51st State in the 1990s

in 1991 the people of Puerto Rico voted on a "Constitutional Amendment Referendum" and in 1993 had a plebiscite, so is there a way that Puerto Rico could of become a state in the early 1990s? and how would that change American politics?
 
More Democratic Electoral votes? I dunno thats just a guess

I think the reason these failed is because Commonwealth status is the best of Both worlds. PR sets internal policy and the US pays for defense and handles diplomacy.
 
More Democratic Electoral votes? I dunno thats just a guess

I think the reason these failed is because Commonwealth status is the best of Both worlds. PR sets internal policy and the US pays for defense and handles diplomacy.

they also don't get much federal money, the roads down there are a mess the whole place could some hard core public works.
 
honestly they don't want the tax burdens that come with statehood


your best opportunity for a 51st state after 1975 is for long island to split away from new york or for california to splinter in some way... its been floated by local politicians for decades and there are solid economic reasons for doing it
 
It would give the Dems some extra EV. Both parties' platforms said that they would recognize the results of a PR referendum that requested statehood. Knowing Clinton's rapport with the Hispanic community, he would probably be favourably inclined.
 

Cook

Banned
your best opportunity for a 51st state after 1975 is for long island to split away from new york or for california to splinter in some way

A North California and South California or three states?

You’ve got approximately 37 million people there so an average of 12 million in three succeeding states which would make them the equal sixth most populous states in the Union and give you 52 States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:pie_chart_of_US_population_by_state.png

To an outsider it seems a bit much that 37 million people (California) have the same Senate representation that 2 million (New Mexico) do.
 
[
To an outsider it seems a bit much that 37 million people (California) have the same Senate representation that 2 million (New Mexico) do.

um it's better to 36,961,664 (California) and 544,270 (Wyoming) being the same in the Senate.
 
More Democratic Electoral votes? I dunno thats just a guess
I've actually looked into Puerto Rican politics before, and if I recall correctly, they're actually kinda evenly divided between the parties, although I think overall they're a bit more to the left.

honestly they don't want the tax burdens that come with statehood
Contrary to popular belief, Puerto Rico actually isn't exempt from taxation (most just don't pay income tax, but they do pay payroll tax, and they pay all Federal taxes besides).
 
I've actually looked into Puerto Rican politics before, and if I recall correctly, they're actually kinda evenly divided between the parties, although I think overall they're a bit more to the left.


Contrary to popular belief, Puerto Rico actually isn't exempt from taxation (most just don't pay income tax, but they do pay payroll tax, and they pay all Federal taxes besides).

i meant the state level of american taxation which is almost as burdensom as the feds
 
A North California and South California or three states?

You’ve got approximately 37 million people there so an average of 12 million in three succeeding states which would make them the equal sixth most populous states in the Union and give you 52 States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:pie_chart_of_US_population_by_state.png

To an outsider it seems a bit much that 37 million people (California) have the same Senate representation that 2 million (New Mexico) do.

um it's better to 36,961,664 (California) and 544,270 (Wyoming) being the same in the Senate.
For God's sake, how many times must it be said?

THAT'S THE POINT OF THE SENATE!
 

Cook

Banned
For God's sake, how many times must it be said?

THAT'S THE POINT OF THE SENATE!

There is no need to yell and that’s not actually an answer. The point of the Senate is to be the Senate?

You’ll note that I did say “as an outsider”.

A lot of Federal systems have a Senate house of review. Many adjust the representation allocated to the states as populations change.

Surely a website dealing with Alternative history is a place where alternative methods or proportions of political representation can be explored. And if we are looking for ways to have an extra state then a more equitable representation is one possible reason that would be offered.
 
There is no need to yell and that’s not actually an answer. The point of the Senate is to be the Senate?

You’ll note that I did say “as an outsider”.

A lot of Federal systems have a Senate house of review. Many adjust the representation allocated to the states as populations change.

Surely a website dealing with Alternative history is a place where alternative methods or proportions of political representation can be explored. And if we are looking for ways to have an extra state then a more equitable representation is one possible reason that would be offered.
The purpose of the Senate is to represent each state's interests equally. Its supposed to act as one of those checks on the power of the majority to engage in mob rule, hence the longer elected term and its non-population-tied membership.

Lots of people like to rail against the Senate as anti-democratic and evil, and ignore the fact that it has a legtimate purpose.

We've already got a legislative house dedicated to representing the people. It's called the House of Representatives. We don't need two, it would defeat the purpose of having a bicameral legislature.
 

Cook

Banned
That’s better.

Actually every government rails against the Senate when they don’t have an upper house majority and have legislation blocked but are champions of Senate’s rights when the numbers are in their favour. It’s just spin doctoring.

But the purpose of the Senate to represent the states would not be compromised by the admission of Senators from the new States of Northern California and Central California, or whatever they would be called would it? You would just have 104 Senators instead of 100.
 
That’s better.

Actually every government rails against the Senate when they don’t have an upper house majority and have legislation blocked but are champions of Senate’s rights when the numbers are in their favour. It’s just spin doctoring.

But the purpose of the Senate to represent the states would not be compromised by the admission of Senators from the new States of Northern California and Central California, or whatever they would be called would it? You would just have 104 Senators instead of 100.
No, that's fine. So long as every state has an equal number of senators, its still doing what its supposed to do. However, there are practical political problems here. If the Democrats are expected to pick up all the additional seats, expect the Republicans to scream bloody murder, and vice versa. Its like the old 'slave state/free state' thing, only with fewer moral implcations. You've got to have a scenario where the parties expect to profit equally, or at least very nearly equally.

I had taken your statement, and that of BA, to indicate that the Senate ought to have proportional representation. I apologize if I misunderstood.
 
I had taken your statement, and that of BA, to indicate that the Senate ought to have proportional representation. I apologize if I misunderstood.

No, not really, I was just pointing out that CA Vs WY was a better example of the Senate not being equal, I'm not really a fan.
 

Cook

Banned
I had taken your statement, and that of BA, to indicate that the Senate ought to have proportional representation. I apologize if I misunderstood.



No problem. I probably caused the confusion by mentioning that other Nation’s Senates adjust their numbers when populations change.

As to the issue of Democrats or Republicans expecting to benefit. This polarisation of your electorate is becoming worrying. No party as a divine right to rule and they do not have a mandate from heaven as our Chinese friends used to say. That states can be looked on as territory of a particular party means that there is something seriously unhealthy happening to your body politic. Competition is vital.

The election of a Republican in Ted Kennedy’s old seat is a good sign, not for any particular partisan reason but because it means a seat cannot be taken for granted by a particular party. I’d like to believe it also means the end of political clans but that would be too much to hope for.
 
Top