Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067 
|
Post by Toylyyev on Nov 10, 2020 3:56:48 GMT
Hadn't a scooby on that chap, but when i did reach page six hundred sixty six of the US election thread on the Atlas forum, (talkelections link) a held prejudice on the current Sawsnek and US doldrums morphed into a new shape genius.com/Sabaton-swedish-pagans-lyricsIf i had to pick one word to describe the UK ride of the last four years, it would be Holmgang. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 10, 2020 19:49:09 GMT
This is where the 'fight election fraud' donations are being rerouted to. The thread goes on to say he'll be serious about 2024 if the election is certified for Biden.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 11, 2020 10:37:07 GMT
In terms of redistricting it will be confirmed next month who gains and loses, but estimates are: TX +3, FL +2. Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon all +1. That gives Rep +7, Dem +3. Losing one: Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia. (The last 2 to be lost are tight between NY losing a second and California and Minnesota losing a seat but as they're all Dem held it makes no difference.) That gives Dem -7, Rep -3. Assuming this year ends 306-232 in Biden's favor, the new map will be 302-236. It would be the first time ever that California's representation has decreased, the first time since 1790 that Rhode Island has a single member, the first time that Florida has more representation than NY and the first time since 1990 that Montana has two members. Whilst it won't happen, it would be interesting if Congress raised their self imposed cap on representatives to, say, 440. |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Nov 11, 2020 15:23:18 GMT
They probably need another 50-100 reps. I would love to see them add more, just to annoy the 538 peeps.
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Nov 11, 2020 17:00:11 GMT
In terms of redistricting it will be confirmed next month who gains and loses, but estimates are: TX +3, FL +2. Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon all +1. That gives Rep +7, Dem +3. Losing one: Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia. (The last 2 to be lost are tight between NY losing a second and California and Minnesota losing a seat but as they're all Dem held it makes no difference.) That gives Dem -7, Rep -3. Assuming this year ends 306-232 in Biden's favor, the new map will be 302-236. It would be the first time ever that California's representation has decreased, the first time since 1790 that Rhode Island has a single member, the first time that Florida has more representation than NY and the first time since 1990 that Montana has two members. Whilst it won't happen, it would be interesting if Congress raised their self imposed cap on representatives to, say, 440. At the very least it would make more sense to add five more seats if Puerto Rico and District of Columbia ever acheive statehood rather than taking seats from other states. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 11, 2020 19:17:13 GMT
Whilst it won't happen, it would be interesting if Congress raised their self imposed cap on representatives to, say, 440. At the very least it would make more sense to add five more seats if Puerto Rico and District of Columbia ever acheive statehood rather than taking seats from other states. When states acceed to the union, they do add extra seats, then they redistrict back to 440 at the next census. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774
|
Post by john07 on Nov 11, 2020 19:57:21 GMT
Whilst it won't happen, it would be interesting if Congress raised their self imposed cap on representatives to, say, 440. At the very least it would make more sense to add five more seats if Puerto Rico and District of Columbia ever acheive statehood rather than taking seats from other states. I don't see the Republicans allowing statehood to DC or Puerto Rico any time soon. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 11, 2020 23:07:51 GMT
At the very least it would make more sense to add five more seats if Puerto Rico and District of Columbia ever acheive statehood rather than taking seats from other states. When states acceed to the union, they do add extra seats, then they redistrict back to 440 at the next census. When Alaska and Hawaii joined it went up to 437 and then dropped at the next election. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 11, 2020 23:58:01 GMT
At the very least it would make more sense to add five more seats if Puerto Rico and District of Columbia ever acheive statehood rather than taking seats from other states. I don't see the Republicans allowing statehood to DC or Puerto Rico any time soon. On that note, Puerto Rico had another referendum on statehood on the same day as the presidential election. 52 per cent in favour. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 12, 2020 0:16:41 GMT
1959-present.
The record previously was just under 47 years, between Arizona in February 1912 and Alaska in January 1959.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 12, 2020 0:55:53 GMT
about time they had another state then I think Virginia is the only state to have ever been subdivided but I think Texas has that consititutional right. IMO adding a state is less of a gerrymander than packing the SCOTUS. I cant think of a moral arguemtn against it if PR seeks to join. Maine was originally part of Massachusetts. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Nov 12, 2020 4:17:37 GMT
about time they had another state then I think Virginia is the only state to have ever been subdivided but I think Texas has that consititutional right. IMO adding a state is less of a gerrymander than packing the SCOTUS. I cant think of a moral arguemtn against it if PR seeks to join. I doubt the GOP controlled Senate would allow an extra seven electoral votes, two senators and a House delegation for the Democrats. Unless they added somewhere conservative, like Western Canada, to offset it. That isn't going to happen in the near to medium term though. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 12, 2020 10:23:20 GMT
While DC as a state would be a Democratic Party lock, it's not certain that Puerto Rico would be. Republicans, or their local affiliate the New Progressive Party, have done well there.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 12, 2020 10:34:16 GMT
When states acceed to the union, they do add extra seats, then they redistrict back to 440 at the next census. When Alaska and Hawaii joined it went up to 437 and then dropped at the next election. Yep, the cap is 435. Mismatch between brain and fingers. There was a little voice nagging away asking if that number was correct. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 12, 2020 10:46:51 GMT
Morally, what is the grounds for refusing statehood to a territory of over 3 million Americans? Who request it? That they will be a net deficit expensive nuisance. That they will vote the 'wrong' way and make gaining the house and senate more difficult. It has nothing at all to do with morality. There is no moral point here. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 12, 2020 12:54:25 GMT
Why is the number of House representatives set at 435 btw?
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Nov 12, 2020 13:11:47 GMT
about time they had another state then I think Virginia is the only state to have ever been subdivided but I think Texas has that consititutional right. IMO adding a state is less of a gerrymander than packing the SCOTUS. I cant think of a moral arguemtn against it if PR seeks to join. Maine was originally part of Massachusetts. And technically Georgia claimed much of what is now Alabama and Mississippi while Tennessee was part of North Carolina for a year from 1789-90 before becoming a Territory. Not quite the same as the other examples though. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Nov 12, 2020 14:13:57 GMT
Why is the number of House representatives set at 435 btw? To avoid ongoing arguments over whether the number should be increased (with states which had suffered relative population declines maintaining their representation) or remain the same, with such states losing representation to population growth areas. The key legislation was this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 |
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Nov 14, 2020 1:14:01 GMT
They probably need another 50-100 reps. I would love to see them add more, just to annoy the 538 peeps. Well if the United States embraced the Wyoming Rule (which would be the fairest way to decide how many House Seats each State should get), they would need to expand the House to 593 Seats. In other words an increase of 158 Seats (1) compared to present.
At the very least it would make more sense to add five more seats if Puerto Rico and District of Columbia ever acheive statehood rather than taking seats from other states. DC and Puerto Rico would be entitled to 6 House Seats collectively (under the Wyoming Rule), with DC getting 1 and Puerto Rico getting 5. I don't see the Republicans allowing statehood to DC or Puerto Rico any time soon. Hence why advocates for DC and PR Statehood need to campaign for the Democrats in the Georgia Senate Runoffs. Because winning those runoffs would provide their best ever chance of winning statehood. While DC as a state would be a Democratic Party lock, it's not certain that Puerto Rico would be. Republicans, or their local affiliate the New Progressive Party, have done well there. The Political Parties of Puerto Rico are defined more on their views on the status of Puerto Rico (similar to Taiwan funny enough) rather than on a left-centre-right basis, hence why all 3 parties contain Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Regardless here is what FiveThirtyEight has to say about the island's politics when it comes to Democrats & Republicans:
"It’s harder to gauge Puerto Rico’s partisan lean because its two major political parties are predominantly divided over the island’s political status — whether to seek statehood or remain a territory — rather than aligning with the Democrat vs. Republican divide on the mainland. For example, the island’s governor, Ricardo Rosello, and non-voting delegate in the U.S. House, Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, both belong to the pro-statehood New Progressive Party but separately identify as a Democrat and a Republican. Still, the island’s population is 99 percent Latino, and Latino voters tend to break strongly Democratic (aside from Cuban-Americans, who tend to split more evenly). Puerto Ricans on the mainland are heavily Democratic — a November 2018 poll found that they favored Democrats 70 percent to 27 percent in the midterm elections. And President Trump’s much–criticized response to Hurricane Maria, which decimated the island in 2017, probably didn’t help the GOP brand there."
- From the "Can Democrats Win The Senate By Adding States? It’s Been Done Before" Article (1)
Likewise I would also point out that if the Democrats manage to pass PR Statehood though Congress in the face of Republican Opposition, that might further shift the Island towards the Blue Column.
Why is the number of House representatives set at 435 btw?
You can thank Cynical Political Manoeuvring by the Republicans (back in the 1920s) for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by London Republic on Nov 14, 2020 3:41:16 GMT
I doubt the GOP controlled Senate would allow an extra seven electoral votes, two senators and a House delegation for the Democrats. Unless they added somewhere conservative, like Western Canada, to offset it. That isn't going to happen in the near to medium term though. Adding Western Canada (1) to the United States wouldn't be much of a counterbalance (for the GOP) to DC and Puerto Rico becoming States of the Union. Simply because:
*When it comes to Senate Elections: While the Democrats will (likely) gain 6 Seats from British Columbia, DC and Puerto Rico; the Republicans will only (likely) gain the 4 Seats from Alberta and Saskatchewan, while the 2 Manitoba Seats would be competitive between the Republicans and Democrats.
*When it comes to House Elections: Assuming the Wyoming Rule is appled; DC would have 1 Seat, Puerto Rico would have 5 Seats, British Columbia would have 9 Seats, Alberta would have 7 Seats, Saskatchewan would have 2 Seats and Manitoba would have 2 Seats.
As for who would benefit from these addtional seats; well:
- DC: Its certain that its sole seat will go to the Democrats.
- Puerto Rico: Its likely that all 5 of its Seats will go to the Democrats.
- British Columbia: Judging by the recent Election Results; I would estimate that 7 Seats would go to the Democrats while 2 Seats would go to the Republicans.
- Alberta: Its likely that all 7 of its Seats will go to the Republicans.
- Saskatchewan: Its likely that all 2 of its Seats will go to the Republicans.
- Manitoba: It's likely that 1 seat would go to the Democrats, while the other seat would likely go to the Republicans.
Thus meaning that 14 Seats will likely go to the Democrats while 12 will go to the Republicans.
*When it comes to Presidential Elections: Assuming the Wyoming Rule is appled; Puerto Rico would have 7 EVs, British Columbia would have 11 EVs, Alberta would have 9 EVs, Saskatchewan would have 4 EVs and Manitoba would have 4 EVs.
Thus meaning that the Democrats would gain the 18 EV's of British Columbia & Puerto Rico, the Republicans would gain the 13 EVs of Alberta & Saskatchewan and the 4 EVs of Manitoba would be competitive between the Republicans and Democrats.
So overall; even with the addition of the Conservative (for the most part) Western Canadian Provinces; the Democrats would make bigger gains (compared to the Republicans) in the Senate, in Presidential Elections and in the House.
(1) Or rather British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan & Manitoba (I would assume that the Northwest Territories, Nunavut & Yukon Territory would have to be incorporated into the United States as well should a Western Canada transfer to America occur. Should this occur, I would imagine that all 3 would become Organized & Incorporated Territories of the United States)
|
|
