[Javantea_]

This helps answer a serious argument I had on whether Puerto Rico and/or Washington D.C. should become states. Some people argued that the the flag could stay the same. I think the most clever answer would be to make a flag with a star randomly placed to annoy flag-obsessed nerds. More seriously, I think the reason that a 51st or 52nd state can't be added is that the urgency of the matter is lacking. Doing something about statehood would require it to be exceedingly popular and even then the odds are poor.

[kibwen]

For real, why would we want the flag to stay the same? The fact that the US flag is officially mutable while remaining iconic is an awesome property.

[cratermoon]

> think the reason that a 51st or 52nd state can't be added is that the urgency of the matter is lacking.

The reason for the resistance to statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. is because they both lean heavily Democratic, and the prospect of 2 or 4 more Democratic Senators is unacceptable to the Republicans.

[friend_and_foe]

I don't think that's the entirety of it. DC becoming a state is significantly more problematic than just the politics of it's residents, it's potentially unconstitutional. It makes more sense to cede the city outside the capitol to Maryland and Virginia and allow for representation that way (and what IMO should've been done instead of giving DC 3 electoral college votes via a constitutional amendment), and an amendment to make DC a state would require a lot of reorganizing, the clause providing for a 10 by 10 square mile federal district, the reasoning that the sovereignty of the united states can't be under jurisdiction of a state, it's just messy.

Puerto Rico, I think the political balance between parties is largely the prohibiting factor, you're right. But there are other issues, they are not compliant on a lot of requirements for statehood as per US law (congress has the power to regulate this with any legislation), and it seems the status quo in Puerto Rico is exactly what the more powerful political and financial interests there want.

[pyuser583]

> It makes more sense to cede the city outside the capitol to Maryland and Virginia …

I thought all of the land originally taken from Virginia had been returned in the 1800s.

Wouldn’t it just be returning it to Maryland?

[midoridensha]

Yes. DC used to be a square with the Potomac River running straight through it; the land on the Virginia side of the river was returned in the "retrocession" in the 1800s. Everything left is on the Maryland side now.

[mcv]

But wasn't Washington originally in Virginia? Did it move?

[midoridensha]

I'm sure there's a handy Wikipedia article about this, but in a nutshell, no: they wanted the capital to be independent of states, but no state wanted to just give up all that land. So they came up with the idea of both MD and VA contributing land on either side of the river. This land was also basically a swamp, so it wasn't terribly valuable. The original city was a perfect square, 10 miles on each side (not aligned NSEW, however), and there were boundary stones at the 4 corners and one stone every mile along the border. These stones are mostly still there, though some of them are on private property so are inaccessible.

Anyway, for whatever reasons I forget now, DC decided in the 1800s to give the VA side back to the state of VA. What's left is the part MD donated, which is why DC looks so odd on a map: 3 sides are straight (one of them being 10 miles long, the others roughly half), and the 4th side is just the river.

Also, just look at a map: the border between VA and MD is the Potomac River itself. For some strange reason, the King of England set the boundary between the two states to be at the shoreline on the VA side, so the river belongs to MD. So if you're standing on the shore on the VA side and walk into the river, you're now in the state of MD.

[cratermoon]

> they are not compliant on a lot of requirements for statehood as per US law (congress has the power to regulate this with any legislation)

Hmm, I wonder how those laws got to be that way. It's a mystery.

[friend_and_foe]

Say what you mean.

Puerto Rico has blatantly unconstitutional gun laws. It has a minimum wage under the federal minimum wage. The US congress requires all applicant territories for statehood have constitutions compliant with the US constitution (a problem for North Dakhota until 1997 funny enough), have laws requiring child support on the books and a whole host of other laws. Puerto Rico is compliant on some fronts and not on others.

[rob74]

The only thing that the U.S. constitution has to say about gun laws is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Which means Puerto Rico's gun laws are not in line with the current interpretation of this cryptic sentence prevalent in the 50 current states (as in more strict - what a scandal!), but saying they are unconstitutional is a bit of a stretch IMHO.

[midoridensha]

It IS unconstitutional, because the SCOTUS says so. Whatever their interpretation is, is the law and defines what's "constitutional". Yes, even when the Justices are a bunch of partisan hacks and their interpretation is BS. You may not like it, but that's the way the law works.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

Funnily enough, the second amendment isn't that cryptic. It says that, in order for the states to remain free, they need their own militia made up of the people, and that militia needs arms, thus the federal government shall make no laws inhibiting their ability to acquire said arms.

Ironically, the laws we have on the books are technically unconstitutional.

[friend_and_foe]

Even under more restrictive interpretations that were prevalent in times past, Puerto Rico doesn't qualify. Their gun laws are very similar to other Latin American countries. They require you to have a reason to get a gun, and a "may issue" policy which means they can just say no with no justification required. They don't often say yes, so de facto gun ownership in Puerto Rico is banned, the only people that get them are the politically connected and people who grease palms.

[alanbernstein]

That bit about North Dakota is interesting, and it really seems to undercut your argument here...

[friend_and_foe]

Yeah it is pretty interesting, I read about it a long time ago and having trouble with the search engines, but some kid found a discrepancy between the ND constitution and the US constitution, which was quickly amended and fixed in 2012 (not 1997 as I thought). Basically the ND constitution didn't require the governor to take an oath of allegiance to the US, which the US constitution requires all state constitutions to require officers of the state to do.

[mcv]

> The reason for the resistance to statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. is because they both lean heavily Democratic, and the prospect of 2 or 4 more Democratic Senators is unacceptable to the Republicans.

That's undoubtedly part of it, but I also get the impression that Puerto Rico itself isn't that eager to become a state. DC probably is and really does deserve better representation, but there are historical reasons for why it was made explicitly not a state. I think those reasons need to be revisited to see if they're actually still true (if they ever were).

[pyuser583]

In the past those partisan issues were dealt with by balancing incoming states — including breaking up existing ones,

There are plenty of conservative parts of liberal states that would love to succeed from their state.

Make Washington DC and East California states.

[kortilla]

Then why do so many Puerto Ricans not want to join as a state?

[cratermoon]

Not because they want to stay a US colony. Because they want to be independent.

[kortilla]

“ About 48 percent want Puerto Rico to become a state, 26 percent would rather remain a US territory, and 10 percent want full independence.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/11/15782544/p...

[madcaptenor]

I don't see why 9+8+9+8+9+8 wouldn't work for 51, or 7+6+7+6+7+6+7+6 for 52.

[midoridensha]

There's too many states as it is, and I think that's a good enough reason to deny any attempts at making new states until they fix the first issue.

Fixing it is easy: combine some of the existing small states, or break up other unpopulated states. For instance, Vermont and New Hampshire don't need to be separate states; they're too small. Just combine them, along with Maine, into a single state. Rhode Island is also much too small: combine it with Massachusetts. Eliminate New Jersey: give the northern half to NYC and make it a new state, and give the southern half to Pennsylvania (and perhaps make Philly a new state). Eliminate Wyoming: it only has 500k people. Break it into pieces and merge them with the surrounding states.j

DC by itself is much too small to be a state, both geographically and population-wise. Take the entire DC metro area and make it a single state instead. Perhaps combine it with Baltimore too and eliminate Maryland in the process (most of MD then just becomes new the DC state); give the western side of MD to WV, and the eastern shore part to Delaware.

Finally, there's no way DC should be called "DC" as a state, or have any mention of the genocidal conqueror Christopher Columbus. It needs a new name.

[mikem170]

On the other hand, it might be better to have many smaller states, perhaps the size of counties, which could better represent urban and rural areas separately.

Switzerland does this, having "cantons" about the size of U.S. counties, and these cantons hold more power in their system than states do in the U.S. These cantons, averaging a few hundred thousand people, handle citizenship and cultural issues, collect taxes, administer health care, run secondary schools, etc. If you have a problem in a construct this size the politicians are not so far away and inaccessible. Your fellow voters are nearby, and more like you.

I don't know that it is a good thing to put more people into larger groups, noticeably diluting their political representation. That causes a lot of friction, when large groups of people don't agree.

I imagine that most localities would rather have more representation, not less.

[midoridensha]

>On the other hand, it might be better to have many smaller states, perhaps the size of counties, which could better represent urban and rural areas separately.

Have you seen Star Wars: The Phantom Menace? What you're proposing is something that resembles the Galactic Senate from that movie. Are you going to have Congress hold sessions in a football stadium or something?

>Switzerland does this, having "cantons" about the size of U.S. counties

Switzerland is a tiny country with a small fraction of the US's population or geographic size. It's comparable to a single US State, so sure, having cantons the size of US counties makes sense. (And what kind of counties are you talking about anyway? This really doesn't mean much: on the east coast in a state like Virginia, the counties might only have 5000 people. In the western states, you can have a county like Maricopa County, Arizona with over 4 million.)

>I imagine that most localities would rather have more representation, not less.

At the national level? There is no example of this working anywhere, worldwide, for a sizeable country. (No, Switzerland is not a sizeable country.) The whole idea is completely unworkable. There's real-world limits to how large political divisions can be before they need to be grouped together into larger groups, which themselves have representatives in a larger body.

[mikem170]

> Have you seen Star Wars: The Phantom Menace?

I have not seen that movie. Heard it wasn't that good. I'm happy to hear about the relevant parts, if you want to describe them.

> Are you going to have Congress hold sessions in a football stadium or something?

I'd be ok with that. Not afraid to try something different. It used to be 1 federal representative per 30,000 people, communicating via horse-back. We've regressed to 1 representative per 500,000+ people, even though we now have instant communication. I don't see what the big deal is about counting more congressional votes.

I realize this would be a drastic change for those currently in power, those with money might not be able to afford to bribe so many more congress people, or so many more state representatives if we had more states.

Ideally a national congress so large, ruling over so many people, would not be running the entire country in minute detail, just coordinating on issues that need to be collectively dealt with, and where there is collective agreement.

> And what kind of counties are you talking about anyway?

Swiss cantons vary in size, like U.S. counties. The smallest canton in Switzerland has something like 20,000 people. The largest is home to Geneva. 26 cantons, about 8.5 million people total. I brought Swiss cantons up as a demonstration that smaller groups of people can run things for themselves just fine, doing more than U.S. states. They subdivide cantons into municipalities that function much like U.S. city/town governments.

> At the national level? There is no example of this working anywhere, worldwide, for a sizeable country.

Why do countries need to be sizeable? What would be wrong with smaller groups of people governing themselves and organizing into federations when they want or need to? What is sacred and desirable about the idea of large countries?

There's seems to a be a trend of wanting to consolidate into larger political units. I don't know that this serves the interest of the people. Sometimes it seems this is just a way to impose one-size-fits-all solutions across ever larger and more disparate groups of people.

> There's real-world limits to how large political divisions can be before they need to be grouped together into larger groups, which themselves have representatives in a larger body.

I agree that it is harder to get larger groups of people to agree. I don't know that the best answer is to force people into larger political units. That doesn't make disagreements go away.

There's a line of thinking that larger and larger political units are actually harmful, that they ultimately lead to authoritarianism and bullying behaviour, towards their own populations and others, and that the solution is to split into much smaller political units [0].

Countries that become too big become evil. History is full of such examples. The U.S., Russia, China, Japan, Germany, and the U.K have all taken advantage of their size and power to do things that are harmful to others, and those are just the largest examples over the last 100 years. Adolf Hitler as the ruler of Bavaria would not have been able to command forces that could kill millions of people, but Adolf Hitler the leader of Germany did. What benefit are larger states and countries, besides concentrating more power in one place, power that is so often misused?

Name me a sizeable country that has not suppressed large segments of its own population and other less powerful countries. Large political structures come with a lot of their own problems.

I realize this is a big topic, I tried above to present more detail behind what I was thinking. I'm not sure why you think it is wrong or a problem to have smaller political units that better represent people.

[0] Leopold Khor wrote about this, "The Breakdown of Nations", here's a good youtube summary, about 10 minutes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaszpQaNwAU

[midoridensha]

Basically, you live in a fantasy world. You mention Hitler, but someone like Hitler doesn't stop with Bavaria, he takes over everything around him, as we saw in the 1930s. Did you totally forget how both Austria and Germany were under control of the Nazis, and then they invaded and took over Poland, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, France, etc.? Then, the reason they lost the war was because the "evil" US was large enough to beat them militarily. If the US had been a bunch of small un-unified countries, that never would have happened. They would have been like pre-EU Europe: not sharing any common governance or military power and not having that much economic power because of a lack of a single market and currency.

So, in your world, all the free nations will be too small economically or militarily to really do much and won't be able to effectively unite, and then they'll be beaten into submission by China and Russia.

[mikem170]

> Basically, you live in a fantasy world.

Hoping to make the world a better place, via more democracy...

I objected to your original assertion that we should consolidate states in the U.S., because that would be less democratic, and I think we should go in the other direction. I assume more local government is better, because it is more responsive to the people. People revolt if when a government becomes too unresponsive. Also it's easier to corrupt a more centralized and far away government, a one-stop shop for the oligarchs. We've got enough of that as it is. I don't think theirs anything sacred about the status quo. We could do a lot better.

If the people in Vermont and Rhode Island want to merge, I'd be ok with that. I don't think they want to, though! If the people in eastern Oregon want their own state, or to join with Idaho, I'd be ok with that also.

I am still curious why you think less states in the U.S. would be better? Is there a reason you said that?

> but someone like Hitler doesn't stop with Bavaria, he takes over everything around him

Remember that Hitler didn't start as the ruler of Bavaria, he was able to become the leader of the entirety of Germany because Germany was already a large country. Also other large countries caused WW2 by leaving Germany trashed after WW1, a war which happened because a united (large) Germany was a threat to the other large nations of France, Russia, and the UK. Large countries caused those wars.

Prior to Germany uniting there were smaller wars in the area. Nobody said that small countries would never go to war, but they tend to so less often, and with less impact. Most people don't want to go to war, they end up forced into it.

Maybe this all goes back to kings who created these large countries to command more money and power? Hard to say stuff like that is in the interest of the people, especially considering how well many small countries have done for themselves.

> So, in your world, all the free nations will be too small economically or militarily to really do much and won't be able to effectively unite, and then they'll be beaten into submission by China and Russia.

Small countries confederate when they need to. They are aware of threats, they make alliances. They get caught off guard sometimes, just like big countries do. The U.S. entered the NATO alliance with other countries, we didn't have to merge them into ours.

There's no reason we can't make changes to be more democratic and still defend ourselves. China and Russia are not a threat to the United States if we have more states and give them more power. China and Russia are both large centralized countries that are disintegrating - the Soviet Union is gone, Russia is still declining, and China is headed in the same direction.

What do you suggest, we become a large dictatorship because that is the most efficient way to weaponize a nation, in order to best defend ourselves from hypothetical threats? Or do you think that everything is perfect in the U.S. at the moment, except for some pesky small state senators, and we should just plod along wondering if the next Jan 6 will be successful or not?