DC and PR Statehood

[yos9694]

Split CA and NY and you'll have 4 more republican senators.

Yup. I think pretty much most blue states are like that, because the densest populations are always just a few big cities (which is why blue states wouldnt split)

[yos9694]

I think what really needs to be said is that government representation is a misnomer at this point. Do 500 or so people really represent the interests of 350 million? Of course not. Maybe it made sense when the population was a few million 150+ years ago.

So if we're going to start making changes to give representation to a million or so people in DC  then we should do the same for every disenfranchised million

[zh cohen]

I think what really needs to be said is that government representation is a misnomer at this point. Do 500 or so people really represent the interests of 350 million? Of course not. Maybe it made sense when the population was a few million 150+ years ago.

So if we're going to start making changes to give representation to a million or so people in DC  then we should do the same for every disenfranchised million

Let's just make every congressional district into a state.

[PlatinumGuy]

You don't understand why laws should not be passed with the express intent of favoring one political party?

They are simply remedying an unfair advantage the other political party has.

[zh cohen]

They are simply remedying an unfair advantage the other political party has.

You don't change the rules in order to make it easier for one side to win. If you think the current Constitution is outdated, call a Constitutional convention and start over again.

[PlatinumGuy]

You don't change the rules in order to make it easier for one side to win. If you think the current Constitution is outdated, call a Constitutional convention and start over again.

Making DC a state isn't changing the rules any more than making Wyoming was. One party got an unfair advantage with micro states and the other party deserves the same.

[PlatinumGuy]

How are you getting around the filibuster?

The answer will likely be excluding state additions from the filibuster like judge confirmations were excluded.

[aygart]

Making DC a state isn't changing the rules any more than making Wyoming was. One party got an unfair advantage with micro states and the other party deserves the same.

Which party got an unfair advantage with Wyoming since it joined the union in 1890 and by how much?

[aygart]

They are simply remedying an unfair advantage the other political party has.

Ironically, it was mostly the current democrat majority Northeast states who were the ones pushing for equal representation per state.

[sguitarist18]

Making DC a state isn't changing the rules any more than making Wyoming was. One party got an unfair advantage with micro states and the other party deserves the same.

What were the motivations for making Wyoming a state? And at that point weren't Republicans the liberals?

[PlatinumGuy]

Which party got an unfair advantage with Wyoming since it joined the union in 1890 and by how much?

The diametric opposite of DC.

[aygart]

The diametric opposite of DC.

How so?

[CountValentine]

You don't change the rules in order to make it easier for one side to win.

Do you feel the same way about making it harder for one side to vote?

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/terispector/status/1385221864310513666

In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming—the largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/when-adding-new-states-helped-republicans/598243/#v=onepage&q&f=false

President Harrison was a Republican and favored statehood for Dakota. In fact, the Republican Party, which wanted more power in the U.S. Senate, put on pressure to divide Dakota into two states.

https://www.ndstudies.gov/gr4/early-settlement-north-dakota/section-6-statehood
(I don’t think this is disputed, it can be found on many sources)

[Dan]

Do you feel the same way about making it harder for one side to vote?

Can you explain how requiring a free state ID makes it harder for just one aide to vote?
Genuinely curious about the rationale.

[PlatinumGuy]

Can you explain how requiring a free state ID makes it harder for just one aide to vote?
Genuinely curious about the rationale.

If one side already has the ID and the other side doesn’t have an ID yet, requiring an ID obviously makes it harder for one side.

[CountValentine]

Can you explain how requiring a free state ID makes it harder for just one aide to vote?
Genuinely curious about the rationale.

I am asking a general question. Are you talking about Georgia?

[sguitarist18]

https://twitter.com/terispector/status/1385221864310513666
 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/when-adding-new-states-helped-republicans/598243/#v=onepage&q&f=false
 https://www.ndstudies.gov/gr4/early-settlement-north-dakota/section-6-statehood
(I don’t think this is disputed, it can be found on many sources)

We're all aware that politically/ideologically, the "Republicans" who are referred to in the 1800s are the equivalents of the Democrats today, right (i.e., they were the progressive, liberal party)?

[zh cohen]

If one side already has the ID and the other side doesn’t have an ID yet, requiring an ID obviously makes it harder for one side.

Which side doesn't have ID?

[zh cohen]

Do you feel the same way about making it harder for one side to vote?

Yes. If laws are put in place in order to make it harder for one side from voting it would be wrong (and illegal).