Statehood Poll

[vcczar]

New poll inspired by the statehood vote today

[Cenzonico]

I believe every territory should be able to vote on statehood. I don't necessarily believe we should grant say Guam statehood, but if the people of Guam voted in favor of it, then they should be granted statehood. I voted for all either way.

[vcczar]

14 minutes ago, Cenzonico said:

I believe every territory should be able to vote on statehood. I don't necessarily believe we should grant say Guam statehood, but if the people of Guam voted in favor of it, then they should be granted statehood. I voted for all either way.

I think there should be a population requirement, but then, yes, the US territory or US district--not the Congress--would decide on statehood. 

[vcczar]

@ConservativeElector2I'm just curious why you'd oppose Puerto Rican statehood, considering it larger in size than DE and RI, and about the same size as CT. It would be the 31st largest state in regards to population, beating 20 states in population. 

[MrPotatoTed]

11 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@ConservativeElector2I'm just curious why you'd oppose Puerto Rican statehood, considering it larger in size than DE and RI, and about the same size as CT. It would be the 31st largest state in regards to population, beating 20 states in population. 

Presumably because it wouldn't be a Conservative Elector. Haha.

Honestly, I'm against all of these power grabs, even when it's my own preferred team (Democrats, these days) making the grab.  I say leave the playing field as it is -- if you can't convince the majority of the electors to vote for you, you're not capable of the difficult job of being President of the United States.  

But Puerto Rico is a unique case, with millions of residents who have consistently voted in favor of statehood.  This one case isn't a power grab, it's a legitimate addition that I fully support.

[Pringles]

Same here basically. I can only support Puerto Rico statehood. The rest is a power grab political ploy. Democrats who champion DC statehood will gladly push it yet offer no mention of Puerto Rico, a territory that has voted on it and NEEDS statehood. 

Not all Democrats of course, many of us here don't resort to that kind of political shenanigans. And I respect it. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Pringles

[Hestia]

35 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Presumably because it wouldn't be a Conservative Elector. Haha.

Honestly, I'm against all of these power grabs, even when it's my own preferred team (Democrats, these days) making the grab.  I say leave the playing field as it is -- if you can't convince the majority of the electors to vote for you, you're not capable of the difficult job of being President of the United States.  

But Puerto Rico is a unique case, with millions of residents who have consistently voted in favor of statehood.  This one case isn't a power grab, it's a legitimate addition that I fully support.

But how do you draw the line at what is and what is not a power grab? The people of territories have no say in the leader of their own country even though they are just as much American citizens as the rest of the nation. Is the admission of any state, from here on out, regardless of who it is, a power grab because of the political tendencies of that territory or state? I think that's a slippery slope and a weak argument to not admit states. Perhaps there needs to be some work around to allow them to vote under our system and make it make sense relative to population - which would be easier in another democratic system. I think voting rights is one of the most important things in life, and the fact that millions of Americans have no say in their leader or legislature is appalling.

[MrPotatoTed]

16 minutes ago, Hestia said:

But how do you draw the line at what is and what is not a power grab? The people of territories have no say in the leader of their own country even though they are just as much American citizens as the rest of the nation. Is the admission of any state, from here on out, regardless of who it is, a power grab because of the political tendencies of that territory or state? I think that's a slippery slope and a weak argument to not admit states. Perhaps there needs to be some work around to allow them to vote under our system and make it make sense relative to population - which would be easier in another democratic system. I think voting rights is one of the most important things in life, and the fact that millions of Americans have no say in their leader or legislature is appalling.

I think there's a clear difference between "this territory has 3 million American citizens wanting statehood" and "this territory has a ham sandwich."  ;c)

I'm all for the territories that literally have millions of Americans in them -- but that is literally only Puerto Rico, which I've already voiced my support to.

The rest of the territories listed above have a COMBINED American population of less than that of Jacksonville, Florida.

THAT's the slippery slope.

If I round up four of my closest friends, can we be a state too?

Edited April 22, 2021 by MrPotatoTed

[Hestia]

7 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I think there's a clear difference between "this territory has 3 million American citizens wanting statehood" and "this territory has a ham sandwich."  ;c)

I'm all for the territories that literally have millions of Americans in them -- but to my knowledge, that is only Puerto Rico, which I've already voiced my support to.

The rest of the territories listed above have a COMBINED American population of less than that of Jacksonville, Florida.

THAT's the slippery slope.

If I round up four of my closest friends, can we be a state too?

The US territories +DC, minus Puerto Rico, have a combined population of over a million people. That's quite a bit above five people 🙂

I understand where you're coming from, don't get me wrong. But I feel like a million people without voting rights, as it is essentially right now, is unacceptable. If we had a straight popular vote, or a Parliament where senate seats didn't matter, it wouldn't be a problem whether they were a state or not. That's not how it is, unfortunately.

Just because they don't live in Jacksonville, Florida, does that mean that their vote shouldn't matter? Are they any less American than the people living in Florida? I think the answer should be no. The system right now says yes. 

That being said, the answer isn't easy. I get the problems of a territory having two US Senators with a population of 50k. We may need to get creative, but their votes should count. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Hestia

[MrPotatoTed]

9 minutes ago, Hestia said:

The US territories +DC, minus Puerto Rico, have a combined population of over a million people. That's quite a bit above five people 🙂

I understand where you're coming from, don't get me wrong. But I feel like a million people without voting rights, as it is essentially right now, is unacceptable. If we had a straight popular vote, or a Parliament where senate seats didn't matter, it wouldn't be a problem whether they were a state or not. That's not how it is, unfortunately.

Just because they don't live in Jacksonville, Florida, does that mean that their vote shouldn't matter? Are they any less American than the people living in Florida? I think the answer should be no. The system right now says yes. 

That being said, the answer isn't easy. I get the problems of a territory having two US Senators with a population of 50k. We may need to get creative, but their votes should count. 

Barely one million, and spread out far and wide.  Are you suggesting we create a single state looping in all non-PR territories?  A state that includes Washington DC, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa?  I mean, I guess that would work — except given the huge population differences; that would mean the Governor, Senators, and Rep would always be from DC and could safely ignore the needs of those in the other former territories.  Which...isn’t better.

No, I think what you’re proposing is that every territory should be its own state.  Which, for MULTIPLE territories, is barely 100,000 people.  That is not a state.

Likewise, DC has a population of a more respectable 700k...but you could literally walk from one end of DC to the other end in a couple of hours.  Our smallest state, Rhode Island, is 1,212 square miles.  By comparison, Washington DC is 68.  68!  68, versus 1212.  That is not a state either.

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Barely one million, and spread out far and wide.  Are you suggesting we create a single state looping in all non-PR territories?  A state that includes Washington DC, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa?  I mean, I guess that would work — except given the huge population differences; that would mean the Governor, Senators, and Rep would always be from DC and could safely ignore the needs of those in the other former territories.  Which...isn’t better.

No, I think what you’re proposing is that every territory should be its own state.  Which, for MULTIPLE territories, is barely 100,000 people.  That is not a state.

Likewise, DC has a population of a more respectable 700k...but you could literally walk from one end of DC to the other end in a couple of hours.  Our smallest state, Rhode Island, is 1,212 square miles.  By comparison, Washington DC is 68.  68!  68, versus 1212.  That is not a state either.

It would take a lot of working around and probably amendments, but if both parties could come up with a solution that looked something like: DC gets it's own voting representative. The Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa will combine for one voting representative in the House as well. Senate I won't even get into, but I think the House is more workable. For Presidential Elections, DC keeps it's 3 that it has now. The three territories (minus PR which could get its own statehood and deserves it) could get an EV for its one voting representative in Congress. While they are different, it is a better deal than what they have now. Maybe it's time to get creative with a solution rather than just saying no to everything as a country. 

Land doesn't vote. It's not enshrined in the Constitution that a state can't be a state because of it's size or population, respectively.  D.C. has a population of about 100k more than Wyoming does. Does it deserve to not be a state only because of the time period in which it is being discussed? Why does Wyoming deserve it but not DC? There is no definition of what is a state and what is not, so if the U.S. Congress determines it to be a state, it will be. Just saying that it's too small to be a state isn't a logical argument - just because Wyoming has more land, they have more right to be a state than DC? I think that's a faulty plank to build upon. 

Now that I've tried to find some sort of workable compromise like you asked me to, is there anything that concerns you about these million Americans that don't get to vote? That was the crux of my argument, which you ignored. You can say barely one million people, but they're one million people regardless, and should count. They're Americans too. 

[MrPotatoTed]

At 100,000 people per “state”, forget Jacksonville.  You’re talking about states that have fewer residents than Carmel, Indiana.

[MrPotatoTed]

3 minutes ago, Hestia said:

It would take a lot of working around and probably amendments, but if both parties could come up with a solution that looked something like: DC gets it's own voting representative. The Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa will combine for one voting representative in the House as well. Senate I won't even get into, but I think the House is more workable. For Presidential Elections, DC keeps it's 3 that it has now. The three territories (minus PR which could get its own statehood and deserves it) could get an EV for its one voting representative in Congress. While they are different, it is a better deal than what they have now. Maybe it's time to get creative with a solution rather than just saying no to everything as a country. 

Land doesn't vote. It's not enshrined in the Constitution that a state can't be a state because of it's size or population, respectively.  D.C. has a population of about 100k more than Wyoming does. Does it deserve to not be a state only because of the time period in which it is being discussed? Why does Wyoming deserve it but not DC? There is no definition of what is a state and what is not, so if the U.S. Congress determines it to be a state, it will be. Just saying that it's too small to be a state isn't a logical argument - just because Wyoming has more land, they have more right to be a state than DC? I think that's a faulty plank to build upon. 

Now that I've tried to find some sort of workable compromise like you asked me to, is there anything that concerns you about these million Americans that don't get to vote? That was the crux of my argument, which you ignored. You can say barely one million people, but they're one million people regardless, and should count. They're Americans too. 

I’ve driving right now, but my short answer is “1 million people who don’t get to vote” is a wild exaggeration.  More than 700,00 of them DO get to vote for President — and their votes count for a hell of a lot more than yours or mine does, by the way.

They don’t have a governor, but they do have a Mayor they vote for, which is functionally about the same thing because they are literally one city.

And if they really want House or Senate voting rights, they can literally spin in a circle, drive 20 minutes in whatever direction they happened to face, and go live there instead.  
 

I used to work in DC.  I lived in Maryland.  It was very easy to do that, because DC is a city, not a state.

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I’ve driving right now, but my short answer is “1 million people who don’t get to vote” is a wild exaggeration.  More than 700,00 of them DO get to vote for President — and their votes count for a hell of a lot more than yours or mine does, by the way.

They don’t have a governor, but they do have a Mayor they vote for, which is functionally about the same thing because they are literally one city.

And if they really want House or Senate voting rights, they can literally spin in a circle, drive 20 minutes in whatever direction they happened to face, and go live there instead.  
 

I used to work in DC.  I lived in Maryland.  It was very easy to do that, because DC is a city, not a state.

That only works for DC - all of this is focused purely on DC. And right now, actually about 3.4 million don't get to, if you count Puerto Rico 🙂 

That solves no problems for citizens of the other territories. They've lived there their entire lives. They can't just pick up and leave. Is it really right to demand people leave their homes and livelihoods to be able to vote for our legislature? I don't think so. How would you react if someone told you to just move at the drop of a hat if you really wanted to vote for your representatives? I don't imagine very well. I know I wouldn't. My family has settled roots where we've lived, we own land, we own a house. Many in DC and these territories are likely the same. 

Is any American that doesn't get the right to vote truly worth less than those who live in the mainland United States? I think that should be no. If we had a popular vote system, it wouldn't be hard to change it to reflect that. France does it quite easily with their overseas territories. 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Hestia said:

That only works for DC - all of this is focused purely on DC. And right now, actually about 3.4 million don't get to, if you count Puerto Rico 🙂 

That solves no problems for citizens of the other territories. They've lived there their entire lives. They can't just pick up and leave. Is it really right to demand people leave their homes and livelihoods to be able to vote for our legislature? I don't think so. How would you react if someone told you to just move at the drop of a hat if you really wanted to vote for your representatives? I don't imagine very well. I know I wouldn't. My family has settled roots where we've lived, we own land, we own a house. Many in DC and these territories are likely the same. 

Is any American that doesn't get the right to vote truly worth less than those who live in the mainland United States? I think that should be no. If we had a popular vote system, it wouldn't be hard to change it to reflect that. France does it quite easily with their overseas territories. 

I’ve already agreed to statehood for Puerto Rico, so you’re arguing to the choir there.  ;c)

Puerto Rico can logically be turned into a state without declaring open season for any High School graduating class to declare they’re a state now too.  
 

DC residents can pretty easily move.  Most of them are not homeowners, because nobody can afford to be.  I was making over 75,000 a year, and I didn’t even bother to LOOK at houses in the DC area, because I’m not a millionaire.  
 

If you want to change to the popular vote, that’s a whole different thing.  But statehood, my answer is no to everyone except Puerto Rico, because they’re the only ones presenting a real, logical argument to become a state.

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I’ve already agreed to statehood for Puerto Rico, so you’re arguing to the choir there.  ;c)

Puerto Rico can logically be turned into a state without declaring open season for any High School graduating class to declare they’re a state now too.  
 

DC residents can pretty easily move.  Most of them are not homeowners, because nobody can afford to be.  I was making over 75,000 a year, and I didn’t even bother to LOOK at houses in the DC area, because I’m not a millionaire.  
 

If you want to change to the popular vote, that’s a whole different thing.  But statehood, my answer is no to everyone except Puerto Rico, because they’re the only ones presenting a real, logical argument to become a state.

I can see where you would think that, and I understand and respect it. I disagree vehemently, but I understand 😛 Any thoughts on the proposal I put a few replies ago? Not sure if you saw it or not. It's a potential beginning if both parties could agree to start on that path. 

[ConservativeElector2]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

@ConservativeElector2I'm just curious why you'd oppose Puerto Rican statehood, considering it larger in size than DE and RI, and about the same size as CT. It would be the 31st largest state in regards to population, beating 20 states in population. 

Because I don't like the idea of changing the number of states all together. I think the situation is good as it is now, even though I am going full static here.

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Presumably because it wouldn't be a Conservative Elector. Haha.

While that's true to some extent, I also have two factors for my stance without that in mind.

First of all I couldn't decide lightly to add a red state as well as merging RI with CT or something like that. I also don't know if splitting Chicago and Illinois would be a good idea.

Additionally regarding Puerto Rico I wouldn't also be that sure if it were a Democratic stronghold in the likes of New England. Wasn't Luis Fortuno a Republican governor? I remember him being popular, but maybe he was some sort of Charlie Baker or Phil Scott.

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

As a counter-point (not because I'm disagreeing with your point, but to play Devil's Advocate), British Overseas Territories, never become integral parts of the UK, and have no mechanism to - they either remain in that status, become independent, or are annexed to another independent nation (the latter like Hong Kong was).

Britain's FPTP method makes it hard. Gibraltar, if I remember right, was part of the South West in European voting by region. They could easily change it to make it so that they could indeed vote, they just don't do it.

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Additionally regarding Puerto Rico I wouldn't also be that sure if it were a Democratic stronghold in the likes of New England. Wasn't Luis Fortuno a Republican governor? I remember him being popular, but maybe he was some sort of Charlie Baker or Phil Scott.

Puerto Rico is very different. Different parties even, I think. Definitely no Dem stronghold. 

[Pringles]

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

I think you're right, there, @Hestia. What @Pringlesis suggesting is almost akin to, and has the vibe of, in broad theory, if not the specific justifications, the strict compromise of admissions of a balance of Slave and Free States in the 1820's to 1850's. And while I admit, the U.S. has never been more divided internally on a vicious and self-destructive partisan line now as since those days (a fact American society, politics, culture, economics, government, and even national political integrity will likely still take a worse walloping from yet before anything gets better), such an artificial and calculated view of who gets Statehood and why is pretty cold...

At least my justification for Puerto Rico getting statehood and others not getting statehood is not one of political partisanship. If I was a party insider of the Republicans I'd oppose all of it, because I am duopoly donor lovin' son of a gun. 

This is another reason why I voted for retroceding DC to Maryland. I also think this is a good idea. And it can take effect next census when electoral votes, representatives, etc. are redone. 

 

[vcczar]

11 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Because I don't like the idea of changing the number of states all together. I think the situation is good as it is now, even though I am going full static here.

Why would the number of states matter? It's only been static since 1960. For most of US history it was another number. There was no attempt to stop the # of states at 50. Does Puerto Rico lose out permanently just because the flag looks cool with 50 stars? 

[ConservativeElector2]

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

That sounds like an OCD reason, to be honest. Or a perfectionist one. Both are bad traits for running government on, however. VERY bad! And highly unrealistic. And insulting to people you say deserve no electoral representation nationally, and never should, because an artificial number of States is in place, and they must suffer and suck up disempowerment for the cold, hard numbers. Can't you see the monumental flaws in this way of thinking?

I am sure there are many people in Puerto Rico loving their current lifes. It's not like their entire quality of living is determined by them being an inhabitant of a US state.

And I don't know what an OCD reason is.

[Hestia]

2 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

I am sure there are many people in Puerto Rico loving their current lifes. It's not like their entire quality of living is determined by them being an inhabitant of a US state.

And I don't know what an OCD reason is.

I don't think they're satisfied, polling is a little out of date but gets the idea through.

[Pringles]

Just now, Patine said:

That's unfortunate. because the American political Duopoly and plutocratic oligarch donors (who also bribe it to kowtow to them with abandon) are the worst enemies of good governance, government transparency and accountability, government integrity, and actual, REAL electoral choice and free-and-fair, contested elections by American voters. In fact, they're arguably one of the greatest enemies of the American nation, people, and Constitution - worse than the vast majority of external nations, ideologies, or extremist groups, and certainly far worse than internal extremist group.

I think you took my quote out of context. I said IF i was a party loving insider duopoly lovin son of a gun, I would oppose statehood to everything on the list. 

I think this implies I am not a duopoly lover. 

And I think there are far worse things out there than a bunch of bureaucrats running the world. After all, it's essentially how the world has always been... not to say we shouldn't strive to be better, but your criticisms are often one way, and one way only. Repeating the same duopoly hatred without offering any real solution. Does it ever occur to you that change for good sometimes comes from this very duopoly, oligarchy ridden, and bureaucratic regime that rules over us all? I can think of plenty examples, perhaps many of these people resented this system as well, but knew they must work within it if there is ever to be change... rather than rambling about it all day or doing something even worse like say, assassinating the political oligarchs and the top 1%. 

 

[ConservativeElector2]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Why would the number of states matter? It's only been static since 1960. For most of US history it was another number. There was no attempt to stop the # of states at 50. Does Puerto Rico lose out permanently just because the flag looks cool with 50 stars? 

I think it'd be hard to tell a difference in a flag with 51 stars. One star would likely not result in a very different feeling for the flag, especially in tiny pictures no one counts the stars.

But I believe the world has come to a point at which further adjustments aren't that necessary anymore. We already live in the best era. At least probably and I am defining that by looking on how many people are still really oppressed. Sure, we could outlaw child labor worldwide for example, but when looking back the situation was way worse for many folks and has definitely improved since WWII. 20 years ago every Puerto Rican could live a happy and successful life, so I don't really see the need for such great reforms. 

I think I'd be against statehood, if I were a Puerto Rican as well but sure I keep that in mind that may be differently.