Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Statehood Poll


vcczar

Statehood Poll  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following should be granted statehood?

    • Washington DC (pop. 693k)
    • Puerto Rico (pop. 3.1 million)
    • Guam (pop 169k)
    • US Virgin Islands (pop 106k)
    • None of the above
  2. 2. Which of the following scenarios would you support?

    • Retroceding Washington DC into Maryland
    • Merging the Dakotas
    • Having NYC secede from New York and becoming a city state (pop. 8.4 million)
    • Having Long Island become its own state. (pop. 7.6 million)
    • Have West Virginia rejoin Virginia
    • Break up Texas into several states
    • Break up California into several states
    • Merge Wyoming into another state or into several bordering states
    • None of the above
  3. 3. Which country targeted by expansionists in the past would you support the US pursuing and eventually converting to a state?

    • Santo Domingo (today's Dominican Republic)
    • Cuba
    • Panama
    • Mexico
    • Canada
    • Philippines
    • Greenland
    • None of the above
  4. 4. Would the US be better off if it Balkanized into regions? Which regions would be better off not being tied to other states?

    • New England (capital: Boston)
    • Mid-Atlantic (capital: NYC, Philadelphia, or DC)
    • The South (capital: Miami, New Orleans, or Atlanta)
    • Texas (capital: Austin)
    • West Coast (Capital: San Francisco, Portland, or Seattle)
    • Middle America (Capital: Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver, or Kansas City)
    • Midwest (Capital: Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, or Detroit)
      0
    • They'd all be worse off


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Sorry, I missed the, "if." An honest mistake, and I apologize (that thing our old friend Anthony Burgoyne is incapable of doing, despite owing everyone currently here a MASSIVE mea culpa).

Apology accepted sir. 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Obsessive compulsive disorder. Regardless, the reason is cold callous, and based on pure vanity and artificial esthetic with no precedent or practical base. And your response about Puerto Ricans is the same kind of dismissive and heartless attitude, detached from the human aspect of what you're discussing, but arrogantly saying that all should bow to your, "uncompromising," view, and be glad for the unequal position their allowed, that led to Marie-Antoinette saying, "let them eat cake."

Isn't that a bit far-fetched? I am sure I am neither a heartless nor arrogant person with a mental disorder. Most people getting in touch with me would probably agree with this assumption, because although I am having strong opinions on most topics, I am able to put them aside for constructive work.

I am just against unnecessary upheavals which will, in my opinion, eventually cause more problems, stress, disharmony and chaos, all of these in turn effecting a majority of the people who are living now in calmness and stability, negatively. I think having the wish for stability for other people isn't so bad as you are portraying it.

And don't forget I am just giving out my opinion, for which I was asked, and I am neither forcing anyone to support or reproduce my position or my arguments nor do I hold any chunk of actual influence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, vcczar said:

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

It's got to be a mutual arrangement.  They've got to want to join and the US has to want them to join.  Congress is the proper body to express the wishes of the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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? 

Indeed, the current number of states is the longest the country has ever gone without changing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2021 at 3:45 PM, vcczar said:

I think there should be a population requirement

I'm curious what you think the minimum (or maximum) should be.  I'd be hesitant to admit a state with a population less than the smallest congressional district (526,283 after the 2010 census, likely slightly higher in the new one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, pilight said:

I'm curious what you think the minimum (or maximum) should be.  I'd be hesitant to admit a state with a population less than the smallest congressional district (526,283 after the 2010 census, likely slightly higher in the new one).

I think any significant community should be well-represented. 

Ideally, we'd have a 250,000 max/min for a district. All districts would be non-partisan, like the US Census districts. In fact, use that. Use a non-partisan, non-ideological computer to create the districts along Census and historical districts. All districts should have reasonable shapes, perhaps a restriction on radius, especially for high populated areas.

When I lived in Austin, TX., my US Rep also represented Ft. Worth, TX. I basically had a rural, conservative representing my very urban neighborhood. Here is the district map I lived in. It did not make any sense. It was designed to dilute Democratic votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_25th_congressional_district#/media/File:Texas_US_Congressional_District_25_(since_2013).tif

Currently, the average rep has to represent 700,000 people. With insane gerrymandering, they don't really represent their large number well. I'd greatly expand the # of US Reps. No reason to let a building in DC restrict that number. They should be allowed to vote virtually and to debate and speak virtually. There's absolutely no reason they need to be in the actual Capitol building. I can elaborate on this at another point if you want. 

As for US territories, I think any US territory that has at least 100,000 people should gain at least 1 US Rep and 1 Electoral Vote. They shouldn't have a US Senator. I think this is a fair compromise and allows the US citizens in this territory to be more like US citizens. Honestly, I'd be okay with any US territory under 250,000 people having 1 US Rep and 1 EV, regardless of how small the territory is. The reason for this is that I think US Citizens should be represented. They pay taxes. No taxation without representation. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

As for US territories, I think any US territory that has at least 100,000 people should gain at least 1 US Rep and 1 Electoral Vote. They shouldn't have a US Senator. I think this is a fair compromise and allows the US citizens in this territory to be more like US citizens. Honestly, I'd be okay with any US territory under 250,000 people having 1 US Rep and 1 EV, regardless of how small the territory is. The reason for this is that I think US Citizens should be represented. They pay taxes. No taxation without representation.

I'd be mostly receptive to that -- that's basically how Washington DC already is.  But not with the 250k thing.  Just a flat out "Are you a state?  No?  Then you're limited to 1 US Rep and 1 EV."

Statehood would require at least one million people, who are not currently and never were residents of any other state.  I'm mostly trying to avoid nonsense like Dallas, Texas deciding they're a state now.

I'll grandfather in the current states who are below 1 million population -- but for any "new" state that later drops below 1 million, they're back to territory status.  This is basically to avoid nonsense like everyone in DC inviting one buddy from outside the city to live with them for a week, bumping their population above 1 million and then moving back to their original homes the following day.  ;c)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I'll grandfather in the current states who are below 1 million population -- but for any "new" state that later drops below 1 million, they're back to territory status.  This is basically to avoid nonsense like everyone in DC inviting one buddy from outside the city to live with them for a week, bumping their population above 1 million and then moving back to their original homes the following day.  ;c)

Yes, I'm sure they could get 300k people to come and change their residency and then change it back that quickly...I think, honestly, that's a stupid rule. I hate to be that blunt, but it is. One million people, sure. But if they go below they're back to territory status? That's preposterous. Sorry Puerto Rico/DC if you go below 1 million, you're out, but Wyoming's slipping below 500k and they're fine because they joined the Union in 1900. That doesn't make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Yes, I'm sure they could get 300k people to come and change their residency and then change it back that quickly...I think, honestly, that's a stupid rule. I hate to be that blunt, but it is. One million people, sure. But if they go below they're back to territory status? That's preposterous. Sorry Puerto Rico/DC if you go below 1 million, you're out, but Wyoming's slipping below 500k and they're fine because they joined the Union in 1900. That doesn't make sense. 

We can't revoke statehood from our current states.  THAT's what doesn't make sense.  Realistically, this entire thing is a non-starter if we're not guaranteeing continued statehood to our existing states.  The rules beyond that are just to avoid political games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

We can't revoke statehood from our current states.  THAT's what doesn't make sense.  Realistically, this entire thing is a non-starter if we're not guaranteeing continued statehood to our existing states.  The rules beyond that are just to avoid political games.

I don't think games like sending people over borders are feasibly played in the real world. In the end, Congress grants states. Say if this is happening to DC, Republicans won't vote to allow DC in because they know people are swarming in for that sole purpose. I don't think it's a realistic scenario that needs guarded against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hestia said:

I don't think games like sending people over borders are feasibly played in the real world. In the end, Congress grants states. Say if this is happening to DC, Republicans won't vote to allow DC in because they know people are swarming in for that sole purpose. I don't think it's a realistic scenario that needs guarded against.

Sure, unless Democrats happen to be in power.  Same with Dallas becoming a state while Republicans are in power.

These past four years have told me that damned near every scenario needs to be guarded against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I'll grandfather in the current states who are below 1 million population -- but for any "new" state that later drops below 1 million, they're back to territory status.

I don't like the idea of grandfathering people under less restrictive rules when there are territories that exceed a state's population. This is about US citizens. I would be okay with this compromise: 

  • cede Washington DC to either Maryland or Virginia (have DC residents decide which) and integrate those EVs into that state. 
  • Statehood for Puerto Rico, which would make it the 31st most populous state. 
  • Set rules for statehood based on these criteria:
    • Does the territory have a larger population than the least populated state (Wyoming)? If so, go to the next step:
    • Does the territory also have square mileage larger than the smallest state in regards to area (Rhode Island)? If 1 and 2 are true, then they become a state. If 1 is true, but 2 is not true then, 
    • Despite the small area, does the territory have a population larger than 20% of the states (at least more than Hawaii)? 

Obviously, I'd be more lenient than this, but it's a compromise and easy to follow. It allows for the arguments based on population and size. It make criteria clear. If this were the protocol, any opposition against statehood would be purely the politics of not having US Senators and US Reps of the opposition party. Partisanship should play no role in statehood. It should be a simple -- do they qualify or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don't like the idea of grandfathering people under less restrictive rules when there are territories that exceed a state's population. This is about US citizens. I would be okay with this compromise: 

  • cede Washington DC to either Maryland or Virginia (have DC residents decide which) and integrate those EVs into that state. 
  • Statehood for Puerto Rico, which would make it the 31st most populous state. 
  • Set rules for statehood based on these criteria:
    • Does the territory have a larger population than the least populated state (Wyoming)? If so, go to the next step:
    • Does the territory also have square mileage larger than the smallest state in regards to area (Rhode Island)? If 1 and 2 are true, then they become a state. If 1 is true, but 2 is not true then, 
    • Despite the small area, does the territory have a population larger than 20% of the states (at least more than Hawaii)? 

Obviously, I'd be more lenient than this, but it's a compromise and easy to follow. It allows for the arguments based on population and size. It make criteria clear. If this were the protocol, any opposition against statehood would be purely the politics of not having US Senators and US Reps of the opposition party. Partisanship should play no role in statehood. It should be a simple -- do they qualify or not. 

I don't agree with ceding, but if you are going to, you have to give it to Maryland.  It was their land.  DC already ceded Virginia's portion of the District back to Virginia in something like 1850.  That's Alexandria, Virginia now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I don't agree with ceding, but if you are going to, you have to give it to Maryland.  It was their land.  DC already ceded Virginia's portion of the District back to Virginia in something like 1850.  That's Alexandria, Virginia now.

 

The reason I give a choice is that I think DC might identify itself more with Virginia, and that's where the Pentagon, Arlington Nation Cemetery and other governmental things are. It hasn't been part of MD for over 200 years, so I don't think they get to hold these rights to DC permanently. 

I don't agree with ceding either. I agreed to that as a way to get conservatives to support my statehood reform. I'd rather DC be its own state. However, it would have to increase it's population further under my criteria since it's land area is small. It basically needs to double in size to surpass Hawaii.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

Canada, unlike the U.S. (or Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, or Australia, for that matter) has been a nation with a strong tradition of a Federal division of power between a national and autonomous subnational administrative divisions that has never a special federal district for it's capital separate, administratively, from it's Provinces under closer Federal Government jurisdiction. Ottawa is, and always has been, administratively, as a city, a municipality of Ontario, and there's never been a problem or issue in that light. So, why not fold Washington back into Maryland. At least they would have members the members of Congress they deserve (and they're currently getting, "taxation without representation," a big grievance that led originally to the American Revolutionary War). Or the U.S. could just take a leaf from the afforementioned countries of Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, or Australia, above, and give their federal district members of both Chambers of Congress, as though it were a State in that way, but remain, in all other ways, a federal district.

Frankly, Maryland currently has a Republican Governor -- they may not particularly WANT an extremely Democrat population of nearly 1 million people added to their state.  Haha.  

 

Edited by MrPotatoTed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...