Which territories/districts should we turn into states once we get the opportunity?

[jorgevlorgan]

18 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Just DC
	1 (6%)
	Just DC and PR
	11 (61%)
	Just DC PR and USVI
	0 (0%)
	DC, PR , GU and USVI and AS
	3 (17%)
	Just PR
	0 (0%)
	Just USVI
	0 (0%)
	Just GU
	0 (0%)
	Some other combination
	3 (17%)
	None.
	0 (0%)
	Just AS
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[RandySF]

1. I don't see American Samoa.

[hlthe2b]

2. AS

[jorgevlorgan]

4. I only added it now

[jorgevlorgan]

3. Thanks!! Just added it to the one that I wanted to have all of them on.

Hopefully peoples' votes are still accurate. Did I miss any others?

[BainsBane]

5. Whether a territory becomes a state

also depends on the will of the residents of that territory. I don't think Puerto Ricans are clamoring for statehood. I know that many want independence.

Many in the Polynesian and Micronesian territories still consider themselves independent and may not want to be part of the US. Even in Hawaii, native Hawaiians don't accept statehood--their colonial conquest--as legitimate.

This is about more than getting additional Democratic seats in the Senate. It means grappling with colonialism, both in the past and present.

[jorgevlorgan]

10. PR has been fighting for statehood for decades and have went through the entire process

The only thing left for them is for congress and the president to approve at this point. Making PR a state would be about as quick a process as DC. I dont know about the other territories I named, though.

[grantcart]

24. Not true. There is no Puerto Rican consensus for statehood, not even a majority.

Opinion polls have for decades showed a 50/50 divide.

There have been three plebiscites and all three had exactly the same number of votes for statehood among the ballots cast: 46%

1993. 46.3
1998 46 t
2012 46.3

The reality is there would be little for them to gain from statehood and a great deal to lose.

There would be a great deal of pressure to replace Spanish with English as the official language and they would lose a great deal of control and autonomy as a state.

They have a lot more power to restrict main landers from moving in than any state has, and more power to resist DOD demands

Talk about gentrification.

They look at how Hawaii has been taken over by main landers and have remained split down the middle about taking the final and irreversible step to statehood.

[Statistical]

26. The US has no official language. That is a common misconception.

[grantcart]

28. Its not about the official language, used in contracts but the freedom to use Spanish as the primary

language.

Name a state where Spanish is allowed to be the primary language of instruction in all levels of education and English is the second language.

Not wanting to see further erosion to its culture and language PR has consistently resisted a majority vote for statehood:

https://theconversation.com/puerto-rico-votes-on-statehood-fifth-times-the-charm-75975

In Puerto Rico, the local legislature has conducted four nonbinding status plebiscites. In 1967, Puerto Ricans, who were already U.S. citizens, voted to keep their territorial autonomy (60 percent), rejecting the statehood (39 percent) and independence (less than 1 percent) options.

In a second plebiscite held in 1993, Puerto Ricans again affirmed the status quo (49 percent) over statehood (46 percent) and independence (4 percent).

In a third plebiscite held in 1998, the Popular Democratic Party organized a boycott of the plebiscite. With the support of the Puerto Rican Supreme Court, the commonwealth party was able to amend the ballot to add a “none of the above” option. As a result, 50 percent of voters chose “none of the above” in protest. Only 47 percent of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood and 2.5 percent for independence.

In 2012, the Puerto Rican legislature conducted a fourth plebiscite. It was divided into two questions, which some people argue intentionally diluted support for territorial autonomy.

The first question asked whether Puerto Rico should maintain its commonwealth or territorial status. A majority of Puerto Ricans (54 percent) voted no.

The second question gave Puerto Ricans a choice among several status options, including statehood, a sovereign free associated republic and independence, but excluded the status quo. This exclusion prompted upwards of 500,000 voters to simply skip this question on the ballot as a form of protest. The majority (61 percent) of Puerto Ricans who voted on the second question picked statehood. However, if you include the voters who skipped the question, the percentage of those who chose this option drops to only 45 percen

Over the past 4 decades approval for statehood has run about 60% of US population but only about 50% of PR.

[jorgevlorgan]

40. Not true. 2017: 97%

97%

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/us/puerto-ricans-vote-on-the-question-of-statehood.amp.html

With nearly all of the precincts reporting, 97 percent of the ballots cast were in favor of statehood, a landslide critics said indicated that only statehood supporters had turned out to the polls. Opposition parties who prefer independence or remaining a territory boycotted the special election, which they considered rigged in favor of statehood.

[grantcart]

43. In PR statehood ballot questions are framed or raised to help partisan turnout

In this highly discredited ballot there was a massive and successful boycott and only 22% voted.

The poor turnout for statehood actually set back the statehood campaign

The fact remains that in fair ballots that reflect the PR electorate no ballot initiative has received 50% of the votes cast.

The fact that the statehood faction resorted to trickery and avoids ballots that have a straight up or down for statehood exposes how divided they are.

Opinion polls over the last 4 decades have consistently showed higher support for PR statehood by Americans than P Ricans who remain evenly split.

[jorgevlorgan]

51. Interesting! Thanks for the information!

Now it is looking like there will actually be a binding vote this year, right? I guess we will see how it goes!

[sl8]

47. "... in a flawed election most voters sat out." n/t

[jorgevlorgan]

12. FWIW their last referendum for statehood got 97% approval

But due to a major boycott by the anti statehood folks, only had 20% turnout. Still, as soon as we pass a bill making them a state, I think it will happen.

[BainsBane]

18. shows what I know

Did they have referendums for independence as well? I thought they did.

[jorgevlorgan]

20. Yeah. In 1967

They voted between independence, being a commonwealth and statehood. 67% voted for commonwealth status

[grantcart]

27. Not accurate. Only 46% of the ballots cast were for statehood.

The 67% number is arrived at by not counting 500,000 ballots that were left blank because they didn't want any of the alternatives listed.

Only 46% of the votes cast were actually for statehood.

[jorgevlorgan]

32. I thought 67% was for commonwealth status not statehood

[grantcart]

42. No it was a two stage ballot

First question was do you want to change or keep the status quo.

55% wanted to change but that also included 2 non statehood options.

500,000 who wanted to keep Commonwealth status left it blank.

Out of the 1.8 million ballots cast 800,000 were for statehood.

[Statistical]

17. Some in PR want independence but some want statehood.

Any statehood process would involve a simple up or down binding and irrevocable vote. Obviously is PR votes it down it wouldn't be imposed on them but passage is at least plausible.

[jorgevlorgan]

21. 97% voted for statehood in a binding vote in 2017

I don't know if they would need to do another though if congress and the president pass a bill

On edit you said it would be irrevocable so I assume that's the case with this last vote?

[sl8]

48. Do you have a cite for that binding vote?

Looks like there was a non-binding referendum in 2017:

https://www.npr.org/2017/06/12/532646031/puerto-rico-votes-for-u-s-statehood-in-non-binding-referendum

Puerto Rico Votes For U.S. Statehood In Non-Binding Referendum
June 12, 20174:38 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered

[jorgevlorgan]

49. I stand corrected

Thanks and sorry!

It looks like they will have a binding vote this year. It looks like all eyes will be peeled on that!

[sl8]

50. No worries, thanks for the response. n/t

[sarisataka]

6. Greenland

[Olafjoy]

7. All of them

Every effing one. Join the party 🎉🎉🎉🎊🎊🎊EVERYONE. Let’s have Joe Biden ask Greenland if they want to join. How about Baja California? Si!! Canada? WE’RE BACK!! Hola Mexico!!! Hi NATO❤️❤️❤️❤️!!!

[jorgevlorgan]

8. ...

Let's see if they'll come on board!!

[Salviati]

11. For sure anything with a population greater than Wyoming.

So DC and PR. Everything else seems way to small. Smaller than Wyoming even if you put it all together.

[jorgevlorgan]

15. Wyoming had less than 100k at some, point right?

These places would be highly benefitted from statehood if they wanted it, so I think it would be fair to approve them.

[Salviati]

25. Sure, 120 years ago it did. All the states were smaller back then.

And making some territory with a population of 10,000 at the time a state would have been just as imbalanced then as making one with a population of 50,000 a state now. There are universities that have larger student populations.

We can absolutely do more to do better by these smaller territories, but making them states is not a reasonable action to take.

[jorgevlorgan]

37. why can't we just adopt the wyoming rule?

Make every state's representation based on that of the smallest populated state. That way we can include these states who for all practical reasons deserve it -if they want it, and we don't have to throw off any crazy balance. And maybe we can reform the whole senate attribution by state anyways since it is completely undemocratic to begin with!

[Salviati]

38. Because these are so small that the scale would just be untenable.

California has 40 million residents. American Samoa has 55 thousand. If you give American Samoa 1 representative, then California needs 727. The House would have to have nearly six thousand members. And that's not even accounting for how unfair Senate representation would be. I mean it's grossly unfair now, but are you going to give 55,000 people the same senate representation as 40 million?

If you're going to reform the Senate, then that's going to require a Constitutional overhaul. Good luck with that.

In terms of low hanging fruit that we should easily be able to sell as a way to make our government more fair, US territories that are larger than Wyoming should be made states if they want it. That can be done without drastically overhauling our whole system of government.

[Statistical]

13. PR and DC have populations larger than some states and they have indicated support for becoming ...

states in the past. Any legislation to open a territory to statehood should involve one local binding up or down vote by the population. DC is pretty certain on that. PR less so but there is at least significant interests.

If there were 52 states, PR would be 38th, DC would be 50th (ahead of Wyoming and Vermont).

The rest of the US territories are tiny and have expressed no interest in statehood. I don't think they are realistic.

[Silent3]

14. And merge the Dakotas...

...while we're at it.

[jorgevlorgan]

16. ..

[TwilightZone]

19. That ain't happening.

Just ask anyone in North or South Dakota. One would think they're different worlds.

[jorgevlorgan]

22. ..

[Silent3]

29. Who says they get a choice?

Too many US Senators for too few people.

This must be fixed.

Sorry, deal with it!

[Statistical]

30. Um the Constitution?

[Silent3]

31. Like THAT old thing means anything anymore!

Get with the program!

[jorgevlorgan]

34. Another option which would be more feasible would be something like the Wyoming rule

Base all representation off of the population of the smallest state, and attribute senators based on population. Or something like that.

[roamer65]

46. THIS.

[Xolodno]

23. I've heard one solution for DC....

...was to have Maryland annex back the residential neighborhoods in DC. Of course Republicans won't like that either as it means more Representatives in the House. And then here is the other shoe to drop, who does law enforcement in the Federal area? Code enforcement of commercial areas, etc. It becomes a really nasty mess.

[jorgevlorgan]

33. Yeah I think just making dc a state and the rest of the territories willing

Would be the best bet.


At this point in our political discourse, we are way past any deal. If we can get the votes it just needs to happen. A deal could've been feasible 10 years ago, but now Republicans have thrown away any good faith to bargain with on absolutely anything.

[Xolodno]

35. It started with Newt Gingrich.

Prior to him, the Speaker and President would often sit down and negotiate. Republican and Democratic Representatives and Senators would sound like ruthless enemies on the floor. After Five O'clock, they were at the watering hole and discussing where they could compromise....and boom, get legislation passed.

Newt came in, and for the House, forbade all of that. They couldn't even work out at the gym together. He looked at compromise as weakness...Democrats accommodated figuring this was just a temporary phase, and Glass Steagall was repealed, disallowed student loans from being discharged in bankruptcy and gave the lenders enforcement powers the mob would be envious of, etc. Oh and, it wasn't just a phase, it was a permanent direction that has landed us dumb ass 45.

[jorgevlorgan]

36. As long as they know that the no compromise policy started with them..

Oh who am I kidding, of course they'll blame the Democrats!

And I won't give a flying F!@#

[radius777]

39. Yes to PR and DC statehood, also split CA into 4 states.

Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 so we can expand Congress beyond 435 members.

The system as currently constructed is taxation without representation, where a rural retrograde minority dictates the national agenda.

[Buckeyeblue]

41. It's the big western states with low population that is the problem

As we've discussed on here many times it causes the will of the minority to be exercised over the will of the majority.

[roamer65]

45. That would be up to California to decide.

I think the option of California independence should also be available to them if you are going to try to break up the state.

Since there is no constitutional language that prevents secession, it IS a power left to the state itself. Ultimately this scenario would go to the SC.

[roamer65]

44. Statehood referenda in DC and PR, Guam-NMI.

That should be the first step.

[jorgevlorgan]

53. I think we can vote them in as states pending a referndum

And then once they finally choose to join in a binding vote, they would become states. No?

[roamer65]

54. Not sure.

[crickets]

52. Statehood for DC. As for the territories, any that wish to join. nt