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.
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
[
To an outsider it seems a bit much that 37 million people (California) have the same Senate representation that 2 million (New Mexico) do.
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.More Democratic Electoral votes? I dunno thats just a guess
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).honestly they don't want the tax burdens that come with statehood
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).
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/Fileie_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.
For God's sake, how many times must it be said?um it's better to 36,961,664 (California) and 544,270 (Wyoming) being the same in the Senate.
That's a state by state thing.i meant the state level of american taxation which is almost as burdensom as the feds
For God's sake, how many times must it be said?
THAT'S THE POINT OF THE SENATE!
For God's sake, how many times must it be said?
THAT'S THE POINT OF THE SENATE!
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.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.
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.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.
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.