Hi there, I've bowed out of Sluggy.net in general and POOP in particular to work out problems I've been having with being an enormous ***hole. I think that the medications have kicked in enough to allow me to pop my head in and inject a thought without deliberately antagonizing anyone so here we go:

To be like unto the Republicans and use temporary advantage to create permanent gains, the Democrats should:

Admit Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, The US Virgin Islands and DC to the Union as states 51-55.

This means 10 new senators, most of whom will most likely be blue, (all the house delegates from these territories and the district are blue, save for PR, and that's more a function of local politics). More importantly, 10 new house seats would need to be created, 7-8 of which would likely be blue, and these will come at the expense of the largest states. These states will have to perform mid-term redistricting, and with Dems in charge of many of these state houses and governorships, the losses will come from safe Republican districts. California and New York could probably switch a couple extra seats via gerrymandering a la De Lay

End Result:

Senate ~ 60 - 50 Dems
House ~ 245 - 190 Dems

That's in addition to a ~ 10-15 vote swing in the electoral college, which would have been enough to tip the scales in 2000 or 2004.

Here's how statehood works. First the territory draws up a state constitution after a plebiscite or referendum on seeking statehood, and then petitions Congress for statehood. A majority vote in congress makes it so and the President signs his approval admitting the new state to the union.

No Super-majority needed. The only thing that could stop it if the potential states want it and congress approves is a veto. And a veto could give the opposition some nasty things to say about him.

DC is a special case, since the constitution specifies that congress has exclusive legislative power in the district, and the constitution also specifies that all states will be guaranteed a Republican form of government. These aren't incompatible. Here's how:

The US Congress would simultaneously be the state legislature in DC. Its House represntative and Senators would each have a veto power in their respective houses over laws that are made as the DC Legislature. The city council would continue to exist as a body to introduce legislation to the Congress. There would be a popularly elected Governor with executive power and an appointed judiciary. State and District, Congress controlled and Citizen limited. Problem solved.

So the question becomes, does this seem workable and if so, whose attention do I need to get in order to get it rolling.

Seems workable to me, except for two aspects:

1) First, you have to convince all these terrorities and districts that they actually want to become states. As I recall Puerto Rico voted against it last time around. And I haven't really heard of a movement for that in any other area you mentioned.

2) DC. The problem with making Congress the legislature is that the interests of running the city might conflict with the interests of running the nation--or at least add to the already massive Congressional workload.

Welcome back, by the way.

PR would lose much in becoming a state.

IIRC Puerto Ricans do not pay federal income tax, yet are american citizens. They also hold onto thier own territorial holidays which would be lost if they became subject to the federal holiday schedule.

not sure about the tax thing, i'll research.

edit: from Wikipedia. Puerto Rico is considered an Insular area. So are guam the marianas, and the virgin islands.

Well DC is in no way quiet about its desire for statehood or representation. PR is interesting and I'll talk about it below:

As for the others:


http://www.statehoodforguam.com/
http://www.frommers.com/destinations/virginislands/0092020043.html

Can't seem to find a movement for Samoa, but the receptionist at the American Samoa congressional delegate's office seemed to like the idea.

PR is interesting, as I said. There are two major political parties that have one issue, the "maintain status quo" party traditionally identifies with the Democrats and continues to do so, while the "statehood" party traditionally identifies with the Republicans, although this is starting to break down. The Independance party is on the fringe.

The most recent election on statehood was a 45-45-10 tossup or there abouts. A concerted media campaign in all the above areas could probably bring in a majority. A concerted Media campaign would actually be dirt cheap in most of these places.

The thing about Congress in DC is that it already runs the district, or more precisely excercises oversight on the municipal government. So my proposal might actually simplify things. The Council sends a group of bill recommendations, Congress gives them the up down, makes changes, and the DC reps have an on the floor Veto to stop anything the people don't want.

If we REALLY want to go nuts, there's a minority in the Phillipines that wants back into the US.

Wouldn't that party representation mean that once convinced of the need for statehood, most people would be aligned with the "statehood party" and thus the Republicans?

I've looked at that Malice, and while all the "commonwealth" forces are Democratic, the "statehood" party is split between Democrats and Republicans. So once statehood is achieved and the "issue" parties dissolve themselves, they'll recoalesce into about 60-40 Democrat.

DC isn't likely to ever get real representation in Congress as an independent entity because they can have it as part of Maryland in two seconds. All they have to do is unincorporate; they'd get allocated Congresscritter districts in the normal way, and Congress would become hostage to every whim of Annapolis. Of course, this means a whole raft of useless local government type politicians and bureaucrats would be out of work in those same two seconds; so don't hold your breath.

Man we Marylanders don't really think of DC as separate or as part of Maryland. It's just "DC". When I go there I don't think of myself as going out of state or anything.

Just pushing things back OT in a completely non-***holish kinda way.

Constructive/Destructive criticism plz.

I think it's more or less been said, DL. The territories are very unlikely to ask to join, since it would cost everyone in them money for very little real gain. As for DC, so long as it can go home to Maryland, it's not going to get much by way of representation on the Hill.

And in passing, you forgot that it would take a super majority in the Senate to approve of the idea; because they'd need enough Senators in favor to invoke cloture.

Sorry about the pissiness, Were, must just be that time of the month for me.

Well, OK, the loss in taxation by the territories would be bad, but they could also get some more Pork rolling their way.

I hadn't forgotten about the fillibuster, but assumed it would not neccessarily be an issue. I honestly haven't heard of Senators vehemently opposing the admission of new states since before the Civil War, except maybe for Utah.

As for the Maryland and lose Congressional control/municipal administration problem, I honestly don't understand the objection. Obviously the feds can just retrocede the district, but the scenario I painted allows all the participants to win. (Of course I had forgotten that Maryland still has a claim on the area and it could thus be construed as a violation of Article IV Section 3 "no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state". Of course, that would mean WV has to go back in with VA.)

The Civil War kind of pressed the bounds of Constitutionality back a ways...

As for objecting to statehood; if you check into it, you'll find that both Alaska and Hawaii had bitter opponents to admission. Some were motivated by a desire to keep oppressing the natives, who didn't have the full rights of citizens (like protection under labor laws, which the fruit companies did not want Hawaians to have); others simply calculated that they'd vote wrong.

Honestly. Most people who live in Fairfax County, in Virginia, usually say they "live in DC" when they meet people in other states.

All the Puerto Ricans I've met are very Americanized, but don't indentify themselves as "Americans". I think it'd be hard to get them to change that mentality.

A Conservative candidate in our federal election near where I live once said angrily that "the facts don't matter."

I'd like to ask why you still have colonies.