Americas 51st and 52nd States? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:03:44 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Americas 51st and 52nd States? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Americas 51st and 52nd States?  (Read 22441 times)
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

« 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
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

« Reply #1 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
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2006, 10:41:45 PM »

why was Montreal so anti-independence?
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

« Reply #3 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
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

« Reply #4 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
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

« Reply #5 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: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

« Reply #6 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
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 12 queries.