Is a new referendum on statehood now a certainty in Puerto Rico?

[Lunar]

But that principle of "regional representation" is contrary to the democratic principle you were espousing.

meh.

[DownWithTheLeft]

If it is, Guam must be added as well

[Lunar]

If it is, Guam must be added as well

I'd support moving the Pacific Islands into Hawaii or combining them all into a single Pacific Island state that would have about the same population as Wyoming.  The problem is that there is no real infrastructure to create it in the near future.

Puerto Rico has 23 times the population of Guam.

[muon2]

If it is, Guam must be added as well

I'd support moving the Pacific Islands into Hawaii or combining them all into a single Pacific Island state that would have about the same population as Wyoming.  The problem is that there is no real infrastructure to create it in the near future.

Puerto Rico has 23 times the population of Guam.

I would have a hard time supporting any new state with a population less than the average for one Represenative. If the House were substantially increased in size it would be more reasonable to look at a Pac Is state as there would be less discrepancy in the body intended to have equal-population representation.

[Lunar]

All of our Pacific Island territories add up to the population of Wyoming.

[bgwah]

All of our Pacific Island territories add up to the population of Wyoming.

It would be kind of a crazy state, no?

I suppose if each territory remained relatively independent of one another (except for Congressional representation and Presidential electors) it might work.

Maybe some former territories who are still dependent on the U.S. would re-join.

[Smid]

If it is, Guam must be added as well

I'd support moving the Pacific Islands into Hawaii or combining them all into a single Pacific Island state that would have about the same population as Wyoming.  The problem is that there is no real infrastructure to create it in the near future.

Puerto Rico has 23 times the population of Guam.

I would have a hard time supporting any new state with a population less than the average for one Represenative. If the House were substantially increased in size it would be more reasonable to look at a Pac Is state as there would be less discrepancy in the body intended to have equal-population representation.

I agree with Muon (not that it's any of my business, being a foreigner). I think that there are democratic principles and democratic ideals and political realities shouldn't impact on making the decisions regarding those ideals - you don't make the rules of grid iron to benefit or hinder the Dallas Cowboys. You make the rules to allow the game to run well, and then let the teams compete within the rules. You don't debate for or against admitting a state into the union merely because it would benefit or disadvantage a particular political party. That decision needs to be made based on the democratic ideals and debated on its democratic merits. When you base the decision on which political party it benefits, you effectively acknowledge that democracy is subserviant to the party system whereas the parties should be subserviant to democracy.

Besides all that - in the long run, the parties change. I bet in the 1920 election in the deep south, no one would have been saying "you know, in 80 years time, this area is going to be the Republican base." Going back even to just 1984, Vermont voted 57% for Reagan, or marginally below the popular vote. Just twenty years later, Vermont voted 59% for Kerry, a swing of about 20% - or about 10% against the popular vote. I'm sure no one in 1984 would have been expecting that sort of a swing. Of course, there are some areas, like Hawaii and Alaska and DC which have voted consistently for one party subsequent to their admission to the union. Nonetheless, just because Puerto Rico presently favours the Democrats, doesn't mean that it will always favour them and even if it did, its strength for the Democrats may actually force them to shift their focus, shaking loose some of the voters they presently attract and bringing other states into play for the Republicans (just as the debate presently is whether Evangelicals in the South are costing the GOP election victories by forcing the Republicans to the right to cater to the base).

Despite all of that I just said about the political impact of adding Puerto Rico to the union, I still believe that in determining the rules determining elections, representation and governance, democratic principles must come first and party politics shouldn't enter the equation. A party should form government by the will of the people, not by framing the rules governing elections in a manner that most benefits it.

[Vasall des Midas]

All of our Pacific Island territories add up to the population of Wyoming.

It would be kind of a crazy state, no?

I suppose if each territory remained relatively independent of one another (except for Congressional representation and Presidential electors) it might work.

Maybe some former territories who are still dependent on the U.S. would re-join.

They seem to be included in Lunar's calculation, as otherwise we're well short of Wyoming size (including them gets you to about 500,000 people.)

Give Samoa back to the Samoans, and a Micronesian/Marianas state might work.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     Combining all of the Pacific island territories into one state has the problem that they are vastly different from each other.

[Lunar]

     Combining all of the Pacific island territories into one state has the problem that they are vastly different from each other.

Well, they would have three representatives - possibly from the three major population regions.  Some sort of regional autonomy could also be implemented - hell, they could simply be a "state" for election regions and maintain their current setup entirely.

[MasterJedi]

Make a big state of Pacifica by our territories and getting the other protectorates that we have to join as well.

[Smid]

They could be grouped together with Hawaii.

[Ethelberth]

American  Samoa should be united with Samoa.
Guam should be united with NM and they would become an independent state.
Virgin islands should be given an independence as well as Puerto Rico.
Ceterum censeo, the house should have at least 500 (or m 600) members.

[Lunar]

Who are we to give independence to regions that overwhelmingly don't want it?

Puerto Rico votes what, 8% for the pro-independence party?

[Hashemite]

Who are we to give independence to regions that overwhelmingly don't want it?

Puerto Rico votes what, 8% for the pro-independence party?

2-3%

[Ethelberth]

Indepence  would be a correct result of the global decolonisation process.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Make a big state of Pacifica by our territories and getting the other protectorates that we have to join as well.

That's what I would support. It would include Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. Together they would have a population slightly less than Wyoming.

[Hashemite]

Make a big state of Pacifica by our territories and getting the other protectorates that we have to join as well.

That's what I would support. It would include Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. Together they would have a population slightly less than Wyoming.

Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands should remain independent. Palau is cool. So are the two others, and the Marshall Islands have a great anthem.

[The Mikado]

Indepence  would be a correct result of the global decolonisation process.

They're Trust Territories, not colonies.  And Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, not a colony.  We haven't had colonies since the Phillipines left.  I would've offered them statehood in 1949 if they had wanted it...not that they would have.

[Matt Damon™]

Puerto Rico should become a state... as a good starting point.

[GMantis]

Make a big state of Pacifica by our territories and getting the other protectorates that we have to join as well.

By the way, you still haven't said how the US is going to Americanise other countries.

[jimrtex]

It would be quite interesting if the referendum were conducted next year. If successful, the petition for statehood could be acted on by the end of 2010. That's important because the Census figures for the apportionment of representatives will be released at the end of 2010. If PR is a state then it will be part of that process.

Using the projections for the 50 states in 2010, PR would have a population equal to 5.6 representatives. If the House were expanded to 441 members in 2010 along with PR statehood, then PR would likely get 6 seats in the reapportionment.

Another question that could arise at the same time is the status of DC. Would Congress act in 2010 to grant DC a representative along the lines envisioned by the proposed UT-DC plan? I wouldn't be surprised to see DC representation coupled to PR statehood by some in Congress.

If it missed the 2010 deadline, would it have to wait until 2020 to get apportioned?

When Hawaii and Alaska were added, just prior to the 1960 Census, the House of Representatives was increased to 437 members, and the number of presidential electors increased from 531 to 537 for the 1960 election.

After the 1960 Census, the House of Representatives reverted to 435 members, with the representation of the coterminous 48 States reduced from 435 to 432 because Hawaii had gained a 2nd representative.   Had the initial representation of Hawaii been based on its 1950 population, it would have had 2 representatives (whether there were 435, 437, or 438 representatives).  But this was barely so, and Congress may have been convinced that the 1950 population had been boosted by the substantial military presence in Hawaii.  In addition Congress may have wanted to balance the traditionally Democratic Alaska with the traditionally Republican Hawaii.

But by the time of the 1964 election, the 23rd Amendment had been passed, and there were 538 electors (a net increase of 1 from 1960).

Arizona and New Mexico were admitted as the 47th and 48th States just after the 1910 Census, but were actually provided for in the apportionment law in anticipation of statehood.  It was this apportionment that set the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members.  Both Arizona and New Mexico participated in the 1912 election (the first under the new apportionment) so that the 1912 presidential election had 531 electors.

A curiosity is that New Mexico elected two representatives in 1911 (in a special election after statehood), but received one under the census.  There may have been an issue of non-taxed Indians, since New Mexico had a greater population than Idaho, which received its 2nd representative following that same census.

No apportionment occurred following the 1920 census.  This was in part because due to heavy immigration into eastern cities and more difficult agricultural conditions in the West would have meant a reversal of the traditional western movement of representation.  It wasn't until late in the 1920's that a decision was made to make the apportionment automatic, and to fix the size of the House of Representatives.  Previously, there had always been debate about the size of the House and apportionment procedures.  Expansion of the House was not only to recognize the increased population of the United States, but to make sure that States did not lose too many representatives (which would put the jobs of representatives at risk).

Once Congress got out of direct involvement in apportionment, they have been mostly content to simply let the House remain at 435 members.  Any proposed legislation to expand the size of the House can be referred to some committee where it never gets a hearing.

Under the current apportionment method, there is a priority list for each representative for each State.   You simply calculate the priority based on population, and go down the list to number 435 (currently North Carolina 13) and determine how many representatives each State is apportioned.

For Puerto Rico you could simply add its representatives to the priority list, which would move North Carolina 13 down to 441, and use that as the new size of the House.  I suspect that Congress would provide a permanent expansion of the House, rather than reversion to 435 in 2020.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Make a big state of Pacifica by our territories and getting the other protectorates that we have to join as well.

By the way, you still haven't said how the US is going to Americanise other countries.

they're pretty Americanized already from what I've heard. Right now they're protectorates of the US, so it's not like they're truly independent sovreign states. Of course they shouldn't be forced to join the US if they don't wish to, but accession to the US would have benefits for them.

[President Marokai]

PR should absolutely become a state. It would simply be great to have that sort of history in my lifetime

[ag]

Indepence  would be a correct result of the global decolonisation process.

They're Trust Territories, not colonies.  And Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, not a colony.  We haven't had colonies since the Phillipines left.  I would've offered them statehood in 1949 if they had wanted it...not that they would have.

There are no trust territories left ever since Palau got its independence.