Now that democrats have control of both the house and senate, is there a decent chance of Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. becoming states?

Both will reliably send democrats to congress. This would be very beneficial to democrats, as their house majority has shrunk and the senate is a 50-50 split. Statehood would help them bolster their majorities in both chamber of congress, especially the senate.

I don't think Puerto Rico wants to be a state.

johns624 wrote:

I don't think Puerto Rico wants to be a state.

Where exactly did you hear that?

johns624 wrote:

I don't think Puerto Rico wants to be a state.

They literally just voted in favor of statehood, 52% to 47%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puer ... referendum

acavpics wrote:

Now that democrats have control of both the house and senate, is there a decent chance of Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. becoming states?

Both will reliably send democrats to congress. This would be very beneficial to democrats, as their house majority has shrunk and the senate is a 50-50 split. Statehood would help them bolster their majorities in both chamber of congress, especially the senate.

Don't forget they don't have total control. Sen Manchin will be a NO vote on any radical stuff. I think we should worry about jump starting the economy instead of stacking stuff and I think Sen Manchin will agree.

NIKV69 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Now that democrats have control of both the house and senate, is there a decent chance of Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. becoming states?

Both will reliably send democrats to congress. This would be very beneficial to democrats, as their house majority has shrunk and the senate is a 50-50 split. Statehood would help them bolster their majorities in both chamber of congress, especially the senate.

Don't forget they don't have total control. Sen Manchin will be a NO vote on any radical stuff. I think we should worry about jump starting the economy instead of stacking stuff and I think Sen Manchin will agree.

Okay, then what about moderate republicans like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney?

acavpics wrote:

Now that democrats have control of both the house and senate, is there a decent chance of Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. becoming states?

Both will reliably send democrats to congress. This would be very beneficial to democrats, as their house majority has shrunk and the senate is a 50-50 split. Statehood would help them bolster their majorities in both chamber of congress, especially the senate.

Probably unlikely until at least 2022. The Democrats have de-facto control of the Senate due to them holding the Presidency/Vice-Presidency and since the Senate is 50-50 split. For something like PR and DC statehood to pass it takes 60 votes to allow the measure to be voted on. Obviously they don't have enough to do that. The other option would be to end the filibuster which would end the 60 vote threshold rule. But Manchin has gone on record saying he doesn't support this and they would need every single Democrat (or a Republican(s)) to get enough votes.

Now that doesn't mean if push comes to shove Manchin won't. There's also the possibility that he's gone on record saying he doesn't support things like PR and DC statehood or packing the court over the last couple of months as a strategic move because those would have been losing arguments in Georgia.

Still, Biden doesn't seem like the type who would devote too much energy to supporting something like this given the circumstances and the partisanship. Maybe with a real Senate majority that would be a different story.

acavpics wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Now that democrats have control of both the house and senate, is there a decent chance of Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. becoming states?

Both will reliably send democrats to congress. This would be very beneficial to democrats, as their house majority has shrunk and the senate is a 50-50 split. Statehood would help them bolster their majorities in both chamber of congress, especially the senate.

Don't forget they don't have total control. Sen Manchin will be a NO vote on any radical stuff. I think we should worry about jump starting the economy instead of stacking stuff and I think Sen Manchin will agree.

Okay, then what about moderate republicans like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney?

These might be moderate Republicans, it doesn't mean they would put targets on their backs to vote for something that would only be detrimental to their party. Looking at the future, it's already going to be hard for Republicans to win Presidential elections, why would they add more electoral votes which would go to their opponents?

NYCVIE wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Now that democrats have control of both the house and senate, is there a decent chance of Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. becoming states?

Both will reliably send democrats to congress. This would be very beneficial to democrats, as their house majority has shrunk and the senate is a 50-50 split. Statehood would help them bolster their majorities in both chamber of congress, especially the senate.

Probably unlikely until at least 2022. The Democrats have de-facto control of the Senate due to them holding the Presidency/Vice-Presidency and since the Senate is 50-50 split. For something like PR and DC statehood to pass it takes 60 votes to allow the measure to be voted on. Obviously they don't have enough to do that. The other option would be to end the filibuster which would end the 60 vote threshold rule. But Manchin has gone on record saying he doesn't support this and they would need every single Democrat (or a Republican(s)) to get enough votes.

Even if Manchin refuses, is there a chance that some moderate republican like Romney or Collins would vote for statehood?

NYCVIE wrote:

Now that doesn't mean if push comes to shove Manchin won't. There's also the possibility that he's gone on record saying he doesn't support things like PR and DC statehood or packing the court over the last couple of months as a strategic move because those would have been losing arguments in Georgia.

Still, Biden doesn't seem like the type who would devote too much energy to supporting something like this given the circumstances and the partisanship. Maybe with a real Senate majority that would be a different story.

That's the issue though. Biden needs to realize that he cannot afford any major screw ups regarding his party. The 2022 elections will be here before we know it. And as it is, the president's party is usually not favored during midterms. So he really needs to do everything possible to beef up a democratic majority in both chambers. Otherwise, the GOP will gain control of congress next year. They will block all his legislation, and it will be an Obama presidency all over again.

Trust me, that is the last thing we need now.

NYCVIE wrote:

acavpics wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Don't forget they don't have total control. Sen Manchin will be a NO vote on any radical stuff. I think we should worry about jump starting the economy instead of stacking stuff and I think Sen Manchin will agree.

Okay, then what about moderate republicans like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney?

These might be moderate Republicans, it doesn't mean they would put targets on their backs to vote for something that would only be detrimental to their party. Looking at the future, it's already going to be hard for Republicans to win Presidential elections, why would they add more electoral votes which would go to their opponents?

The US wants to keep PR in, right ? The current status is unsustainable. Now that people there want statehood, if the only reason it doesn't happen is because these citizens might not vote the right way, it's just another proof that the US electoral system is broken.

Puerto Ricans have died for the United States in countless wars.
They should absolutely have the rights and privileges that statehood brings.

acavpics wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Now that democrats have control of both the house and senate, is there a decent chance of Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. becoming states?

Both will reliably send democrats to congress. This would be very beneficial to democrats, as their house majority has shrunk and the senate is a 50-50 split. Statehood would help them bolster their majorities in both chamber of congress, especially the senate.

Don't forget they don't have total control. Sen Manchin will be a NO vote on any radical stuff. I think we should worry about jump starting the economy instead of stacking stuff and I think Sen Manchin will agree.

Okay, then what about moderate republicans like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney?

What about them? Biden gets inaugurated soon lets see the legislation and how the Dems will handle the "Squad" the above Senators you have named are from radical.

Republicans will fight like hell to prevent statehood for PR and DC as would likely mean 4 Democratic Party Senators and 2-3 Democrat House members so a long term likelihood of Democratic party control in the Congress, especially the Senate. DC is the only national capital in a Representative democracy that has 'taxation without representation' as DC's license plates have stated for decades. PR is millions of people in a bastard child of a US Territory, part of the spoils of the Spanish American War of 1898 from Spain. Perhaps a state of PR should also include the US Virgin Islands, purchased from Denmark in the early 20th Century. and with a similar bastard status. One problem with PR will be the huge debts borrowings and massive infrastructure needs even beyond the damage of Hurricane Maria.

I don't favor statehood for DC. If anything, they should revert to being residents of Maryland for the purposes of voting. The Virginia portion of DC was ceded back to Virginia in the mid-19th century.

acavpics wrote:

Now that democrats have control of both the house and senate, is there a decent chance of Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. becoming states?

Both will reliably send democrats to congress. This would be very beneficial to democrats, as their house majority has shrunk and the senate is a 50-50 split. Statehood would help them bolster their majorities in both chamber of congress, especially the senate.

I dont think PR will reliably send Dems to senate. More likely to be Dem yes, but I wont go as far as to say reliable.
I am not sure about what it takes to become a state and how life will change for those people so I leave it up to them.

NIKV69 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Now that democrats have control of both the house and senate, is there a decent chance of Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. becoming states?

Both will reliably send democrats to congress. This would be very beneficial to democrats, as their house majority has shrunk and the senate is a 50-50 split. Statehood would help them bolster their majorities in both chamber of congress, especially the senate.

Don't forget they don't have total control. Sen Manchin will be a NO vote on any radical stuff. I think we should worry about jump starting the economy instead of stacking stuff and I think Sen Manchin will agree.

Correct about Manchin but now all of a sudden we shouldnt be stacking stuff. After the Republicans did the exact same for the past 4 years. SMH

NIKV69 wrote:

acavpics wrote:

Now that democrats have control of both the house and senate, is there a decent chance of Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. becoming states?

Both will reliably send democrats to congress. This would be very beneficial to democrats, as their house majority has shrunk and the senate is a 50-50 split. Statehood would help them bolster their majorities in both chamber of congress, especially the senate.

Don't forget they don't have total control. Sen Manchin will be a NO vote on any radical stuff. I think we should worry about jump starting the economy instead of stacking stuff and I think Sen Manchin will agree.

I don't find PR statehood to be radical considering it was democratically decided that they wanted it.

I am due to visit FLA leave and later on the same trip I will spend time in PR. Will this affect me as a tourist.

I think if you are goi9ng to consider the Commonwealth of PR for statehood, you would be also obliged to look at Guam. In fact, Guam could be considered even more important than PR as it is a strategic asset the US has in the SW pacific.

I just don't understand why Senator Manchin would be against this. Sure, he is a conservative democrat (DINO) from deep red West Virginia. But would voting for statehood for PR and DC hurt his chances of reelection?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have guessed that people in West V. don't really care about what's happening in Puerto Rico or D.C.

maverick4002 wrote:

I dont think PR will reliably send Dems to senate. More likely to be Dem yes, but I wont go as far as to say reliable.
I am not sure about what it takes to become a state and how life will change for those people so I leave it up to them.

Unless their republican candidate is a Charlie Baker-style RINO, I think Puerto Rican's would almost certainly send Democrats to congress.
Even in Florida, where Trump won the majority of Latino votes, only 30% of Puerto Ricans voted for Trump.

acavpics wrote:

I just don't understand why Senator Manchin would be against this. Sure, he is a conservative democrat (DINO) from deep red West Virginia. But would voting for statehood for PR and DC hurt his chances of reelection?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have guessed that people in West V. don't really care about what's happening in Puerto Rico or D.C.

Based on their voting habits, the people of West Virginia don't even care about what happens in West Virginia.

I think the more relevant question to ask is why not make them a state? Why did Hawaii, Alaska, or anyone else for that matter get a shot at statehood, but for some reason once we hit 50, it all stopped?

Plus I think a new flag would look neat

In Muriel Bowser’s (mayor of Washington DC) press conference going on as I type this, passing statehood for DC was literally the first bullet point she presented.

Puerto Rico needs to be a state. Donald Trump's handling of Puerto Rico and Maria is top on the list of reasons they need representation.

D.C needs to be a state, or merged with Maryland, with Federal control over federal offices

flyingclrs727 wrote:

I don't favor statehood for DC. If anything, they should revert to being residents of Maryland for the purposes of voting. The Virginia portion of DC was ceded back to Virginia in the mid-19th century.

I think that's a good solution. I don't think our nation's capital should be given special treatment, which would happen if it became a state. Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI, by all means go for it.

johnboy wrote:

In Muriel Bowser’s (mayor of Washington DC) press conference going on as I type this, passing statehood for DC was literally the first bullet point she presented.

Yes since she becomes a Senator and the hill gets two far left Senators. Not likely to happen since this is the same as court packing and Manchin will be a No vote.

NIKV69 wrote:

johnboy wrote:

In Muriel Bowser’s (mayor of Washington DC) press conference going on as I type this, passing statehood for DC was literally the first bullet point she presented.

Yes since she becomes a Senator and the hill gets two far left Senators. Not likely to happen since this is the same as court packing and Manchin will be a No vote.

Can you get Manchin's nuts out of your mouth? You have said this about 100 times on this forum without providing any substantial proof for how he actually feels on each individual issue. Yes, we know he is a Blue Dog Dem, but lots of Blue Dogs have signed on to liberal policies on the occasion. You don't know shit, so just stop.

ltbewr wrote:

Republicans will fight like hell to prevent statehood for PR and DC as would likely mean 4 Democratic Party Senators and 2-3 Democrat House members so a long term likelihood of Democratic party control in the Congress, especially the Senate.

If there's one thing Congress has pretty much missed all the time is predicting how territories will vote once they achieve statehood. When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, they were admitted as a pair because they thought Alaska would be Democratic and Hawaii would be Republican. That's flipped. The same thing happened when the Dakotas, Montana, and Washington were admitted: the Dakotas were thought to be Republican (which is why the territory was split) while Montana and Washington were thought to be Democrat and were admitted around the same time.

I keep insisting: don't count on PR being as Democrat as DC. Our Resident Commissioner (the House rep from PR) is a Republican. The previous governor was affiliated with the Republicans. The politics back home are not driven by Democrat vs Republican. The current shadow representatives and senators are equally split (1R-1D, 2R-2D-1I). Should PR achieve statehood, it would be entitled to 4 House seats, and the seats will likely be 1D-3R...the island is a lot like the South: socially conservative. It only takes Republicans to go out, say "praise the Lord" and that Democrats want to turn the island into a socialist haven like Cuba, and they'll get the vote. Only the San Juan metro area could be seen as the district where Democrats can remain competitive, and odds are all 6 folks will be conservatives (think anti-Roe v Wade, prayer in schools, "gays don't have the same rights" conservative).

I speak from experience (having been born and raised on the island for 24 years).

ltbewr wrote:

Perhaps a state of PR should also include the US Virgin Islands, purchased from Denmark in the early 20th Century. and with a similar bastard status.

Sure...merge a Spanish speaking, Hispanic majority territory with an English speaking, Black majority territory, with PR's population being approximately 30 times larger than the VI...exactly how is that a good idea?

flyingclrs727 wrote:

If anything, they should revert to being residents of Maryland for the purposes of voting.

What you're essentially saying is that you're OK with DC residents voting...you just don't want them to have representation on their own.

The usual first line of argument against DC statehood is that the capital should remain free of local politics. The workaround is to declare the buildings around the National Mall as well as all other government buildings exclusive to the Federal Government (like how military bases and national parks are) while the remainder is converted into a state. When the workaround is mentioned, they insist it should be returned to Maryland...yet the workaround is still in place, except that now it's Maryland surrounding the National Mall and others rather than the new state.

So saying that you want DC to be merged back to Maryland effective goes against the premise of setting land aside for the capital, so whether Maryland absorbs it or a new state is created, the effect is the same: the official Federal territory is reduced to just the federal buildings. But now, those nearly 712k+ residents are represented through Maryland (with which they may have nothing in common) rather than on their own.

stl07 wrote:

it was democratically decided that they wanted it.

That referendum finally asked the right question: Should PR become a state?

However it was not sanctioned by any federal entity so it carries no weight.

c933103 wrote:

I am not sure about the exact opinion but I think a number of people in the US generally see PR as a burden and want it to go as evidenced by Trump's response to it when PR was hit by a major hurricane some years ago.

Yeah but when it comes to it countries rarely let go of territories unless they have no choice.

VMCA787 wrote:

I think if you are goi9ng to consider the Commonwealth of PR for statehood, you would be also obliged to look at Guam. In fact, Guam could be considered even more important than PR as it is a strategic asset the US has in the SW pacific.

Except Guam has 20 times less people than PR.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I keep insisting: don't count on PR being as Democrat as DC. Our Resident Commissioner (the House rep from PR) is a Republican. The previous governor was affiliated with the Republicans. The politics back home are not driven by Democrat vs Republican. The current shadow representatives and senators are equally split (1R-1D, 2R-2D-1I). Should PR achieve statehood, it would be entitled to 4 House seats, and the seats will likely be 1D-3R...the island is a lot like the South: socially conservative. It only takes Republicans to go out, say "praise the Lord" and that Democrats want to turn the island into a socialist haven like Cuba, and they'll get the vote. Only the San Juan metro area could be seen as the district where Democrats can remain competitive, and odds are all 6 folks will be conservatives (think anti-Roe v Wade, prayer in schools, "gays don't have the same rights" conservative).

I speak from experience (having been born and raised on the island for 24 years).

.

Well then, screw PR statehood. Let's focus on D.C.
Would Guam reliably send liberals to congress?

acavpics wrote:

Well then, screw PR statehood. Let's focus on D.C.
Would Guam reliably send liberals to congress?

I think there is a good argument for PR/DC statehood that does not apply to Guam. Like DC, Puerto Rico does send a non-voting representative to the House to at least sit on committees (?). I don't think Guam or American Samoa do that.

Puerto Rico's economy is far more dependent on mainland USA than Guam's is. All the pharmaceuticals and banks that have set up shop to take advantage of lower taxes have been messing with the island's GDP and making the island dependent on the mainland. Not to mention goods that are sent back and forth between the two. Guam does not have nearly the same economic argument.

There's also the geographic issue...GUM is much closer to Japan and has more economic ties with that nation than it does with mainland US. You could also make the same argument with the Philippines.

FGITD wrote:

acavpics wrote:

I just don't understand why Senator Manchin would be against this. Sure, he is a conservative democrat (DINO) from deep red West Virginia. But would voting for statehood for PR and DC hurt his chances of reelection?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have guessed that people in West V. don't really care about what's happening in Puerto Rico or D.C.

Based on their voting habits, the people of West Virginia don't even care about what happens in West Virginia.

I think the more relevant question to ask is why not make them a state? Why did Hawaii, Alaska, or anyone else for that matter get a shot at statehood, but for some reason once we hit 50, it all stopped?

Plus I think a new flag would look neat

Hawaii shouldn't be a state, you stole it, it should be an independent nation.

acavpics wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

I keep insisting: don't count on PR being as Democrat as DC. Our Resident Commissioner (the House rep from PR) is a Republican. The previous governor was affiliated with the Republicans. The politics back home are not driven by Democrat vs Republican. The current shadow representatives and senators are equally split (1R-1D, 2R-2D-1I). Should PR achieve statehood, it would be entitled to 4 House seats, and the seats will likely be 1D-3R...the island is a lot like the South: socially conservative. It only takes Republicans to go out, say "praise the Lord" and that Democrats want to turn the island into a socialist haven like Cuba, and they'll get the vote. Only the San Juan metro area could be seen as the district where Democrats can remain competitive, and odds are all 6 folks will be conservatives (think anti-Roe v Wade, prayer in schools, "gays don't have the same rights" conservative).

I speak from experience (having been born and raised on the island for 24 years).

.

Well then, screw PR statehood. Let's focus on D.C.
Would Guam reliably send liberals to congress?

And that's the problem. This isn't about red vs blue, it is about representation.

Aesma wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

I think if you are goi9ng to consider the Commonwealth of PR for statehood, you would be also obliged to look at Guam. In fact, Guam could be considered even more important than PR as it is a strategic asset the US has in the SW pacific.

Except Guam has 20 times less people than PR.

And what does that have to do with representation? Is there a certain population threshold that needs to be fulfilled? Given the plans the US has for Guam, I would think it is in their best interest to become a state rather than continue under the commonwealth system.

maverick4002 wrote:

Correct about Manchin but now all of a sudden we shouldnt be stacking stuff. After the Republicans did the exact same for the past 4 years. SMH

Did I miss something? Didn't the Republicans just fill empty seats?

LittleFokker wrote:

Can you get Manchin's nuts out of your mouth? You have said this about 100 times on this forum without providing any substantial proof for how he actually feels on each individual issue. Yes, we know he is a Blue Dog Dem, but lots of Blue Dogs have signed on to liberal policies on the occasion. You don't know shit, so just stop.

I believe I had posted this source already but here it is again he is on record as a no vote on packing the Supreme court and getting rid of the filibuster, I would assume he would be no then on adding two senate seats from a far left place like DC since that is also packing, just the hill instead of the courts. He then goes on to add he won't be a rubber stamp on jacking up taxes to 39%. If you listen to him speak the whole video his words were pretty scathing against the squad and his party's plan to pass any fringe legislation they want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AqcSOxSmHE&t=358s

Oh and I am while I am at these quotes from him speak loudly and I hope the "squad" was listening. For they are going to be a bit surprised when they only have 49 votes and Chucky and Nancy don't know what to do when they need compromise. Going to be fun to watch.

"You run your life, you run your business from the middle, not the fringes"

"We have been tagged, if you have a D by your name you must be for all the crazy stuff, and I am not."

Boom.

NIKV69 wrote:

maverick4002 wrote:

Correct about Manchin but now all of a sudden we shouldnt be stacking stuff. After the Republicans did the exact same for the past 4 years. SMH

Did I miss something? Didn't the Republicans just fill empty seats?

LittleFokker wrote:

Can you get Manchin's nuts out of your mouth? You have said this about 100 times on this forum without providing any substantial proof for how he actually feels on each individual issue. Yes, we know he is a Blue Dog Dem, but lots of Blue Dogs have signed on to liberal policies on the occasion. You don't know shit, so just stop.

I believe I had posted this source already but here it is again he is on record as a no vote on packing the Supreme court and getting rid of the filibuster, I would assume he would be no then on adding two senate seats from a far left place like DC since that is also packing, just the hill instead of the courts. He then goes on to add he won't be a rubber stamp on jacking up taxes to 39%. If you listen to him speak the whole video his words were pretty scathing against the squad and his party's plan to pass any fringe legislation they want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AqcSOxSmHE&t=358s

Oh and I am while I am at these quotes from him speak loudly and I hope the "squad" was listening. For they are going to be a bit surprised when they only have 49 votes and Chucky and Nancy don't know what to do when they need compromise. Going to be fun to watch.

"You run your life, you run your business from the middle, not the fringes"

"We have been tagged, if you have a D by your name you must be for all the crazy stuff, and I am not."

Boom.

Please relax with the "far left"

Anyways, as I mentioned upthread there's definitely a non-zero chance that if push comes to shove Manchin would actually support statehood for two reasons:
a) It's really only been since November that Manchin has been out left and right saying he doesn't support the more Progressive agenda. But of course, there were two Senate seats in contention from what used to be a reliably Red state. So Manchin could have been playing smart politics by assuaging fears from more right leaning voters.
b) Voters in West Virginia probably don't give a damn about statehood for DC or Puerto Rico.

I'm not saying this is the likely scenario but it is possible that if these initiatives really were on the table that Manchin may not want to be the one that stands in the way and may vote to get rid of the filibuster. Just a POSSIBILITY. But I personally think we won't see statehood unless there's a real majority in 2022 for the Democrats.

Anyways, I'm not sure a valid rationale is there for not giving statehood to DC and PR (and whatever other territories) other than for political reasons for Republicans who are of the opinion that all these territories would be friendly to Democrats. What is the argument for denying these citizens full representation because the Republican party isn't able to put forth a competitive agenda for them?

NYCVIE wrote:

Please relax with the "far left"

Why? Members of the progressive part of the party have been front and center will pressure their party to push their legislation. You can't use them for great sound bytes on the 24 hour news cycle than pretend they don't exist.

NYCVIE wrote:

Anyways, as I mentioned upthread there's definitely a non-zero chance that if push comes to shove Manchin would actually support statehood for two reasons:
a) It's really only been since November that Manchin has been out left and right saying he doesn't support the more Progressive agenda. But of course, there were two Senate seats in contention from what used to be a reliably Red state. So Manchin could have been playing smart politics by assuaging fears from more right leaning voters.
b) Voters in West Virginia probably don't give a damn about statehood for DC or Puerto Rico.

I'm not saying this is the likely scenario but it is possible that if these initiatives really were on the table that Manchin may not want to be the one that stands in the way and may vote to get rid of the filibuster. Just a POSSIBILITY. But I personally think we won't see statehood unless there's a real majority in 2022 for the Democrats.

I think Manchin saw how the house played out in the election and realizes 2022 could be another 2010. Their majority is thin and the house seats in CA should sounds the alarm that if you try for 2 years to pass radical stuff you will be looking at another huge loss in the house and loss of majority. Manchin understands this. As for WV not caring about statehood I would think they may care if it adds two senate seats from a very progressive area.

Anyways, I'm not sure a valid rationale is there for not giving statehood to DC and PR (and whatever other territories) other than for political reasons for Republicans who are of the opinion that all these territories would be friendly to Democrats. What is the argument for denying these citizens full representation because the Republican party isn't able to put forth a competitive agenda for them?[/quote]

VMCA787 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

I think if you are goi9ng to consider the Commonwealth of PR for statehood, you would be also obliged to look at Guam. In fact, Guam could be considered even more important than PR as it is a strategic asset the US has in the SW pacific.

Except Guam has 20 times less people than PR.

And what does that have to do with representation? Is there a certain population threshold that needs to be fulfilled? Given the plans the US has for Guam, I would think it is in their best interest to become a state rather than continue under the commonwealth system.

It has to do that since you insist on not representing people equally already (1 vote not equal to 1 citizen), especially for the Senate, then these are things to take into account, and is indeed the argument mentioned throughout this thread against it : it would change the composition of the Senate.

By the way in my country the Senate is also made up to overrepresent rural/low population areas over cities, but it's much less damaging since the Senate has no way to block laws or to decide stuff like cabinet members or judges, it can only slow down laws.

Every French territory with a population is represented, even the Territorial Collectivity of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, with 6000 inhabitants, has 1 senator (out of 377) and 1 National Assembly member (out of 577).

Since 10 years ago French citizens living in other countries have representation too, there is a French National Assembly member for Canada+USA for example.

Aesma wrote:

It has to do that since you insist on not representing people equally already (1 vote not equal to 1 citizen), especially for the Senate, then these are things to take into account, and is indeed the argument mentioned throughout this thread against it : it would change the composition of the Senate.

By the way in my country the Senate is also made up to overrepresent rural/low population areas over cities, but it's much less damaging since the Senate has no way to block laws or to decide stuff like cabinet members or judges, it can only slow down laws.

Every French territory with a population is represented, even the Territorial Collectivity of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, with 6000 inhabitants, has 1 senator (out of 377) and 1 National Assembly member (out of 577).

Since 10 years ago French citizens living in other countries have representation too, there is a French National Assembly member for Canada+USA for example.

I think you are a little confused. Right now Guam has one US Senator who has no voting rights. No matter how large or small, a state would have two Senators, regardless of the population. So, there would be represented equally with two Senators with VOTING RIGHTS! The house of representatives is population-based, theoretically. As the number of members of the House of Representatives is fixed at 435 voting members, the addition of any Commonwealth would result in another state losing a representative. So, in this case, you have equal representation, theoretically! However, we have disparity within states as the result of gerrymandering. But that is a who different subject. So, while I appreciate the legislative session for France, it really has no bearing on the US system.

Reading here, it gives the impression that the US right is so far on the right that the US far left should be barely center-right by EU standards...

VMCA787 : I'm not confused. Giving full voting rights and powers (appointing judges, etc.) to states equally whether they have 10 inhabitants or 100 million is ridiculous and undemocratic.

Olddog : yeah wanting better healthcare, education and democracy is far left. Meanwhile half the GOP elected officials aOK for a coup is totally fine.

LittleFokker wrote:

I don't think Guam or American Samoa do that.

All territories send a non-voting delegate to the House, but PR's is special in that its delegate is the only member of the House that serves 4 years, being elected in presidential election years (a Resident Commissioner rather than "delegate" but the job is the same). They can all introduce bills and cosponsor bills and speak on the floor, but they cannot vote on it at any stage. When Democrats held Congress in 2007-2010, delegates were allowed to vote in the committees they served in. Republicans stripped them of that power as well when they took over.

LittleFokker wrote:

All the pharmaceuticals and banks that have set up shop to take advantage of lower taxes have been messing with the island's GDP and making the island dependent on the mainland.

Actually, Congress is to blame for that. During the 50s and beyond, tax credits were given for corporations to set up shop in the island and hire from the local population. In exchange, the companies would be exempt from paying taxes on whatever they generated from the island. It was section 936 of the tax code. It was repealed shortly after Republicans took over Congress in the 90s, with a 10 year phase out. While mismanagement from the local government is certainly a big factor as to why the island is in shambles, let's not pretend that Congress didn't play a role in this either.

If Congress is so concerned about recovery, perhaps it can offer the same benefits to the island so that its tax base is stabilized and allows the island to recover. Given that it's not a state yet, it does not have the ability to declare bankruptcy (hence why a board had to be established), yet it can also stand to gain from being a tax credit zone.

stl07 wrote:

And that's the problem. This isn't about red vs blue, it is about representation.

That being said, DC and PR have better claims for statehood than the other territories. DC just because they already pay federal taxes and their population is larger than 2 US states already; PR because its population is larger than 19 other states. Even if their first language is Spanish, they're still disenfranchised US citizens.

You COULD reform the system to where territories have a voting delegate in the House (not full representation, given that they're not states, but not the figurehead representative with nothing to do either) and/or award territories 3 EC votes each (the bare minimum) so that they're actually included in the political process. I don't think the founders intended on the country to have territories for decades without organizing them into states (DC being the exception, and even then, that was at a time when DC wasn't the booming metropolis it is today).

Aesma wrote:

VMCA787 : I'm not confused. Giving full voting rights and powers (appointing judges, etc.) to states equally whether they have 10 inhabitants or 100 million is ridiculous and undemocratic.

Think of the USA as being like the EU rather than France.

NIKV69 wrote:

johnboy wrote:

In Muriel Bowser’s (mayor of Washington DC) press conference going on as I type this, passing statehood for DC was literally the first bullet point she presented.

Yes since she becomes a Senator and the hill gets two far left Senators. Not likely to happen since this is the same as court packing and Manchin will be a No vote.

It's not court packing. It's giving citizens of the United State representation. It's a no because Republicans are anti democracy.

Aesma wrote:

VMCA787 : I'm not confused. Giving full voting rights and powers (appointing judges, etc.) to states equally whether they have 10 inhabitants or 100 million is ridiculous and undemocratic.

So, those people should not be represented, they should pay tax with no say in where the funds go? You've got to be kidding me!!! It is democratic and very sane, unlike your ideas! A government is going to come into their island, build bases, take land for those bases and the citizens don't have a say? Remind me not to visit your country if you ever get into politics!! (Unlikely)

VolvoBus wrote:

Aesma wrote:

VMCA787 : I'm not confused. Giving full voting rights and powers (appointing judges, etc.) to states equally whether they have 10 inhabitants or 100 million is ridiculous and undemocratic.

Think of the USA as being like the EU rather than France.

Well there is no EU senate. The EU parliament is elected proportionally (to population). Countries have a veto power but everyone agrees this is a problem and it's going to be changed at some point.