Should Puerto Rico be a state?

[KEmperor]

Yes, persons born in the US Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are United States citizens.  They carry US passports and are subject to the rights and priveleges and duties of all US citizens, with the exception that they do not have voting representation in congress and no votes for President.  (They send a non-voting delegate to Washington, like DC, VI, and Guam).

OK...what about no taxation without representation?

Because they do not get a vote in Congress, they don't have to pay federal taxes.  There are local taxes, however, which are administered by the locally elected Puerto Rican government.

[Gustaf]

Yes, persons born in the US Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are United States citizens.  They carry US passports and are subject to the rights and priveleges and duties of all US citizens, with the exception that they do not have voting representation in congress and no votes for President.  (They send a non-voting delegate to Washington, like DC, VI, and Guam).

OK...what about no taxation without representation?

Because they do not get a vote in Congress, they don't have to pay federal taxes.  There are local taxes, however, which are administered by the locally elected Puerto Rican government.

OK, thanks.

[angus]

And they are high!  For a fifty dollar hotel room, expect the bill to be around sixty-eight dollars.

[Fritz]

 yeah, I wondered whether that was intentional.

What's the rule on admission?  You give new states a number of votes equal to the number of votes of the least populous one until a census can be made.  So any newly admitted state would get 3 votes right off the bat.  That would be adjusted in the first decennial census after admission.  Is that correct?

No, I don't think so.  They get representation based on population.  I'm not sure if the Census gets administered in territories, but I think it does.  If not, there are reliable estimates.  PR would get I believe 6 members in the House, and 8 EV.  Now, whether 6 existing states would have to lose a member, or the House membership is permanently raised to 441, is a matter that Congress would have to decide upon.  

[12th Doctor]

I think that we should issue them an ultimatum, either become a state or get out.  They get all the benefits of being a state (except congressional representation, etc.) and don't have to pay a God damn dime in income tax.  At least if they became a state we would get some revenue from them to pay for the mess they have down there.

[angus]

Yes they definitely get enumerated by the census bureau:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/dmd01cprs.pdf
http://www.census.gov/mso/www/pres_lib/hisorig/sld021.htm

In 2000, they counted about 3.8 million people in PR, a little less than South Carolina and a little more than Oregon.

But the question is, when a new state is admitted, do they immediately give it the 'right number' of votes?  or do they just give it 3 and wait for the next decennial census to give it the correct number?

[Fritz]

But the question is, when a new state is admitted, do they immediately give it the 'right number' of votes?  or do they just give it 3 and wait for the next decennial census to give it the correct number?

I can prove this is not true just by looking at some of Dave's old election maps.  If this were true, for the first election after being admitted as a state, a new state would invariably have 3 EV- unless the year of admission was XXX9, and the next election was XXX2, such that a Census actually took place between being admitted as a state and that state's first election.  Anyways, it doesn't hold true, states have often had 4 EV in their first election.

[MAS117]

 yeah, I wondered whether that was intentional.

What's the rule on admission?  You give new states a number of votes equal to the number of votes of the least populous one until a census can be made.  So any newly admitted state would get 3 votes right off the bat.  That would be adjusted in the first decennial census after admission.  Is that correct?

No, I don't think so.  They get representation based on population.  I'm not sure if the Census gets administered in territories, but I think it does.  If not, there are reliable estimates.  PR would get I believe 6 members in the House, and 8 EV.  Now, whether 6 existing states would have to lose a member, or the House membership is permanently raised to 441, is a matter that Congress would have to decide upon.  

How do you think they will have 6 members in the House? Thats alot dont you think?

[KEmperor]

 yeah, I wondered whether that was intentional.

What's the rule on admission?  You give new states a number of votes equal to the number of votes of the least populous one until a census can be made.  So any newly admitted state would get 3 votes right off the bat.  That would be adjusted in the first decennial census after admission.  Is that correct?

No, I don't think so.  They get representation based on population.  I'm not sure if the Census gets administered in territories, but I think it does.  If not, there are reliable estimates.  PR would get I believe 6 members in the House, and 8 EV.  Now, whether 6 existing states would have to lose a member, or the House membership is permanently raised to 441, is a matter that Congress would have to decide upon.  

How do you think they will have 6 members in the House? Thats alot dont you think?

Because of their 3.8 million people?

[Fritz]

As Angus said, a little more than Oregon and a little less than South Carolina.

Hows the weather in Alaska, MAS117?

[angus]

But the question is, when a new state is admitted, do they immediately give it the 'right number' of votes?  or do they just give it 3 and wait for the next decennial census to give it the correct number?

I can prove this is not true just by looking at some of Dave's old election maps.  If this were true, for the first election after being admitted as a state, a new state would invariably have 3 EV- unless the year of admission was XXX9, and the next election was XXX2, such that a Census actually took place between being admitted as a state and that state's first election.  Anyways, it doesn't hold true, states have often had 4 EV in their first election.

Hey that's right.  okay, I'm satisfied.  Then PR would have around six congressmen and two senators.  And eight votes for president right off the bat.  I suppose adding eight to the total makes more sense than redistribution of votes without a census, so the total would then be 546.

So the 283-255 Bush win would be a 283-263 Bush if PR were a state in 2004.

[opebo]

NO way.  Too Democratic.  I'd rather make them 'independent'.

You would refuse to give them statehood because they would give the Democrats 3 ECs?

Of course!  And I'm sure the GOP as a party would do the same.

[angus]

I think that's why DC isn't a state.  DC, unlike PR, has repeatedly shown a willingness to become one, but the republicans won't stand for it.  So, ultimately, it isn't a matter of convincing the Commonwealth Party of PR to change its mind, it's a matter of the GOP making enough inroads into the PR community to get some traction there and swing about half their voters to the Dark Side.

[Lunar]

Of course!  And I'm sure the GOP as a party would do the same.

Yes, but you aren't a slimy politician (I hope).

[??????????]

I think that's why DC isn't a state.  DC, unlike PR, has repeatedly shown a willingness to become one, but the republicans won't stand for it.  So, ultimately, it isn't a matter of convincing the Commonwealth Party of PR to change its mind, it's a matter of the GOP making enough inroads into the PR community to get some traction there and swing about half their voters to the Dark Side.

DC was never intended to ever become a state. It wasn't even meant to have full time citizens living in it! It was meant for governmental affairs and for those who take care of the buildings and properties to live. They should not be a state.

[Lunar]

My opinion is that the D.C. votes should be cast in Maryland.

[??????????]

Especially since DC is Marylands land.

[ShapeShifter]

HELL, NO.  THAT PLACE IS A MESS.  THE ONLY THING HOLDING IT TOGETHER IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE TAX BASE THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT.  YOU DON'T PAY FED TAX BUT THE HACIENDA (THE PR TAX AUTHORITY) RAPES YOU WILL KILLER TERRITORY TAX, THEY AUDIT YOU EVERY YEAR.  WITHOUT THE US GOV., THAT PLACE WOULD BECOME LIKE HAITI OVERNIGHT.  I WORK WITH A TON OF CO-WORKERS WHO DID FIVE YEAR STINTS IN FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON THAT ISLAND.  ITS THIRD WORLD DOWN THERE.    I AM SURE I WILL ANGER ALOT OF PEOPLE OFF BUT THAT PLACE CAN GO PISS.  I SAY CUT 'EM LOOSE.  

YASP

What part of no caps don't you understand?

[angus]

Statesrights and Lunar,
I think that's a good suggestion.  It satisfies their right for congressional representation.  600000 people add up to about one extra representative and one extra electoral vote for maryland.  But would it require that the district be annexed completely to maryland?  (or as statesrights points out, returned to its original status as part of maryland)

[Lunar]

D.C.'s land can remain federal rather than state, but the people will be citizens of Maryland and vote that way.  I've always been uncomfortable with its pseudo-state status.

[??????????]

"Federal land" is unconstitutional and is a direct slap in the face of a states right to self sovereignty.

[Lunar]

"Federal land" is unconstitutional and is a direct slap in the face of a states right to self sovereignty.

Now that I think about it, that's correct.  Which is why we should not aim to keep states as territories forever.

Give the place back to Maryland.  There is no need for the feds to own a few patches of land in order to conduct business on top of them.

[KEmperor]

"Federal land" is unconstitutional and is a direct slap in the face of a states right to self sovereignty.

You are wrong.  At least with respect to the District of Columbia, as the Constitution specifically provides for it in Article I, Section 8:

"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, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"

[??????????]

Do the states get to vote on getting a military base or a federal park before they are created? I don't know I'm just curious as to if anyone knows the answer.

[English]

I voted yes. PR would be overwhelmingly Democratic!!