Puerto Rico

All you had to say is that it's by the Dominican Republic.

I couldn't remember if it was down in Central America or out in the Pacific, is all...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

I wonder if the US Virgin Islands would be subsumed into Puerto Rico if it becomes a state.

Unlikely. Too different culturally.

The Virgin Islands were formerly a Danish Dominion we bought off of them in 1917. So, the two really don't have much in common. Also, different issues and all that.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that. Culturally, they're very different from Puerto Rico and I don't think they have any desire to join with another island. And they have a large enough population (Over a hundred thousand) that they meet the population requirements for becoming a state should they decide to pursue that. Which, according to the Wikipedia page, they seem to be pursuing. (At the very least, they're going for representation in Congress.)

Edit: The US Virgin Islanders are of Afro Caribbean descent rather than Hispanic, and have English and an English based Creole as the local languages instead of Spanish.

edited 16th Jan '12 5:28:42 PM by AceofSpades

I think the number of people for a state is 60,000.

Aside from Puerto Rico, there are currently 5 other candidates:

US Virgin Islands

Washington D.C.

Guam

Northern Marianas Islands

American Samoa

Interestingly, there has been talk (and some small action) towards fusing Guam and the Northern Marianas into a single Government, and have it try and become a state too. If Puerto Rico makes it, I would watch D.C., Guam, and the Northern Marianas Islands.

Though, preferably, I would like each of these to be states in their own right. All of them have more than 60,000.

edited 16th Jan '12 5:31:53 PM by RAWieren

I say make it a state, make the Virgin islands and Guam states too, and while we are at it, make Liberia a state. It looks nicer if we add four more stars to the flag (one for each corner) than just one.

Fair enough about the US Virgin Islands. I was only curious since they're right beside each other.

Guam is physically part of the same archipelago as the North Marianas, so they should be taken as one.

DC should have a more autonomous government, but I dunno if they'll be given statehood.

Liberia would not be a good idea for a state. Its an independant country for one (rather than part of the commonwealth) and for two, there is already bad blood between the slave-descended population with the nativist population. Putting it under US control would give the slave-descended guys (who already have power) into getting more power. Liberia would be better off merging with neighboring Sierra Leone.

edited 16th Jan '12 5:39:54 PM by FFShinra

I'm surprised Guam and the North Marianas have that many people. I was under the impression that they had quite small populations.

In any case, given that these islands tend to have parties structured around different considerations than we do, I wonder how political parties will be affected. Once the decision to become a state has been made, what do you align yourself by? And even though they probably lean Republican or Democratic, do they feel that actually joining those parties instead of say, just restructuring what their old parties are based on better meets their needs, and how does that play out in when getting into Congress? Will the Republicans and Democrats be trying to build a stronger base to take over from as Puerto Rico gets closer to its election date?

Although DC clearly doesn't have that issue, being DC. I think they've leaned Democrat/liberal for some time now.

@Stars; they have to vote on it in order for it to go to Congress for consideration. (The Senate has to vote on it after the people in Puerto Rico do, I think, so really, even if they decide yes they wouldn't have the go ahead to vote in this year's presidential election.) Also, I'm reasonably certain that Liberia is its own independent country.

edited 16th Jan '12 5:38:12 PM by AceofSpades

Meh, I'd be happy if they all went a party that WASN'T Dem or GOP. As to liberal or conservative or whatever, maybe thats a different issue and also not something that can be decided on the whim. They'll vote in whoever meets their needs, which are not static.

&

Mexico has the capital (Mexico City) as its own state (Distrito Federal). Remember, Mexico's official name is the "United Mexican States"

It isn't uncommon for a Capital City to be its own state. That is the case also in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, and Russia.

Guam has a population of 178,000, and is dominated by Republicans. The Northern Marianas Islands have a population of 54,000 having lost 22% of its population between 2000 and 2010. It divided between Democrats and Republicans.

American Samoa has a population 55,519, sliding below 60,000, and registering it's first ever decline in Population as recorded in a Census (well, there goes it being a state. At least for now). It is dominated by Democrats

Virgin Islands (whoops on typo) has a population of 108,000. It is also dominated by Democrats.

Summary. 3 of the 5 Non-Puerto Rico Territories are large enough or statehood. A fusion between Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands makes it 3 out of 4. If you want to get American Samoa back up, get you and your 4,480 closest friends to move there.

edited 16th Jan '12 6:33:07 PM by RAWieren

I'm not saying its a bad idea, I'm saying there was a reason (which I forget at the moment) as to why its not being pursued. Something about territory I think.

And in terms of examples, there are just as many, if not more, examples of capitals being directly governed territories in federation rather than provinces/states themselves. So thats not necessarily a legit argument for statehood, of the many one could make.

The thing about that though is those countries tend to follow the Civilization IV plan - their largest & oldest city is also their capital. Washington DC, however, though large, is not nearly the largest city population wise in the United States. Basically, we can afford to exclude Washington DC, but Russia cannot exclude Moscow, from elections - it just wouldn't be fair to exclude such a large portion of your population.

Thing is, the Republicans have a pattern of dicking around with the laws of D.C., and changing things to suit their own whims.

So, that power needs to be taken away.

We are still talking upwards of 600k people not able to get congressional representation. That is an entire district.

edited 16th Jan '12 5:51:59 PM by RAWieren

It's not fair to exclude anyone from your country's elections, Stars. Also, I'm pretty certain that the citizens of our capitol can vote in elections, it's just that they have a non voting rep in Congress.

I think the people of DC would be satisfied with something like home rule, instead of a city council that basically can't do anything without asking Congress first. Anything so that they could actually run their own damn affairs.

edited 16th Jan '12 5:53:28 PM by AceofSpades

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

American Samoa has fifty five thousand people. Just checked.

Shit, I did a typo.

The second one should be the Virgin Islands.

In recent years the population in Guam has gained several more thousand military members and their families, as the Navy and Marines have been slowly moving commands there from Okinawa and the rest of Japan.*

It's also one of my choices for orders, which I am definitely not taking.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

@MGIFS,

"It looks better on the flag" is an idiotic reason to annex other countries.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

We can find an already existing state to split if we want to do that.

I think they want to split California into two States. We can legally turn Texas into four States. Etc...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

No, the feds can't split Texas, Texas can split itself, without requiring consent of Congress. Not exactly a relevant ability of my state's government now, but I think it had to do something with the whole slave states versus free states competition going on at the time. As for California, well the feds can't vote to split a state without the consent of that state's government, and it is unlikely California will willing give up its fifty five seats; there would have to be a massively strong movement for that to happen. Though it did almost happen once; it appears World War Two got in the way. There are some proponents for this, but it's not exactly a very active movement at this point in time. (And, if it keeps the original proposed boundaries, would also take parts of southern Oregon.)

I meant "we" in the generic.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Why would California object to splitting the state? The new states, combined, would get more senators. If there's a reason not to split, it's the internal state government and operations that go across the state.

I find it odd that United States decided to keep a bunch of small territories scattered everywhere. Ideally, they would become just one or two states, but geography makes that hard. Most of those would be better off independent, like the Philippines, if we look at it geographically.

Now using Trivialis handle.

But California itself gets less influence in the House. Strength in numbers is a cliche for a reason.

In any case, we either inherited or bought a bunch of territories in the Pacific Ocean simply to have those areas as places for our navy to dock. Plus, there is a whole process to becoming a state; once you get the required population the people who actually live there have to want to be a state and hold a vote on it. (Which is why it's a big deal for Puerto Rico to vote on it and have parties based on the opinions regarding it.) Then there's some folderol where it gets passed in a vote through the Senate. (The Senate actually voted against Cuba becoming a state, which is part of why we have that particular situation now.) And, before presenting the vote to the Senate, the people in question have to have a state constitution and legislature in place to formally present as proof they've got all their shit together. (Puerto Rico's probably got that part in the bag.)

And we had more territories at one time; a lot of them did choose independence. Some of them are associated free states with us, which means they rely on our military for their international protection needs. (The populations and economies of these small Pacific islands being too small to really staff a military themselves.)

Basically, the people actually living in these territories have to make the decision for anything to happen. Until then, things stay as they are. Self determination and all that.