already) one uses the arithmetic mean, you get the same results in 2000 for the 435 seats, but the 436th would go to New York instead of Utah.  If you use simply n as Verily was suggesting, you get a result that is much more favorable to small states.

Differences would be:
California 50 (-3)
Connecticut 6 (+1)
Delaware 2 (+1)
Florida 24 (-1)
Mississippi 5 (+1)
Montana 2 (+1)
New York 28 (-1)
North Carolina 12 (-1)
Ohio 17 (-1)
Oklahoma 6 (+1)
Oregon 6 (+1)
South Dakota 2 (+1)
Texas 31 (-1)
Utah 4 (+1)

[Net gain for Bush of 2 EV in 2004]








Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Padfoot on December 07, 2006, 06:06:17 PM
I tried some other apportionment methods just to see the result.  If as the divisor used to generate priority values, instead of using the geometric mean of n and n+1 (where n is the number of seats the State has already) one uses the arithmetic mean, you get the same results in 2000 for the 435 seats, but the 436th would go to New York instead of Utah.  If you use simply n as Verily was suggesting, you get a result that is much more favorable to small states.

Differences would be:
California 50 (-3)
Connecticut 6 (+1)
Delaware 2 (+1)
Florida 24 (-1)
Mississippi 5 (+1)
Montana 2 (+1)
New York 28 (-1)
North Carolina 12 (-1)
Ohio 17 (-1)
Oklahoma 6 (+1)
Oregon 6 (+1)
South Dakota 2 (+1)
Texas 31 (-1)
Utah 4 (+1)

[Net gain for Bush of 2 EV in 2004]

I like this method much better however we digress from the topic at hand.  I said earlier that the states most likely to join next would be DC and PR.  However I would much prefer a large state like California or Texas to divide itself in two.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: jimrtex on December 07, 2006, 07:43:44 PM
I tried some other apportionment methods just to see the result.  If as the divisor used to generate priority values, instead of using the geometric mean of n and n+1 (where n is the number of seats the State has already) one uses the arithmetic mean, you get the same results in 2000 for the 435 seats, but the 436th would go to New York instead of Utah.  If you use simply n as Verily was suggesting, you get a result that is much more favorable to small states.
You really ought to use the harmonic mean.

  2(n+1)n
  ------------
     2n+1


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on December 07, 2006, 07:57:14 PM
Ireland for STATEHOOD! :P

Given how close we are to the US and with emigration, etc; we almost belong to you. ;)


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 07, 2006, 07:58:17 PM
Any excuse to not be ruled by Fianna Fail, eh?


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: afleitch on December 07, 2006, 07:59:11 PM
Ireland for STATEHOOD! :P

Given how close we are to the US and with emigration, etc; we almost belong to you. ;)

By the same reckoning you belong to Scotland ;) Or at least the bit where I live anyway


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 07, 2006, 07:59:45 PM
Or Lancashire


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: afleitch on December 07, 2006, 08:01:20 PM

Speaking of which it's time to roll out those 1960's religion per UK county maps :D I'll get working on that....


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on December 07, 2006, 08:02:23 PM
Coming to think about it that would be very tempting; and perhaps we could get a better justice system as opposed to the one which hasn't been changed for about roughly 10billion years, so that we can finally persecute the corrupt bastards before they scuttle off and die to recieve a great big media love-in.

*Stamps the ground*
DO YOU HEAR THAT, CHARLIE HAUGHEY?
*Continues to stamp the ground*



:P


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on December 07, 2006, 08:03:59 PM
Ireland for STATEHOOD! :P

Given how close we are to the US and with emigration, etc; we almost belong to you. ;)

By the same reckoning you belong to Scotland ;) Or at least the bit where I live anyway

Where would that be (Wouldn't happen to be stirling, would it?)? I have scottish blood btw.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: afleitch on December 07, 2006, 08:07:03 PM
Ireland for STATEHOOD! :P

Given how close we are to the US and with emigration, etc; we almost belong to you. ;)

By the same reckoning you belong to Scotland ;) Or at least the bit where I live anyway

Where would that be (Wouldn't happen to be stirling, would it?)? I have scottish blood btw.

Hamilton :) Stirling is lovely though.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on December 08, 2006, 01:13:15 AM

If there's one thing that Quebeckers hate more than Canada, it's the United States.


The United States, perhaps, but I don't believe they hate Americans. Whenever I have travelled throughout Quebec just as soon as people understand that I am not from Ontario (I grew up in Michigan and still sound like I could be from Ontario) they have been very friendly and quite understanding that I don't speak French.

I havent had much problems in Quebec, but then again I dont venture off into the separatist areas.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: KEmperor on December 08, 2006, 06:00:10 AM

If there's one thing that Quebeckers hate more than Canada, it's the United States.


The United States, perhaps, but I don't believe they hate Americans. Whenever I have travelled throughout Quebec just as soon as people understand that I am not from Ontario (I grew up in Michigan and still sound like I could be from Ontario) they have been very friendly and quite understanding that I don't speak French.

I havent had much problems in Quebec, but then again I dont venture off into the separatist areas.

I'm curious, how does the separatist mood break down geographically?


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on December 08, 2006, 01:48:52 PM

If there's one thing that Quebeckers hate more than Canada, it's the United States.


The United States, perhaps, but I don't believe they hate Americans. Whenever I have travelled throughout Quebec just as soon as people understand that I am not from Ontario (I grew up in Michigan and still sound like I could be from Ontario) they have been very friendly and quite understanding that I don't speak French.

I havent had much problems in Quebec, but then again I dont venture off into the separatist areas.

I'm curious, how does the separatist mood break down geographically?

Here's a map of the 1995 referendum

()


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Padfoot on December 08, 2006, 10:41:45 PM
why was Montreal so anti-independence?


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on December 08, 2006, 11:26:02 PM
why was Montreal so anti-independence?

Lots of anglos and lots of immigrants.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Mr. Morden on December 08, 2006, 11:38:29 PM
I would guess Puerto Rico and DC as the next two states most likely to join.  DC was actually very close to becoming a state in the 70's and I think that with Democrats now controlling Congress and a majority of state legislatures it could happen in the near future.  It appears as though the 110th will at least be giving DC a real representative instead of a non-voting delegate.  Many top Democrats have said that a proposed bill to give DC a vote and Utah a new vote will be a high priority for the 110th Congress since it appears unlikely that the 109th will get to it this year.

Just out of curiosity, what is required for this to happen, to give an extra House seat to both DC and Utah?  Would it just be a bill passed into law through the legislative process (passed by both members of Congress, and signed by the President)?  No additional hoops to jump through in order to expand the size of Congress, and even award House seats to a district that is not a state?


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Padfoot on December 09, 2006, 01:59:42 AM
I would guess Puerto Rico and DC as the next two states most likely to join.  DC was actually very close to becoming a state in the 70's and I think that with Democrats now controlling Congress and a majority of state legislatures it could happen in the near future.  It appears as though the 110th will at least be giving DC a real representative instead of a non-voting delegate.  Many top Democrats have said that a proposed bill to give DC a vote and Utah a new vote will be a high priority for the 110th Congress since it appears unlikely that the 109th will get to it this year.

Just out of curiosity, what is required for this to happen, to give an extra House seat to both DC and Utah?  Would it just be a bill passed into law through the legislative process (passed by both members of Congress, and signed by the President)?  No additional hoops to jump through in order to expand the size of Congress, and even award House seats to a district that is not a state?


That is a point of some contention.  Those against the proposed bill claim that the First Article of the Constitution (which establishes the Legislative branch) would be violated if the bill was passed. 

From Section 2 Clause 1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states"
From Section 2 Clause 3: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union"

The arguement is that since DC is not a state is is not eligible for representation unless a Constitutional Amendment was passed.  However, those that argue for the current bill also cite Article One of Constitution in supporting a vote for DC.

From Section 8: "Congress shall have power 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 the government of the United States"

The supporters of the bill beleive that Section 8 grants Congress the ability to make any legislation it wishes with regards to DC including granting it a Representative.

As far as increasing the size of the House goes, the size of the House was fixed at 425 by the Reapportionment Act of 1929.  Congress has the authority to alter the size of the House whenever it wishes by passing a new law.  The Constitution's only input on the matter is that a Representative may have no less than 30,000 people in their district.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Gabu on December 09, 2006, 05:14:20 AM

If there's one thing that Quebeckers hate more than Canada, it's the United States.

The United States, perhaps, but I don't believe they hate Americans. Whenever I have travelled throughout Quebec just as soon as people understand that I am not from Ontario (I grew up in Michigan and still sound like I could be from Ontario) they have been very friendly and quite understanding that I don't speak French.

My comment was intended somewhat in jest, or at least the strength of the choice of words used, but it is nonetheless the case that I have a strong feeling Quebec would not be caught dead as a state in America, and if given the choice between being a part of Canada and a part of America, would overwhelmingly choose to stay in Canada.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 09, 2006, 10:14:32 AM
For all the ppl that are saying DC and Puerto Rico I say never

Usually when states enter (HI and AK) one is conservative and one is liberal, they wouldn't enter one state that would vote 85+ Dem and one that vote 60+ Dem at the same time, if its DC expect Guam or at least something conservative.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: 7,052,770 on December 09, 2006, 02:50:41 PM
For all the ppl that are saying DC and Puerto Rico I say never

Usually when states enter (HI and AK) one is conservative and one is liberal, they wouldn't enter one state that would vote 85+ Dem and one that vote 60+ Dem at the same time, if its DC expect Guam or at least something conservative.

typical conservative BS there, putting petty politics ahead of the good of the people...


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 09, 2006, 03:06:17 PM
For all the ppl that are saying DC and Puerto Rico I say never

Usually when states enter (HI and AK) one is conservative and one is liberal, they wouldn't enter one state that would vote 85+ Dem and one that vote 60+ Dem at the same time, if its DC expect Guam or at least something conservative.

typical conservative BS there, putting petty politics ahead of the good of the people...

And also quite untrue.  Dakota was split up into two states instead of entering as one so as to give the Republicans two additional safe Senators and EV's.  Oklahoma and Sequoyah were forced to enter as one state and not two.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Verily on December 09, 2006, 04:52:09 PM
There has also been quite a bit of talk that the 110th Congress will go ahead with a plan long in the works to add two seats to the House, giving DC a congressional district and Utah an additional one. (Utah is next on the list of states to get a electoral district, as Ernest informed me recently.)

For all the ppl that are saying DC and Puerto Rico I say never

Usually when states enter (HI and AK) one is conservative and one is liberal, they wouldn't enter one state that would vote 85+ Dem and one that vote 60+ Dem at the same time, if its DC expect Guam or at least something conservative.

typical conservative BS there, putting petty politics ahead of the good of the people...

Well, liberals do it sometimes, too. Still, it's absolutely disgusting, and reeks of stupid things like the Missouri Compromise that just made the issue of slavery blow up even worse.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: jimrtex on December 10, 2006, 03:27:25 AM
As far as increasing the size of the House goes, the size of the House was fixed at 435 by the Reapportionment Act of 1929.  Congress has the authority to alter the size of the House whenever it wishes by passing a new law.  The Constitution's only input on the matter is that a Representative may have no less than 30,000 people in their district.
Since the 1790 Census, Congress had varied the size of the House of Representatives after each census.  Often there were considerations such as preventing a slow-growing state from losing representation.  There were also debate about the method of apportionment.

After the 1910 Census, the size of the House of Representatives was set at 433, with the anticipation that the admission of Arizona and New Mexico to the Union would increase it to 435 (I think Arizona and New Mexico were actually conditionally incorporated in the reapportionment bill).

After the 1920 Census, Congress failed to reapportion.  The 1910's had seen a sever drought in the Midwest that had seen farm state population remain static after having increased every census.  Meanwhile states in the Northeast and Great Lakes area were seeing large growth in cities due to industrialization.  So New York would gain bunches of representatives, while midwestern states would lose.

Finally, President Hoover pushed through reapportionment legislation that defined the method of apportionment and set the size of the HoR at 435, with the apportionment formula applied automatically.   This was used in 1930, and basically there has never been an impetus to change it since.  At best, you might have congressmen from states losing representation filing a bill to increase the size of the HoR.

When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union in 1959 and 1960, they were apportioned a single representative each, increasing the size of the HoR to 437, and the number of electors from 531 to 537.  The law also provided that the HoR would revert to 435 representatives after the 1960 Census, which it did.  Since Hawaii gained a 2nd representative as a result of the census, other states in effect lost 3 representatives.

Because of the passage of the 23rd Amendment (DC Presidential Vote), the number of electors changed from 537 in 1960 to 538 in 1964.

The current legislation, provides that the 2 additional representatives due not increase the size of the HoR on a permanent basis (it will revert to 435 after the 2010 Census).  It addition, it states that Utah will not gain an (6th) elector for the 2008 presidential election.

It appears that after 2010 Census that the number of electors will decrease to 537 (since DC will have one of the 435 representatives), but its number of electors is based on the 23rd Amendment and not on its number of House Members.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Padfoot on December 10, 2006, 07:42:26 AM

The current legislation, provides that the 2 additional representatives due not increase the size of the HoR on a permanent basis (it will revert to 435 after the 2010 Census).  It addition, it states that Utah will not gain an (6th) elector for the 2008 presidential election.

It appears that after 2010 Census that the number of electors will decrease to 537 (since DC will have one of the 435 representatives), but its number of electors is based on the 23rd Amendment and not on its number of House Members.

This is not true.  In the original bill (HR 2043) proposed by Rep. Davis (R-VA-11) the House would have reverted to 435 after the 2010 Census.  However, in a revised version (HR 5388) the increase was made permanent and if the bill had passed it would have increased the size of the House to 437 members beginning with the 110th Congress for all Congresses afterward.  I beleive one of the reasons the second bill went farther then the first was because the increase was made permanent rather than being temporary.  This was done to avoid having an entire state delegation block the bill because one state would have lost a CD to DC.  Also, Utah's new CD would have brought the EV total to 539 making an EC tie impossible.  Alas, the do-nothing Congress lives up to its name and was unable to push this bill through even though Utah drew a new CD map and it made it through all the committee hearings.  Hopefully the Democrats will live up to their promise to make the bill a top priority in the 110th.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: jimrtex on December 11, 2006, 08:47:18 PM
The current legislation, provides that the 2 additional representatives due not increase the size of the HoR on a permanent basis (it will revert to 435 after the 2010 Census).  It addition, it states that Utah will not gain an (6th) elector for the 2008 presidential election.

It appears that after 2010 Census that the number of electors will decrease to 537 (since DC will have one of the 435 representatives), but its number of electors is based on the 23rd Amendment and not on its number of House Members.
This is not true.  In the original bill (HR 2043) proposed by Rep. Davis (R-VA-11) the House would have reverted to 435 after the 2010 Census.  However, in a revised version (HR 5388) the increase was made permanent and if the bill had passed it would have increased the size of the House to 437 members beginning with the 110th Congress for all Congresses afterward.  I beleive one of the reasons the second bill went farther then the first was because the increase was made permanent rather than being temporary.  This was done to avoid having an entire state delegation block the bill because one state would have lost a CD to DC.  Also, Utah's new CD would have brought the EV total to 539 making an EC tie impossible.  Alas, the do-nothing Congress lives up to its name and was unable to push this bill through even though Utah drew a new CD map and it made it through all the committee hearings.  Hopefully the Democrats will live up to their promise to make the bill a top priority in the 110th.
I had searched, and HR 2043 had come up and had seen that Rep. Davis was a sponsor, and saw that no action had been taken, and assumed that was the bill.

Actually, the bill was referred to two committees.  It made it through the Government Reform committee (which Davis heads) - 2 days after it was introduced.  There was also a hearing in the subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee in September, with no action taken (the transcript of this hearing is online - and is interesting reading).

I don't know whether they could have bypassed the Judiciary Committee.  But would the Senate have even considered it?

Also it provides that the extra Utah representative would be elected at large.  During the Constitution subcommittee hearing, one of the legal experts also questioned that aspect of the bill (the main focus of course was whether or not it was constitutional to grant representatives to DC).  Governor Huntsman was one of the witnesses, and he said that he would prefer having 4 districts, that the important thing was to get 4 representatives.  Del. Norton, mentioned she had heard that there was going to be an amendment removing the at large representative, and she seemed almost frantic to head it off.

It is curious that Utah had the special redistricting session in December  4-district map passed by Utah legislature  (http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2006S5/bills/sbillint/sb5001.pdf).  Was there some sort of deal supposed to come off where there would have been a floor amendment to remove the at large provision?  Considering how frantic Norton was about the amendment, they simply didn't have the votes.  Republicans concerned about the Constitution, and Democrats concerned that they would lose their Utah representative.

It doesn't matter whether there would be 435 or 437 representatives as far as having an odd number of electors.   There would be either 434+100 or 436+100 state-based electors, and the 3 DC electors for a total of 537 or 539 electors.

You may be right about the permanent increase, that everyone perceived that it would make a difference.  The two extra representatives would tend to be neutral as far partisan balance.  And even though two states would get an extra representative, al the others would have a smaller proportion of the body.

By my projections, if the number would revert to 435, Florida would lose its 28th representative (gain 2 rather than 3).  If the 437 were permanent, Florida would keep the 28th representative, and Minnesota would not lose its 8th.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Padfoot on December 11, 2006, 11:07:55 PM

Actually, the bill was referred to two committees.  It made it through the Government Reform committee (which Davis heads) - 2 days after it was introduced.  There was also a hearing in the subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee in September, with no action taken (the transcript of this hearing is online - and is interesting reading).

I don't know whether they could have bypassed the Judiciary Committee.  But would the Senate have even considered it?

Also it provides that the extra Utah representative would be elected at large.  During the Constitution subcommittee hearing, one of the legal experts also questioned that aspect of the bill (the main focus of course was whether or not it was constitutional to grant representatives to DC).  Governor Huntsman was one of the witnesses, and he said that he would prefer having 4 districts, that the important thing was to get 4 representatives.  Del. Norton, mentioned she had heard that there was going to be an amendment removing the at large representative, and she seemed almost frantic to head it off.

It is curious that Utah had the special redistricting session in December  4-district map passed by Utah legislature  (http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2006S5/bills/sbillint/sb5001.pdf).  Was there some sort of deal supposed to come off where there would have been a floor amendment to remove the at large provision?  Considering how frantic Norton was about the amendment, they simply didn't have the votes.  Republicans concerned about the Constitution, and Democrats concerned that they would lose their Utah representative.

It doesn't matter whether there would be 435 or 437 representatives as far as having an odd number of electors.   There would be either 434+100 or 436+100 state-based electors, and the 3 DC electors for a total of 537 or 539 electors.

You may be right about the permanent increase, that everyone perceived that it would make a difference.  The two extra representatives would tend to be neutral as far partisan balance.  And even though two states would get an extra representative, al the others would have a smaller proportion of the body.

By my projections, if the number would revert to 435, Florida would lose its 28th representative (gain 2 rather than 3).  If the 437 were permanent, Florida would keep the 28th representative, and Minnesota would not lose its 8th.

I misspoke before.  The bill did not make it throught the Judiciary committee.  Rep. Sensenbrenner was blocking it because he wasn't keen on the at-large Utah district.  He said that he would only approve it if Utah drew a new map with 4 CDs.  So thats why Utah drew a new map.  The new map is actually favorable to all the current Utah Representatives including the Democrat.  His new district would be heavily based in the Salt Lake metro area and I beleive it encompasses the entirity of Salt Lake City.

I'm not sure what would have happen in the Senate.  Sen. Lieberman has been proposing DC voting rights bills in concurrence with Del. Nolton and both Utah Senators have been working towards the bill's passage so they would likely be the leading voices for passing the bill.  With that kind of bipartisan support I think its likely they could have found the votes to make it work. 


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: Padfoot on December 11, 2006, 11:24:11 PM
Quote
Usually when states enter (HI and AK) one is conservative and one is liberal, they wouldn't enter one state that would vote 85+ Dem and one that vote 60+ Dem at the same time, if its DC expect Guam or at least something conservative.

Thats funny.  Last time I checked the parties that are pro-statehood in PR are lossely affiliated with the Republicans and those that are against statehood are affiliated HEAVILY with liberal Democrats.  Therefore if PR were to become a state it would only happen if the Democrats were in a position of weakness.  SO tell me, how does that translate to a Democratic majority after statehood?


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 12, 2006, 02:29:21 AM
Thats funny.  Last time I checked the parties that are pro-statehood in PR are lossely affiliated with the Republicans and those that are against statehood are affiliated HEAVILY with liberal Democrats.  Therefore if PR were to become a state it would only happen if the Democrats were in a position of weakness.  SO tell me, how does that translate to a Democratic majority after statehood?

The current party setup is organized according to whether the party favors statehood (PNP), continuing as a commonwealth (PPD) or, independence (PIP) with PNP and PPD being the two major parties.  Obviously once Puerto Rico becomes a State, they will need new organizing principles.  The PPD as you noted is strongly aligned with the Democrats and their Resident Commissioners have always caucused with Democrats in the U.S. House.  By contrast, the PNP has both Republican and Democratic wings and PNP Resident Commissioners have caucused with both parties in the House depending on who the Commissioner was.  Once the goal of statehood is achieved, it is likely that the PNP will split and the Democrat wing will join the PPD to become the state's Democratic Party.


Title: Re: Americas 51st and 52nd States?
Post by: muon2 on December 17, 2006, 03:23:31 AM

By my projections, if the number would revert to 435, Florida would lose its 28th representative (gain 2 rather than 3).  If the 437 were permanent, Florida would keep the 28th representative, and Minnesota would not lose its 8th.

I agree with that assessment. I expect to have an update in the next couple of weeks when the new Census estimates come out.