|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 09:51:10 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  Americas 51st and 52nd States?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: Americas 51st and 52nd States?  (Read 20502 times)
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2006, 12:14:49 am »

Sealand!
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,601
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,688
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 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.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,675


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,509


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 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.
Logged
Mike in Maryland
Rookie
**
Posts: 174


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 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) Smiley

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?
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,692
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 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) Smiley

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.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,403
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 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.
Logged
NewFederalist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,143
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 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.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,445
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 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.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,670


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 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?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,179
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 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
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,179
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2006, 03:04:04 pm »
« Edited: December 07, 2006, 03:06:10 pm by Sen. Ernest »

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]






Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,445
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 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.
Logged
jimrtex
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,457
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 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
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,812
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2006, 07:57:14 pm »

Ireland for STATEHOOD! Tongue

Given how close we are to the US and with emigration, etc; we almost belong to you. Wink
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,001
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2006, 07:58:17 pm »

Any excuse to not be ruled by Fianna Fail, eh?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,469


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2006, 07:59:11 pm »

Ireland for STATEHOOD! Tongue

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

By the same reckoning you belong to Scotland Wink Or at least the bit where I live anyway
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,001
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2006, 07:59:45 pm »

Or Lancashire
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,469


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 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 Cheesy I'll get working on that....
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,812
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2006, 08:02:23 pm »
« Edited: December 07, 2006, 08:04:57 pm by Gully Foyle »

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*



Tongue
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,812
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2006, 08:03:59 pm »

Ireland for STATEHOOD! Tongue

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

By the same reckoning you belong to Scotland Wink 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.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,469


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2006, 08:07:03 pm »

Ireland for STATEHOOD! Tongue

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

By the same reckoning you belong to Scotland Wink 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 Smiley Stirling is lovely though.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,894
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines