7 ms·

This helps answer a serious argument I had on whether Puerto Rico and/or Washington D.C. should become states. Some people argued that the the flag could stay t

This helps answer a serious argument I had on whether Puerto Rico and/or Washington D.C. should become states. Some people argued that the the flag could stay the same. I think the most clever answer would be to make a flag with a star randomly placed to annoy flag-obsessed nerds. More seriously, I think the reason that a 51st or 52nd state can't be added is that the urgency of the matter is lacking. Doing something about statehood would require it to be exceedingly popular and even then the odds are poor.

cratermoon 4y ago
> think the reason that a 51st or 52nd state can't be added is that the urgency of the matter is lacking. The reason for the resistance to statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. is because they both lean heavily Democratic, and the prospect of 2 or 4 more Democratic Senators is unacceptable to the Republicans.
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  I don't think that's the entirety of it. DC becoming a state is significantly more problematic than just the politics of it's residents, it's potentially unconstitutional. It makes more sense to cede the city outside the capitol to Maryland and Virginia and allow for representation that way (and what IMO should've been done instead of giving DC 3 electoral college votes via a constitutional amendment), and an amendment to make DC a state would require a lot of reorganizing, the clause providing for a 10 by 10 square mile federal district, the reasoning that the sovereignty of the united states can't be under jurisdiction of a state, it's just messy. Puerto Rico, I think the political balance between parties is largely the prohibiting factor, you're right. But there are other issues, they are not compliant on a lot of requirements for statehood as per US law (congress has the power to regulate this with any legislation), and it seems the status quo in Puerto Rico is exactly what the more powerful political and financial interests there want.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    > they are not compliant on a lot of requirements for statehood as per US law (congress has the power to regulate this with any legislation) Hmm, I wonder how those laws got to be that way. It's a mystery.
    - friend_and_foe 4y ago
      Say what you mean. Puerto Rico has blatantly unconstitutional gun laws. It has a minimum wage under the federal minimum wage. The US congress requires all applicant territories for statehood have constitutions compliant with the US constitution (a problem for North Dakhota until 1997 funny enough), have laws requiring child support on the books and a whole host of other laws. Puerto Rico is compliant on some fronts and not on others.
      - rob74 4y ago
        The only thing that the U.S. constitution has to say about gun laws is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Which means Puerto Rico's gun laws are not in line with the current interpretation of this cryptic sentence prevalent in the 50 current states (as in more strict - what a scandal!), but saying they are unconstitutional is a bit of a stretch IMHO.
        midoridensha 4y ago
        It IS unconstitutional, because the SCOTUS says so. Whatever their interpretation is, is the law and defines what's "constitutional". Yes, even when the Justices are a bunch of partisan hacks and their interpretation is BS. You may not like it, but that's the way the law works.
        kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
        Funnily enough, the second amendment isn't that cryptic. It says that, in order for the states to remain free, they need their own militia made up of the people, and that militia needs arms, thus the federal government shall make no laws inhibiting their ability to acquire said arms. Ironically, the laws we have on the books are technically unconstitutional.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  In the past those partisan issues were dealt with by balancing incoming states — including breaking up existing ones, There are plenty of conservative parts of liberal states that would love to succeed from their state. Make Washington DC and East California states.
- mcv 4y ago
  > The reason for the resistance to statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. is because they both lean heavily Democratic, and the prospect of 2 or 4 more Democratic Senators is unacceptable to the Republicans. That's undoubtedly part of it, but I also get the impression that Puerto Rico itself isn't that eager to become a state. DC probably is and really does deserve better representation, but there are historical reasons for why it was made explicitly not a state. I think those reasons need to be revisited to see if they're actually still true (if they ever were).
- kortilla 4y ago
  Then why do so many Puerto Ricans not want to join as a state?
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    Not because they want to stay a US colony. Because they want to be independent.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      “ About 48 percent want Puerto Rico to become a state, 26 percent would rather remain a US territory, and 10 percent want full independence.” https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/11/15782544/puerto-rico-pushes-for-statehood-explained https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/11/15782544/p...
kibwen 4y ago
For real, why would we want the flag to stay the same? The fact that the US flag is officially mutable while remaining iconic is an awesome property.
midoridensha 4y ago
There's too many states as it is, and I think that's a good enough reason to deny any attempts at making new states until they fix the first issue. Fixing it is easy: combine some of the existing small states, or break up other unpopulated states. For instance, Vermont and New Hampshire don't need to be separate states; they're too small. Just combine them, along with Maine, into a single state. Rhode Island is also much too small: combine it with Massachusetts. Eliminate New Jersey: give the northern half to NYC and make it a new state, and give the southern half to Pennsylvania (and perhaps make Philly a new state). Eliminate Wyoming: it only has 500k people. Break it into pieces and merge them with the surrounding states.j DC by itself is much too small to be a state, both geographically and population-wise. Take the entire DC metro area and make it a single state instead. Perhaps combine it with Baltimore too and eliminate Maryland in the process (most of MD then just becomes new the DC state); give the western side of MD to WV, and the eastern shore part to Delaware. Finally, there's no way DC should be called "DC" as a state, or have any mention of the genocidal conqueror Christopher Columbus. It needs a new name.
- mikem170 4y ago
  On the other hand, it might be better to have many smaller states, perhaps the size of counties, which could better represent urban and rural areas separately. Switzerland does this, having "cantons" about the size of U.S. counties, and these cantons hold more power in their system than states do in the U.S. These cantons, averaging a few hundred thousand people, handle citizenship and cultural issues, collect taxes, administer health care, run secondary schools, etc. If you have a problem in a construct this size the politicians are not so far away and inaccessible. Your fellow voters are nearby, and more like you. I don't know that it is a good thing to put more people into larger groups, noticeably diluting their political representation. That causes a lot of friction, when large groups of people don't agree. I imagine that most localities would rather have more representation, not less.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    >On the other hand, it might be better to have many smaller states, perhaps the size of counties, which could better represent urban and rural areas separately. Have you seen Star Wars: The Phantom Menace? What you're proposing is something that resembles the Galactic Senate from that movie. Are you going to have Congress hold sessions in a football stadium or something? >Switzerland does this, having "cantons" about the size of U.S. counties Switzerland is a tiny country with a small fraction of the US's population or geographic size. It's comparable to a single US State, so sure, having cantons the size of US counties makes sense. (And what kind of counties are you talking about anyway? This really doesn't mean much: on the east coast in a state like Virginia, the counties might only have 5000 people. In the western states, you can have a county like Maricopa County, Arizona with over 4 million.) >I imagine that most localities would rather have more representation, not less. At the national level? There is no example of this working anywhere, worldwide, for a sizeable country. (No, Switzerland is not a sizeable country.) The whole idea is completely unworkable. There's real-world limits to how large political divisions can be before they need to be grouped together into larger groups, which themselves have representatives in a larger body.
madcaptenor 4y ago
I don't see why 9+8+9+8+9+8 wouldn't work for 51, or 7+6+7+6+7+6+7+6 for 52.

cratermoon 4y ago

> think the reason that a 51st or 52nd state can't be added is that the urgency of the matter is lacking. The reason for the resistance to statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. is because they both lean heavily Democratic, and the prospect of 2 or 4 more Democratic Senators is unacceptable to the Republicans.

friend_and_foe 4y ago
I don't think that's the entirety of it. DC becoming a state is significantly more problematic than just the politics of it's residents, it's potentially unconstitutional. It makes more sense to cede the city outside the capitol to Maryland and Virginia and allow for representation that way (and what IMO should've been done instead of giving DC 3 electoral college votes via a constitutional amendment), and an amendment to make DC a state would require a lot of reorganizing, the clause providing for a 10 by 10 square mile federal district, the reasoning that the sovereignty of the united states can't be under jurisdiction of a state, it's just messy. Puerto Rico, I think the political balance between parties is largely the prohibiting factor, you're right. But there are other issues, they are not compliant on a lot of requirements for statehood as per US law (congress has the power to regulate this with any legislation), and it seems the status quo in Puerto Rico is exactly what the more powerful political and financial interests there want.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  > they are not compliant on a lot of requirements for statehood as per US law (congress has the power to regulate this with any legislation) Hmm, I wonder how those laws got to be that way. It's a mystery.
  - friend_and_foe 4y ago
    Say what you mean. Puerto Rico has blatantly unconstitutional gun laws. It has a minimum wage under the federal minimum wage. The US congress requires all applicant territories for statehood have constitutions compliant with the US constitution (a problem for North Dakhota until 1997 funny enough), have laws requiring child support on the books and a whole host of other laws. Puerto Rico is compliant on some fronts and not on others.
    - rob74 4y ago
      The only thing that the U.S. constitution has to say about gun laws is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Which means Puerto Rico's gun laws are not in line with the current interpretation of this cryptic sentence prevalent in the 50 current states (as in more strict - what a scandal!), but saying they are unconstitutional is a bit of a stretch IMHO.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        It IS unconstitutional, because the SCOTUS says so. Whatever their interpretation is, is the law and defines what's "constitutional". Yes, even when the Justices are a bunch of partisan hacks and their interpretation is BS. You may not like it, but that's the way the law works.
      - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
        Funnily enough, the second amendment isn't that cryptic. It says that, in order for the states to remain free, they need their own militia made up of the people, and that militia needs arms, thus the federal government shall make no laws inhibiting their ability to acquire said arms. Ironically, the laws we have on the books are technically unconstitutional.
pyuser583 4y ago
In the past those partisan issues were dealt with by balancing incoming states — including breaking up existing ones, There are plenty of conservative parts of liberal states that would love to succeed from their state. Make Washington DC and East California states.
mcv 4y ago
> The reason for the resistance to statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. is because they both lean heavily Democratic, and the prospect of 2 or 4 more Democratic Senators is unacceptable to the Republicans. That's undoubtedly part of it, but I also get the impression that Puerto Rico itself isn't that eager to become a state. DC probably is and really does deserve better representation, but there are historical reasons for why it was made explicitly not a state. I think those reasons need to be revisited to see if they're actually still true (if they ever were).
kortilla 4y ago
Then why do so many Puerto Ricans not want to join as a state?
- cratermoon 4y ago
  Not because they want to stay a US colony. Because they want to be independent.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    “ About 48 percent want Puerto Rico to become a state, 26 percent would rather remain a US territory, and 10 percent want full independence.” https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/11/15782544/puerto-rico-pushes-for-statehood-explained https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/11/15782544/p...

kibwen 4y ago

For real, why would we want the flag to stay the same? The fact that the US flag is officially mutable while remaining iconic is an awesome property.

midoridensha 4y ago

There's too many states as it is, and I think that's a good enough reason to deny any attempts at making new states until they fix the first issue. Fixing it is easy: combine some of the existing small states, or break up other unpopulated states. For instance, Vermont and New Hampshire don't need to be separate states; they're too small. Just combine them, along with Maine, into a single state. Rhode Island is also much too small: combine it with Massachusetts. Eliminate New Jersey: give the northern half to NYC and make it a new state, and give the southern half to Pennsylvania (and perhaps make Philly a new state). Eliminate Wyoming: it only has 500k people. Break it into pieces and merge them with the surrounding states.j DC by itself is much too small to be a state, both geographically and population-wise. Take the entire DC metro area and make it a single state instead. Perhaps combine it with Baltimore too and eliminate Maryland in the process (most of MD then just becomes new the DC state); give the western side of MD to WV, and the eastern shore part to Delaware. Finally, there's no way DC should be called "DC" as a state, or have any mention of the genocidal conqueror Christopher Columbus. It needs a new name.

mikem170 4y ago
On the other hand, it might be better to have many smaller states, perhaps the size of counties, which could better represent urban and rural areas separately. Switzerland does this, having "cantons" about the size of U.S. counties, and these cantons hold more power in their system than states do in the U.S. These cantons, averaging a few hundred thousand people, handle citizenship and cultural issues, collect taxes, administer health care, run secondary schools, etc. If you have a problem in a construct this size the politicians are not so far away and inaccessible. Your fellow voters are nearby, and more like you. I don't know that it is a good thing to put more people into larger groups, noticeably diluting their political representation. That causes a lot of friction, when large groups of people don't agree. I imagine that most localities would rather have more representation, not less.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >On the other hand, it might be better to have many smaller states, perhaps the size of counties, which could better represent urban and rural areas separately. Have you seen Star Wars: The Phantom Menace? What you're proposing is something that resembles the Galactic Senate from that movie. Are you going to have Congress hold sessions in a football stadium or something? >Switzerland does this, having "cantons" about the size of U.S. counties Switzerland is a tiny country with a small fraction of the US's population or geographic size. It's comparable to a single US State, so sure, having cantons the size of US counties makes sense. (And what kind of counties are you talking about anyway? This really doesn't mean much: on the east coast in a state like Virginia, the counties might only have 5000 people. In the western states, you can have a county like Maricopa County, Arizona with over 4 million.) >I imagine that most localities would rather have more representation, not less. At the national level? There is no example of this working anywhere, worldwide, for a sizeable country. (No, Switzerland is not a sizeable country.) The whole idea is completely unworkable. There's real-world limits to how large political divisions can be before they need to be grouped together into larger groups, which themselves have representatives in a larger body.

madcaptenor 4y ago

I don't see why 9+8+9+8+9+8 wouldn't work for 51, or 7+6+7+6+7+6+7+6 for 52.