51st State in the 1990s

i meant the state level of american taxation which is almost as burdensom as the feds

That's a quite state-by-state thing. Puerto Rico has no need to impose any taxes (beyond any it already has as a Commonwealth, of course) when it becomes a state. Look a Texas, for example: we have no state income tax whatsoever. Yet California and New York do.
 

mowque

Banned
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.

You need a new system of redistricting to change that.
 

Cook

Banned
You need a new system of redistricting to change that.

I would have thought it required political parties that were responding better to the expectations of the electorate concerned.

What do you mean by redistricting, realignment of electoral boundaries?
 
I would have thought it required political parties that were responding better to the expectations of the electorate concerned.

What do you mean by redistricting, realignment of electoral boundaries?
Redistricting refers to the electoral districts from which the House of Representative members are elected. In the past, a new district was opened up when a certain population level was reached, but as population skyrocketed in the early 1900's/late 1800's they fixed the number to try and keep the House a manageable size. They redesigned it so that the more people in an area the more of the number of representatives were changed to represent that area. This was often gerrymandered to give certain parties better chances, or to keep the representatives(who design the districts) in their jobs. It has the result of the entire state of Montana being a single electoral district while California has god knows how many.

Did that answer your question?
 
I believe Puerto Rico would be a mildly-leaning Democratic state. Probably go for Clinton by a decent margin in '96, a tossup in 2000 (Hispanic voters went for Bush pretty well in that election, IIRC), slightly for Kerry in 2004, and heavily for Obama in 2008.

EDIT: After calculations of a rather off-the-cuff manner, I recant. Seems solidly Democratic.
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
Did that answer your question?

Yes. Thankyou.

Ok, so you are talking electoral boundaries. Assumedly they are done so that the members of the House of Representatives all represent roughly an equal number of voters.

That’s not what I’m talking about and not what concerns me.

You should not have a situation where a political party inevitably wins an electoral seat. Sure, some seats will be safer for a particular party for awhile, but if they never change you have a serious problem. It suggests ideas aren’t changing; the opposition isn’t becoming more competitive. Stagnation sets in.
 
Yes. Thankyou.

Ok, so you are talking electoral boundaries. Assumedly they are done so that the members of the House of Representatives all represent roughly an equal number of voters.

No, in fact that is not true (nation-wide, I mean). Like Jord said, there are a fixed number of seats, but each state has to have at least one. They get shifted around due to the Census, but you can't balance it perfectly, and this leads to things like Californians having (on average) about 711,000 people per seat, while Montana has about 544,000 per seat. Since seats make up one component of Electoral College values, this means Montanans are proportionally overrepresented in Presidential elections. In fact, due to the effects of Senators, it is much worse--California gets one Presidential vote for about every 685,000 people, but Montana gets one for about every 181,000!

And indeed, from my point of view, the decline and fall of the Republicans is most distressing (despite being very very blue in American terms--purple, perhaps, in European). Or rather, not decline and fall per se, but their change into a monstrously warped party which doesn't seem to know bipartisanship means something other than "do whatever I say". That's more or less your answer to why political allegiances aren't changing; most Democrats are totally unacceptable to most Republicans for various reasons, while most Republicans are just the same to most Democrats, and while the Democrats can and do run the ones that are acceptable to both sides, the Republicans mostly don't seem to. That's magnified by the gerrymandering that is par for the course and the relative over representation of Republicans in national politics due to the above mentioned mismatch in electoral seat sizes, as smaller states tend more Republican (with a few exceptions).

However, note that the US uses a FPTP system, so even a relatively small but steady majority for one party in one state will make the state appear very blue or red when it is not.
 
Using data from the CIA factbook for 2005, roughly the following demographics:

Sex: 47% Male, 53% Female

Race: 20% White, 60% Hispanic, 7% Black (12% other, split according to the same percentages)

Modified: 22% White, 68% Hispanic, 9% Black

Religion: 97% Catholic

Since Puerto Rico is heavily Catholic, I'll weight the percentages thusly:
Sex: 20%
Race: 40%
Religion: 40%

Using Wikipedia, with assigned numbers, I get the following results:

Religion: 21.2% C, 14.8% D, 3.6% P
Race: 26.4% C, 10.2% D, 3.4% P
Sex: 10.7% C, 7.2% D, 2.1% P

58.3% Clinton, 32.2% Dole, 9.1% Perot

Hmmm. You better get Puerto Rico in before the '94 elections, because it looks pretty Democratic. Roughly D +9. Puerto Rico could basically be considered a more valuable Democratic Hawaii.
 
Last edited:
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.

Well if california does split the republicans would probably win the northern halves senate seats since from what I remember the northern half is fairly conservative.
 
Assuming that the HoR adds members in a 1993 or 1994 admission of Puerto Rico (since redistribution can't be done post-census), that means that Puerto Rico, having a population of 3.5 million, will gain five representatives and seven electoral votes. These apportionments would stay the same up to the present. Gore could win it all in 2000, but butterflies could mean the tiny margins in places like Iowa, New Mexico, and Wisconsin throw the election back to Bush.

EDIT: For election crazies like me, the almighty tie-which-goes-to-the-House-and-Senate-scenario is to have New Hampshire go blue (change of 4,000 votes) and New Mexico go red (change of 200 votes).

DOUBLE EDIT: Damn it, I'm wrong. Puerto Rico screws everything up, and there is no realistic tie scenario. :mad:
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
No, in fact that is not true (nation-wide, I mean).

I could see it didn’t go over state boundries.

And indeed, from my point of view, the decline and fall of the Republicans... .

I’ve overlook most of this as it looks like we are drifting into partisan territory.

However, note that the US uses a FPTP system, so even a relatively small but steady majority for one party in one state will make the state appear very blue or red when it is not.

That’s why I am not a fan of the First Past the Post electoral system.

I’d say I hate Proportional and Mixed Member Proportional Representation even more but Emperor-of-New-Zealand would have a go at me again.
 
I could see it didn’t go over state boundries.

Yeah. It's still important for figuring out how different parties get locks on different areas

I’ve overlook most of this as it looks like we are drifting into partisan territory.

Yeah, it's mostly just me bitching. There's some useful stuff at the end, though

That’s why I am not a fan of the First Past the Post electoral system.

I’d say I hate Proportional and Mixed Member Proportional Representation even more but Emperor-of-New-Zealand would have a go at me again.

Well, neither am I, so you have company :)
 

Cook

Banned
And First Past the Post tends to kill off strong third or more political parties.

I get the feeling that if the US had preferential voting the Democrats and Republicans would fragment significantly. Wether that is good or bad I am not saying. But it would certainly be Alternative.
;)
 
Would the Virgin Islands be incorporated into the 51st state of Puerto Rico since they are neighbors?

Is there a chance of combining any two states? Could the Dakotas be combined? I say this because 50 is a round number, it is almost as if that was suppose to be the predetermined number of states. So what if the Dakotas are one state admitted in 1889 and Puerto Rico is admitted in the 1900's some time but before 1993?
 
I assume that Peuto Rico being a State would give the 2000 election to Gore plus an actual is small Senate majority.

Yes the Dakotas could be combined to form one state as could Wyoming and Montana, but the legislatures would have to agree and why would they agree to reduce their gross over representation in the Federal Government?
 
a tossup in 2000 (Hispanic voters went for Bush pretty well in that election, IIRC),

No. Bush did much better amongst hispanics than Dole, but Gore won them overall. Can't remember the exact numbers at the mo. Gore ballsed up over Elian Gonzalez though IIRC, which probably cost him Florida and the election.

I would imagine Puerto Rico would very much tilt Democratic in presidential contests if it became a US state. Whether it would go Democratic in 2000 (an awful lot of states didn't or nearly didn't) I am not sure.

Edit: hispanics went 35-62 or thereabouts for Gore.
 
Last edited:
No. Bush did much better amongst hispanics than Dole, but Gore won them overall. Can't remember the exact numbers at the mo. Gore ballsed up over Elian Gonzalez though IIRC, which probably cost him Florida and the election.

I would imagine Puerto Rico would very much tilt Democratic in presidential contests if it became a US state. Whether it would go Democratic in 2000 (an awful lot of states didn't or nearly didn't) I am not sure.

Edit: hispanics went 35-62 or thereabouts for Gore.

If you'd read the rest of my posts, you'd see I corrected for that.
 
Yes. Thankyou.

Ok, so you are talking electoral boundaries. Assumedly they are done so that the members of the House of Representatives all represent roughly an equal number of voters.

That’s not what I’m talking about and not what concerns me.

You should not have a situation where a political party inevitably wins an electoral seat. Sure, some seats will be safer for a particular party for awhile, but if they never change you have a serious problem. It suggests ideas aren’t changing; the opposition isn’t becoming more competitive. Stagnation sets in.
You get points for realizing that. Solid partisanship in certain areas practically guarantees one party winning, even if only by a slight majority. When you add in the fact that challengers have almost no chance of stealing the seat away from incumbents in most districts(due mostly to money concerns, eg an incumbent can send campaign advertisements with no cost to themselves in the same way they can send out announcements about the area's condition, and name recognition among a mostly indifferent electorate) means that stagnation is a serious problem in the US.

You get a cookie for figuring that out so quick.

No, in fact that is not true (nation-wide, I mean). Like Jord said, there are a fixed number of seats, but each state has to have at least one. They get shifted around due to the Census, but you can't balance it perfectly, and this leads to things like Californians having (on average) about 711,000 people per seat, while Montana has about 544,000 per seat. Since seats make up one component of Electoral College values, this means Montanans are proportionally overrepresented in Presidential elections. In fact, due to the effects of Senators, it is much worse--California gets one Presidential vote for about every 685,000 people, but Montana gets one for about every 181,000!
Of course, you can argue in the other direction as well. Montana has a lot more communities with diverse needs than one of those Californian districts, which are usually a single city. If you pander too much to the amount of people, you screw over all those communities in less populated areas to pander to the more populous ones. Hence why we have the Senate, to keep the more populous areas from dominating. Personally, I don't want Wisconsinite money going to dig California out of its hole simply because they have more American citizens than we do, and I'm sure most people in other states would agree.

It's a balancing act. Not a pretty one by any measures, and a little undemocratic, but the alternative's not that attractive either. Which is kind of the whole point of our being a republic, not a direct democracy.

And indeed, from my point of view, the decline and fall of the Republicans is most distressing (despite being very very blue in American terms--purple, perhaps, in European). Or rather, not decline and fall per se, but their change into a monstrously warped party which doesn't seem to know bipartisanship means something other than "do whatever I say". That's more or less your answer to why political allegiances aren't changing; most Democrats are totally unacceptable to most Republicans for various reasons, while most Republicans are just the same to most Democrats, and while the Democrats can and do run the ones that are acceptable to both sides, the Republicans mostly don't seem to. That's magnified by the gerrymandering that is par for the course and the relative over representation of Republicans in national politics due to the above mentioned mismatch in electoral seat sizes, as smaller states tend more Republican (with a few exceptions).
I mostly agree. The fact that some areas are so used to the idea that one party represents their interests and elects anyone with that letter next to that name is a dangerous thing, because safe seats like that allow for more radical members to gain seats that most would guess they had no chance at.

However, note that the US uses a FPTP system, so even a relatively small but steady majority for one party in one state will make the state appear very blue or red when it is not.
*nods sagely in agreement*
 
271 to win.

Some things to keep in mind....
  • Puerto Rico traditionally has a party system distinct from that of the 50 states; this will not necessarily remain so if PR becomes a state
  • Puerto Rico, like every other state, would receive two U.S. Senators, making a total of 102 members of the U.S. Senate
  • The number of house members is 435, and has been since the Eisenhower years. Congress will likely preserve this to avoid broader apportionment debate.
  • The number of presidential electors possessed by a state is equal to that state's total congressional delegation. Thus, if a state has four U.S. House members, it has six electoral votes.
  • The 2000 census will be the first to be taken following PR statehood, and will presumably means that some state on the mainland loses a seat or two in Congess that otherwise did not, depending on the growth of Puerto Rico, and possible temporary apportionment adjustments.
  • There will be a total of 540 electoral votes available in the first presidential election after PR joins the Union. This means that 270 is a tie, and 271 votes are necessary to win.
 
Some things to keep in mind....
  • Puerto Rico traditionally has a party system distinct from that of the 50 states; this will not necessarily remain so if PR becomes a state
  • Puerto Rico, like every other state, would receive two U.S. Senators, making a total of 102 members of the U.S. Senate
  • The number of house members is 435, and has been since the Eisenhower years. Congress will likely preserve this to avoid broader apportionment debate.
  • The number of presidential electors possessed by a state is equal to that state's total congressional delegation. Thus, if a state has four U.S. House members, it has six electoral votes.
  • The 2000 census will be the first to be taken following PR statehood, and will presumably means that some state on the mainland loses a seat or two in Congess that otherwise did not, depending on the growth of Puerto Rico, and possible temporary apportionment adjustments.
  • There will be a total of 540 electoral votes available in the first presidential election after PR joins the Union. This means that 270 is a tie, and 271 votes are necessary to win.

Almost all right. The number is 545, as Puerto Rico has the population for 7 electoral votes. That means 273 are required to win, and a tie isn't in the cards.
 
Top