4 ms·

> Is adding states too easy? There are three million US citizens in Puerto Rico without representation in Congress. "Statehood is too easy" is probably the wro

> Is adding states too easy? There are three million US citizens in Puerto Rico without representation in Congress. "Statehood is too easy" is probably the wrong critique. The problem is that there is not clear enough guidelines for enforcing some criteria for what constitutes a new state. Thus we have a false positive like Wyoming, which shouldn't be a state with its minuscule population, and we a false negative in Puerto Rico, which is anachronistically governed like a colony . I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I don't think the original senate had states that had 80X the representation by population, as we have today between CA and WY.

ardy42 6y ago
> The problem is that there is not clear enough guidelines for enforcing some criteria for what constitutes a new state. Thus we have a false positive like Wyoming, which shouldn't be a state with its minuscule population, and we a false negative in Puerto Rico, which is anachronistically governed like a colony . Wyoming met the requirements when it was admitted, but its population hasn't grown as much as other states (e.g. no gold rush, etc). If you think this is somehow an incorrect result, what you're really arguing for is the abolishment of established states or periodically "redistricting" them in a way that would do more harm than good (given that states are more than just subdivisions for representative purposes). > and we a false negative in Puerto Rico, which is anachronistically governed like a colony. They've had many referendums on that question, and I think they voted against statehood until recently.
- emn13 6y ago
  Apparently Puerto rico overwhelmingly voted in favor of statehood, but turnout was low. In any case - your points against redistricting are good. But even a "temporary" solution might have centuries of value, so I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to make a pragmatic push for limited redistricting, specifically only splitting large states - fusing states is much harder (because which laws apply?), and given population growth, it's pretty reasonable to have more states. Judging by the size of the house - which is probably too small, not too large - the senate has a lot of room to grow. We could certainly afford splitting all of the large states without causing huge issues - if people actually want that. But a more long term solution without redistricting is to give up on the notion that states are equal. Just give more senators to larger states, and fewer to small states, and the current system mostly works; certainly better than now, and without the need for as radical an imposition as state-level redistricting.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > But a more long term solution without redistricting is to give up on the notion that states are equal. Just give more senators to larger states, and fewer to small states, and the current system mostly works; certainly better than now, and without the need for as radical an imposition as state-level redistricting. Which is exactly what someone from a large state focusing only on their parochial interests would say. IIRC, the Senate being a place where all states are equal was a pretty important compromise when the Constitution was written.
    - emn13 6y ago
      Yeah, I have no illusions that any of this is likely easily achievable. Though I disagree fundamentally that proportional representation is in any way parochial, it makes complete sense for small states to cynically hold onto to influence they hold even if it's not democratically reasonable (just like I wouldn't expect UN security council veto-holders to willingly give up their seat even if it were reasonable). But similarly, the current system is extremely undemocratic. A more realistic path therefore would be to split the large states; small states don't get as easy a veto over that.
war1025 6y ago
> don't think the original senate had states that had 80X the representation by population, as we have today between CA and WY. I would argue the "false-positive" state that in this case is California. Imagine if the entire Eastern seaboard was divided into three States. That would be equally imbalanced.
- emn13 6y ago
  Texas is only slightly smaller. But perhaps splitting both in 3 (or whatever) would be a good start. Or split any state that has more than 4% of the nations population (that would include FL and NY). Practical hacks like that might mitigate the imbalance, but really - the senate needs proportional representation too. It's OK that small states are slightly over-represented, but the current state of affairs is pretty crazy. Also, the amount of people per senator is unbelievably high, making them less approachable than they once were. If the senate were proportional, we could simply abolish the electoral college with little loss; just let congress elect the president and be done with it.
  - war1025 6y ago
    The House is supposed to represent the interests of the people. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the states. Each state is supposed to be an equal member of the union, which is why they each get equal voice in the senate. Up until the early 1900s senators were appointed by state governments rather than being popularly elected. It's sort of fallen out of fashion to identify strongly as a member of your state rather than just as a citizen of the United States, but I think this year has demonstrated that state governments still have a lot of influence and autonomy. I for one have been very pleased with my state's handling of the situation and have been glad to live here rather than somewhere else.
    - emn13 6y ago
      The intent is all fine and good, but that doesn't excuse legislative influence that is so disproportionate to population. In general I'm a a little skeptical that "intent" matters at all; what matters is practical political power no matter how you label it - but even if we were to constrain ourselves to the notion of representing states, not people: they can represent their states just fine even if the number of senators varies by state. The idea that all states are equal should be dropped.
ucarion 6y ago
The guidelines are pretty simple. Congress can admit a state by simple majority. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section3 As to what you consider a "false positive" state, that's a political question, and apportionment is not the only political consideration. Congress is just about the best option we have for settling such complex, interstate questions. Moreover, the US has always had lopsided state populations. The 65:1 apportionment population ratio between California and Wyoming (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2010/data/apportionment/apport2010-table1.pdf https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2010/data...) is definitely big, but it's still within an order of magnitude of where we started in 1789. The first (pre-Census) apportionment, hard-coded in Article 1, Section 2, had a 10:1 Virginia:Rhode Island ratio in the House: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section2 After the first Census, the largest difference ratio of apportionment population (i.e. population after implementing the 3/5 compromise, excluding "Indians not taxed", etc.) was about 11:1, between Virginia and Rhode Island: https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/ApportionmentInformation-1790Census.pdf https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/ApportionmentInformation-... If you were to undo that 3/5ths slavery effect, the Virginia:Delaware ratio becomes closer to 12.5:1. FWIW I agree Puerto Rico ought to be admitted, just as the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Mariana Islanders ought to be as well. France's DOM-TOM system seems like a better model to follow than America's, and it could still happen within our lifetimes; France made major reforms here within the last few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France
mcguire 6y ago
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/thirteen-colonies https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/thirteen-colonies (1770) Virginia: 447,016 Georgia: 23,375 About 19x.
quantified 6y ago
In 2012 PR voted AGAINST becoming a state, and in 2017 a vote on the issue was scotched because of anti-statehood boycotters. They just (Nov 3) narrowly voted to welcome statehood, easily lost in the recent noise, let's see what happens.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > In 2012 PR voted AGAINST becoming a state No, it voted for becoming a state, under the terms set for the 2-question referendum. Question 1: Should Puerto Rico continue its current territorial status? Yes: 46% No: 54% (Wins) Question 2: Which non-territorial option do you prefer? 61.2% for statehood (Wins) 33.3% for free association 5.5% for independence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_ref... > and in 2017 a vote on the issue was scotched because of anti-statehood boycotters. No, the vote was held, statehood won overwhelmingly, but the boycott by opponents was cited (by opponents!) as a reason to disregard the results. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_ref...
  - quantified 6y ago
    However (from same sources): Criticism Edit Critics said that voters who favor a developed version of the current status of Puerto Rico (a commonwealth which is part of the United States with internal self-government) had no alternatives on the ballot. As a result, leaders of the Popular Democratic Party (PPD) instructed such voters to leave the second portion of the ballot blank, or to invalidate the ballot.[27] Because there were almost 500,000 blank ballots, creating confusion as to the voters' true desire, it provided Congress an opportunity to ignore the vote, which it did.[28] History professor Luis Agrait explained the result in this manner to CNN: "If you assume those blank votes are anti-statehood votes, the true result for the statehood option would be less than 50%."[29] Considered as a percentage of the total number of votes cast in the first ballot, 44% voted in favor of statehood on the second ballot. —- “Scotched” was the wrong word, implying not held, I apologize. Interpreting the vote got destroyed, was what I meant. It’s clear that the folks who run PR see their jobs in danger if the island becomes a state. Hurricanes have now made it clear what second-class status means to the average person.

ardy42 6y ago

> The problem is that there is not clear enough guidelines for enforcing some criteria for what constitutes a new state. Thus we have a false positive like Wyoming, which shouldn't be a state with its minuscule population, and we a false negative in Puerto Rico, which is anachronistically governed like a colony . Wyoming met the requirements when it was admitted, but its population hasn't grown as much as other states (e.g. no gold rush, etc). If you think this is somehow an incorrect result, what you're really arguing for is the abolishment of established states or periodically "redistricting" them in a way that would do more harm than good (given that states are more than just subdivisions for representative purposes). > and we a false negative in Puerto Rico, which is anachronistically governed like a colony. They've had many referendums on that question, and I think they voted against statehood until recently.

emn13 6y ago
Apparently Puerto rico overwhelmingly voted in favor of statehood, but turnout was low. In any case - your points against redistricting are good. But even a "temporary" solution might have centuries of value, so I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to make a pragmatic push for limited redistricting, specifically only splitting large states - fusing states is much harder (because which laws apply?), and given population growth, it's pretty reasonable to have more states. Judging by the size of the house - which is probably too small, not too large - the senate has a lot of room to grow. We could certainly afford splitting all of the large states without causing huge issues - if people actually want that. But a more long term solution without redistricting is to give up on the notion that states are equal. Just give more senators to larger states, and fewer to small states, and the current system mostly works; certainly better than now, and without the need for as radical an imposition as state-level redistricting.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > But a more long term solution without redistricting is to give up on the notion that states are equal. Just give more senators to larger states, and fewer to small states, and the current system mostly works; certainly better than now, and without the need for as radical an imposition as state-level redistricting. Which is exactly what someone from a large state focusing only on their parochial interests would say. IIRC, the Senate being a place where all states are equal was a pretty important compromise when the Constitution was written.
  - emn13 6y ago
    Yeah, I have no illusions that any of this is likely easily achievable. Though I disagree fundamentally that proportional representation is in any way parochial, it makes complete sense for small states to cynically hold onto to influence they hold even if it's not democratically reasonable (just like I wouldn't expect UN security council veto-holders to willingly give up their seat even if it were reasonable). But similarly, the current system is extremely undemocratic. A more realistic path therefore would be to split the large states; small states don't get as easy a veto over that.

war1025 6y ago

> don't think the original senate had states that had 80X the representation by population, as we have today between CA and WY. I would argue the "false-positive" state that in this case is California. Imagine if the entire Eastern seaboard was divided into three States. That would be equally imbalanced.

emn13 6y ago
Texas is only slightly smaller. But perhaps splitting both in 3 (or whatever) would be a good start. Or split any state that has more than 4% of the nations population (that would include FL and NY). Practical hacks like that might mitigate the imbalance, but really - the senate needs proportional representation too. It's OK that small states are slightly over-represented, but the current state of affairs is pretty crazy. Also, the amount of people per senator is unbelievably high, making them less approachable than they once were. If the senate were proportional, we could simply abolish the electoral college with little loss; just let congress elect the president and be done with it.
- war1025 6y ago
  The House is supposed to represent the interests of the people. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the states. Each state is supposed to be an equal member of the union, which is why they each get equal voice in the senate. Up until the early 1900s senators were appointed by state governments rather than being popularly elected. It's sort of fallen out of fashion to identify strongly as a member of your state rather than just as a citizen of the United States, but I think this year has demonstrated that state governments still have a lot of influence and autonomy. I for one have been very pleased with my state's handling of the situation and have been glad to live here rather than somewhere else.
  - emn13 6y ago
    The intent is all fine and good, but that doesn't excuse legislative influence that is so disproportionate to population. In general I'm a a little skeptical that "intent" matters at all; what matters is practical political power no matter how you label it - but even if we were to constrain ourselves to the notion of representing states, not people: they can represent their states just fine even if the number of senators varies by state. The idea that all states are equal should be dropped.

ucarion 6y ago

The guidelines are pretty simple. Congress can admit a state by simple majority. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section3 As to what you consider a "false positive" state, that's a political question, and apportionment is not the only political consideration. Congress is just about the best option we have for settling such complex, interstate questions. Moreover, the US has always had lopsided state populations. The 65:1 apportionment population ratio between California and Wyoming (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2010/data/apportionment/apport2010-table1.pdf https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2010/data...) is definitely big, but it's still within an order of magnitude of where we started in 1789. The first (pre-Census) apportionment, hard-coded in Article 1, Section 2, had a 10:1 Virginia:Rhode Island ratio in the House: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section2 After the first Census, the largest difference ratio of apportionment population (i.e. population after implementing the 3/5 compromise, excluding "Indians not taxed", etc.) was about 11:1, between Virginia and Rhode Island: https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/ApportionmentInformation-1790Census.pdf https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/ApportionmentInformation-... If you were to undo that 3/5ths slavery effect, the Virginia:Delaware ratio becomes closer to 12.5:1. FWIW I agree Puerto Rico ought to be admitted, just as the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Mariana Islanders ought to be as well. France's DOM-TOM system seems like a better model to follow than America's, and it could still happen within our lifetimes; France made major reforms here within the last few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France

mcguire 6y ago

https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/thirteen-colonies https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/thirteen-colonies (1770) Virginia: 447,016 Georgia: 23,375 About 19x.

quantified 6y ago

In 2012 PR voted AGAINST becoming a state, and in 2017 a vote on the issue was scotched because of anti-statehood boycotters. They just (Nov 3) narrowly voted to welcome statehood, easily lost in the recent noise, let's see what happens.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> In 2012 PR voted AGAINST becoming a state No, it voted for becoming a state, under the terms set for the 2-question referendum. Question 1: Should Puerto Rico continue its current territorial status? Yes: 46% No: 54% (Wins) Question 2: Which non-territorial option do you prefer? 61.2% for statehood (Wins) 33.3% for free association 5.5% for independence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_ref... > and in 2017 a vote on the issue was scotched because of anti-statehood boycotters. No, the vote was held, statehood won overwhelmingly, but the boycott by opponents was cited (by opponents!) as a reason to disregard the results. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_ref...
- quantified 6y ago
  However (from same sources): Criticism Edit Critics said that voters who favor a developed version of the current status of Puerto Rico (a commonwealth which is part of the United States with internal self-government) had no alternatives on the ballot. As a result, leaders of the Popular Democratic Party (PPD) instructed such voters to leave the second portion of the ballot blank, or to invalidate the ballot.[27] Because there were almost 500,000 blank ballots, creating confusion as to the voters' true desire, it provided Congress an opportunity to ignore the vote, which it did.[28] History professor Luis Agrait explained the result in this manner to CNN: "If you assume those blank votes are anti-statehood votes, the true result for the statehood option would be less than 50%."[29] Considered as a percentage of the total number of votes cast in the first ballot, 44% voted in favor of statehood on the second ballot. —- “Scotched” was the wrong word, implying not held, I apologize. Interpreting the vote got destroyed, was what I meant. It’s clear that the folks who run PR see their jobs in danger if the island becomes a state. Hurricanes have now made it clear what second-class status means to the average person.