|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 03:51:22 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 20506 times)
KEmperor
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,453
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 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?
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,894
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 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

Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,446
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: December 08, 2006, 10:41:45 pm »

why was Montreal so anti-independence?
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,894
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: December 08, 2006, 11:26:02 pm »

why was Montreal so anti-independence?

Lots of anglos and lots of immigrants.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,372
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 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?
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,446
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 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.
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 #56 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.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,558
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 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.
Logged
2,868,691
Harry
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,408
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 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...
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,210
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 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.
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 #60 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.
Logged
jimrtex
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,461
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 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.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,446
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 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.
Logged
jimrtex
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,461
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 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 .  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.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,446
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 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 .  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. 
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,446
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: December 11, 2006, 11:24:11 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,210
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 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.
Logged
muon2
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,500


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 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.
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