Puerto Rico

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

No it doesn't. The two or more new states, taken together, will have about the same number of representatives.

If all those territories, like Puerto Rico, decide to become separate states, we're going to have a lot of small states. Low-population states would become the norm. Maybe then big states will think about breaking up.

Somehow I doubt that. There's no guarantee that these shiny new split states would actually continue to work together after splitting. That and again, it would have to be voted on by the people and not the government. Good luck convincing the people of Texas to split up; at best you'd end up with our capitol splitting off and then being bullied by the state that it is entirely surrounded by. California loses its influence because some of it has to shift to the hypothetical new state formed out of it. Representatives from different states don't always team up together; quite often they do what they perceive is best for the state they represent in opposition to what others wants. (Like say, competition for pipelines or train lines or whatever might bring the money in.)

In most cases, there is no cultural need to split up. California is a big if, and California likely doesn't want to lose its House seats (which yes, is a big fucking issue) and maybe in the far future, Oklahoma. The Cherokee and other tribes there wanted to have their own state.

edited 16th Jan '12 11:23:26 PM by AceofSpades

Isn't even now there are no guarantee of representatives from same state working together ? Representative elected by district, Rep from coastal and inland California have different ideology. Breaking California into several states would not make any difference in House.

If California splits, it would be along north-south lines due to the sheer cultural difference between the two. As such, once split, they most certainly would not be working together.

There is also the whole thing about Upstate New York wanting to secede (I guess technically they want to absolve themselves of New York City since Albany is already up north, but...) and allow NTC to be a city-state of the union, perhaps with additions from the surrounding states.

More like coastal-inland lines. "North" and "South" are a less important difference.

North of San Francisco I mean. Though yeah, Inland Empire area would also count as very different. Northern third of Cali plus inland, southern third of Cali plus coast....

...Why are we talking about California? Has this turned into a "New States" thread?

Should somebody start one? I'm assuming you know how we got here (roughly).

I've read the 51st state page on wikipedia at least 5 times. I understand it.

I'll go post it.

There ya go guys, have fun. I'll post more later, I've got some Homework to get done.

edited 17th Jan '12 5:29:15 PM by Joesolo

As both a Puerto Rican AND a Guamanian (though not Chamorro in blood), I say HELL YES to both becoming states. For Christ's sake, we're so Americanized out here that we may as well join the Union right now. Only loss I can think of would be the current trade agreements Guam has with some of the FSM states and parts of SE Asia. And aside from a few techincal and tax related hiccups, Puerto Rico's got NOTHING to lose.

I only really got interested when I saw CPG Grey's video on American elections, and found out that the region of 3,7 million citizens is without a vote. That's just silly. Then i looked a bit more into it, and you know, I just pick up causes, and Puerto Rico fits in neatly with Norther Ireland (give it back to the Irish), Palestine (give them back lands stolen since 1967) and West Sahara (Give them back their land).

Ah, that makes sense. Well, this isn't the first time it's been up for vote in Puerto Rico; the last time people apparently voted "none of the above" and got status quo by default. The party for statehood has been rather slow to grow in report, and nothing goes to our Congress before the citizens of the mentioned territory decide yes, they want to be a state. The public opinion there has been wishy washy.

The Libyan Revolutionary War revealed the whole Western Sahara thing to be inflamed by Algeria, and Morocco has legitimately tried to negotiate a solution.But with the Polisario Front being an Algerian Puppet, nothing has yet been good enough.

Also, you fail to take into account the fact that many in Northern Ireland desire to stay British.

Each situation (except Palestine) you just compared to Puerto Rico has hilarious amounts of mis-information. In addition, Puerto Rico's Commonwealth Status is more stable than any of these cases. It's just many are dissatisfied with it. They have an elected home-rule government, and don't pay much in taxes (if anything). They are less connected to the US than a state right now.

To put it more simply, they are in a weird position between Statehood and Independence. Think the Channel Islands in the UK.

edited 18th Jan '12 10:22:00 AM by RAWieren

Yeah, that comparison to Ireland or Palestine REALLY doesn't fit. Both of those are states with serious issues whereas the worst we've got to worry about is just incompetence from the local government and immigration issues - Guam with the illegal Chinese immigrants, and Puerto Rico with the Dominicans and Cubans. And like I said earlier, we're all Americans down here; if anybody tells you that they'd prefer to be independent and free of the US, then they're both a fool and a minority.

edited 18th Jan '12 8:57:36 PM by SgtRicko

And, again, hilariously mis-informed on two of these cases.

Northern Ireland in particular is a horrible example since saying "Give it back to the Irish" (I assume you mean have it rejoin with the republic of Ireland?) means going against the principle of self determination and what the people living in Northern Ireland want and forcing them to become party of a country they do not want to be part off.

edited 18th Jan '12 11:13:56 AM by Silasw

SGT Ricko, will you be voting on this new proposal for Puerto Rico to become a state?

No, the Puerto Ricans do that in 9 months.

And in the case of the Western Sahara, we now know after the Libyan War that Algeria is creating the issue. Polisario Fighters were found fighting for Qaddafi after being paid by Algeria to go there.

The Western Sahara has some issues, but the current government is trying to negotiate a solution, and has given more rights to the Sahrawis in the reformed constitution. The Polisario Front receives orders from the Algerian Government though, so no progress.

Here's a good little article explaining the Polisario Front: Exclusive: Ex-Polisario Front police chief tells his story

edited 18th Jan '12 11:35:25 AM by RAWieren

Sgt Ricko has said he's Puerto Rican, RA. That's why I asked if he's voting.

Derp on my part.

Northern Ireland only voted to stay because of all the people from england that had immigrated over the years. Thats it. If it was only native Irelanders, the ones with a right to the land, they would have joined Ireland.

.*remembers name of thread*

PUERTO RICO PEOPLE. PUERTO RICO.

edited 18th Jan '12 12:15:03 PM by Joesolo

Over several hundred years! And not English, but Scottish!

This is why I have Cultural Cringe about my own nation.

edited 18th Jan '12 12:22:09 PM by RAWieren

I know, Scottish citizens of England though.

And, being a major history buff, a few hundred years dosn't mean much to me.

So people should be forced out a land they have lived their entire lives in, because of their ancestors.

Never mind the IRA was just as, if not more violent than the Unionists. The Unionists have rights too, or are they somehow not deserving of Human Rights?

English and Scottish are completely different. England doesn't mean UK, and the fact you think they are the same thing is stunning. Again, this is why I have such Cultural Cringe of my own nation. Although, I must thank you for teaching me a lesson about how hideous some of my actions must seem to others.

edited 18th Jan '12 1:01:34 PM by RAWieren

To be blunt, I don't care if someone's been somewhere for there whole life. They're part of an occupation of land that should belong to the natives, simple as that.

edited 18th Jan '12 1:12:01 PM by Joesolo