The story of the American Empire
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:16:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  The story of the American Empire
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The story of the American Empire  (Read 1882 times)
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 18, 2014, 08:07:25 AM »

As it stands in present day. Pretty interesting I must say. Wink
Didn't know that American Samoans were treated as non citizens for instance. Pretty shameful. Tongue

Watch the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASSOQDQvVLU&list=UU2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w&index=4
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2014, 05:10:00 PM »

The reason for the disparate treatment of American Samoa is because of the insistence of their own leaders who fear losing power and prestige if American Samoa were treated the same as any other insular territory of the US.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2014, 08:53:51 PM »

CGP Grey is awesome.  He has a lot of good videos about voting, politics, economics, etc.

Regarding the issue of US Imperialism:

The clear solution for DC is statehood.  Lots of countries have city-state capitals.  The only tricky part would be what to do about the 23rd amendment.  Even if Congress just shrinks the official federal district and admits the rest of the territory as a new state, we still have an amendment which grants presidential electors to the district.  Not sure what would become of them if no one is living in the district to vote.

Puerto Rico needs to stop pretending that it can have its cake and eat it too.  Statehood or independence people, no more of this fictional "enhanced commonwealth" B.S.

As for the other territories, I would say it makes the most sense for them to go with the CoFA option.  We really don't have any kind of Constitutional provisions that allow for true democratic integration of permanent territories so they will always be "second class" citizens.  If we were to amend the Constitution I think something along the following would be good (excuse my non-legalese):

Section 1. Should the total resident population of US territories not under the jurisdiction of a state government be less than one-third the population of the least populous state: these territories shall be considered as part of the state closest to their individual geographic locations solely for the purposes of participating in federal elections including the selection of electors of President and Vice President and the election of Senators and Representatives to Congress.

Section 2. Should the total resident population of non-state US territories be equal to or greater than one-third the population of the least populous state but less than two-thirds the population of the least populous state:

The territories shall collectively appoint a single elector of President and Vice President; it shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but it shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be an elector appointed by a State; and it shall meet in one of the non-state US territories and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

The territories shall collectively appoint a single voting representative to the US House of Representatives.  This representative shall be equal in all ways to the representatives sent by the states except that the territorial representative shall be granted only one-half of a vote when voting on legislation as part of the full House.

Section 3. Should the total resident population of non-state US territories be equal to or greater than two-thirds the population of the least populous state:

The territories shall collectively appoint two electors of President and Vice President; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in one of the non-state US territories and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

The territories shall collectively appoint a single voting representative to the US House of Representatives.  This representative shall be equal in all ways to the representatives sent by the states.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2014, 10:32:07 PM »

The problem with Section 1 of your proposed amendment is that it would force the nearest State to accept those voters regardless of whether it wanted to or not.  Since Hawaii would likely be the recipient and Guam the largest (or even only) donor if Section 1 were in effect, given the recent historical politics of the two, it would make Hawaii more Republican than it has been presidentially.  (The same is true if the Northern Marianas were added to Hawaii, tho the effect would be lesser.)  Margins in Hawaii have generally been high enough that there would have been no change in any recent election, but that need not be the case.  Hawaii is small enough population-wise that Guam could fairly easily shift the margin of victory in Hawaii by a percent or two with its different politics.  Hawaii has had two elections (1960 and 1980) where a 1% shift in the vote from D to R would change who won the State and one election (1976) where a 2% shift would have changed the winner.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2014, 07:44:32 AM »

Padfoot, interesting suggestions. Why representation in the House but not the Senate, under your scheme?
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2014, 08:08:43 AM »
« Edited: September 23, 2014, 08:12:49 AM by politicus »

You all view it very much from a legal/constitutional POV, without including the moral and political aspects of the question.

Unlike Europe decolonization hasn't really been an issue in the US, apart from the Philippines, but there is the obvious question of whether some of those areas should simply become independent? Even if the population isn't interested in it today, the offer of self determination ought to be on the table for future generations as a legal option.

The US has together with France kept far more of its old colonies than any other nation. I think at least West Samoa and Samoa should ideally be reunited. Guam and Northern Marianas are also too different from the US to be "American" in any meaningful way. As a minimum there should be referendums on the future legal status in all territories.

The so called "voluntary" compacts with the three small Micronesian nations are also problematic. Its former UN mandates and especially in the case of Palau - the last UN mandate to become independent (1994) - they were essentially forced to sign the compact if they were ever to become independent.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2014, 11:20:31 AM »

Padfoot, interesting suggestions. Why representation in the House but not the Senate, under your scheme?
Perhaps because it is at least theoretically doable.  The Connecticut Compromise is hardwired into the document.  It would be far easier to eliminate the Senate or reduce its power than to tinker with Senate representation. Changing representation in the Senate from anything other than each State gets the same number of Senators would require all fifty States to adopt the amendment.  The D.C. Voting Rights Amendment that failed to pass would have treated the District as a State, tho arguably the provisions that would allow it to have representation in the Senate could have required all fifty States to assent to become valid depending on how the Court ruled on the attempt to finesse the equal representation clause.

Given how little population the territories have, save for Puerto Rico, there is no chance they'd be given two Senators each, and there is no way of giving them Senate representation without treating them as States.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2014, 11:58:27 AM »

Article I says the House shall be composed of representatives selected from the several states as well, so I don't really see how we could add representation in the House without treating the territories as states as well.

As far as the Article V prohibition on amending the part about representation in the Senate, you could first amend that part and then you're good to go, no? I mean, not that any of this is going to happen in the first place, but there's no functional way to make all of a document amendable except one part, if you can still amend the part that declares that part unamendable.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2014, 01:19:23 PM »

You all view it very much from a legal/constitutional POV, without including the moral and political aspects of the question.
  I doubt anyone here would argue the moral right of these territories to self-determination.

The US has together with France kept far more of its old colonies than any other nation.

Ahem.  British Overseas Territories

I think at least West Samoa and Samoa should ideally be reunited.

As the 1969 referendum concerning merger of Guam and the Northern Marianas shows, mergers that seem logical to outsiders aren't always approved by those on the ground.  Still, if they want that, I'd be fine with that, but I'm doubtful that American Samoa wants to turn away from the US and towards New Zealand.

Guam and Northern Marianas are also too different from the US to be "American" in any meaningful way.

I fail to see how they are more different than Hawaii was at Statehood and I doubt anyone would argue against Hawaii being American.  Indeed, while it would be smaller than I would like for a State to be, I would not object to a combined Guam and NMI becoming the State of Mariana (or whatever other name they like) and the 51st star on our flag.  While the 1969 referendum indicates there likely would be some opposition to a merger (Guam rejected it for what can be seen as one of the most American of reasons, a fear of higher taxes), I'm reminded that the Oklahoma and Indian Territories were willing to accept a merger when given a choice of remaining two separate territories or becoming one single state.

As for the remaining inhabited US territory, perhaps we should return the Jomfruĝerne to Denmark? Grin
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2014, 01:30:53 PM »
« Edited: September 23, 2014, 01:36:19 PM by politicus »


Excluding the British part of Antarctica that's only 27.500 km2.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2014, 02:14:47 PM »


Excluded the British part of Antarctica that's only 27.500 km2.

That's still 10 separate territories with native inhabitants and doesn't include the Crown Dependencies. It also doesn't count the displaced natives of the BIOT, and counts St. Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha as 1 territory instead of the 3 they actually are.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2014, 02:45:38 PM »


Excluding the British part of Antarctica that's only 27.500 km2.

If we are counting this by area wouldn't your nation top the list?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2014, 03:30:40 PM »


Excluding the British part of Antarctica that's only 27.500 km2.

If we are counting this by area wouldn't your nation top the list?

If we are ranking by area, Denmark is a dependency of Greenland.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2014, 05:42:34 PM »


Excluded the British part of Antarctica that's only 27.500 km2.

That's still 10 separate territories with native inhabitants and doesn't include the Crown Dependencies. It also doesn't count the displaced natives of the BIOT, and counts St. Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha as 1 territory instead of the 3 they actually are.

Doesn't really matter how you count. Whats left of the mighty British Empire is small change.
BOT have 350.000 inhabitants. Vs. New Caledonia alone is 262.000. Puerto Rico is 3,6 mio.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2014, 05:49:39 PM »
« Edited: September 24, 2014, 05:10:43 AM by politicus »


Excluded the British part of Antarctica that's only 27.500 km2.

That's still 10 separate territories with native inhabitants and doesn't include the Crown Dependencies. It also doesn't count the displaced natives of the BIOT, and counts St. Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha as 1 territory instead of the 3 they actually are.

Doesn't really matter how you count. Whats left of the mighty British Empire is small change.
BOT have 350.000 inhabitants. Vs. New Caledonia alone is 262.000. Puerto Rico is 3,6 mio.



If we are counting this by area wouldn't your nation top the list?

Greenland is roughly the same size as India, so yes.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
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 0.048 seconds with 11 queries.