Puerto Rico - 51st State

51 states. Now we just need 6 more. Too bad Canada has too many Provinces, guess we wont be able to annex them. (Or we could just annex the 6 best provinces.)
 
Stargatedalek said:
and whatever happened to Guam, is it just under Obamas dictatorship or what?
Click to expand...
you should give guam to us so we can turn it into one big education facility for asylum seekers
 
or we Canadians could make it into a waterpark and get lots of money from American tourists
 
im sure the native population of guam would love that idea
 
Time Turner said:
Brock said:
51 states. Now we just need 6 more. Too bad Canada has too many Provinces, guess we wont be able to annex them. (Or we could just annex the 6 best provinces.)
Click to expand...
Wat.
Click to expand...
we have 12, you have 50, and were bigger (land wise) WHO has two many sections :P
 
Stargatedalek said:
Time Turner said:
Brock said:
51 states. Now we just need 6 more. Too bad Canada has too many Provinces, guess we wont be able to annex them. (Or we could just annex the 6 best provinces.)
Click to expand...
Wat.
Click to expand...
we have 12, you have 50, and were bigger (land wise) WHO has two many sections :P
Click to expand...
No, we have 10 provinces and 3 territories, while the USA has 50 states.
 
Why would you think that? Did you think I would be caught dead without all fifty?
 
I'm still a few short, but I'm going for the full 100. I have all the quarters minted in Denver, but not all of the Philly quarters yet.
 
Blastoise said:
You too?

I thought I was the only one with all 50!
Click to expand...

I have all 50 as well.
 
Politoed said:
Also, there is concern that politics will get involved with this--Puerto Rico is heavily liberal, and is, well, quite clearly a 'minority' population. This would give more seats and stuff to Democrats, most likely, so Republicans may make an effort to block their statehood. On the other hand, doing so would be a really huge dick move and everyone would hate them for it, so that might not happen!
Click to expand...

Republicans and Democrats have been doing this since the majority of the Western U.S. was territories. For example, if a Republican state wanted to be added, the Democrats would compromise and add a more Democratic supporting state as well. The solution: add PR but cut Texas into fourths. Or at least thirds.
 
Banjo said:
Politoed said:
Also, there is concern that politics will get involved with this--Puerto Rico is heavily liberal, and is, well, quite clearly a 'minority' population. This would give more seats and stuff to Democrats, most likely, so Republicans may make an effort to block their statehood. On the other hand, doing so would be a really huge dick move and everyone would hate them for it, so that might not happen!
Click to expand...

Republicans and Democrats have been doing this since the majority of the Western U.S. was territories. For example, if a Republican state wanted to be added, the Democrats would compromise and add a more Democratic supporting state as well. The solution: add PR but cut Texas into fourths. Or at least thirds.
Click to expand...

That doesnt add more states for the republicans. That just splits the existing Texas electoral votes among 3-4 states. That would actually be WORSE for the Republicans than allowing PR to join alone. Electoral votes are based on population, not on number of states.

----------------
Edit: unless you are expecting all four new states to vote in Republican Senators.
 
Super Mario Bros. said:
Brock said:
Banjo said:
Politoed said:
Also, there is concern that politics will get involved with this--Puerto Rico is heavily liberal, and is, well, quite clearly a 'minority' population. This would give more seats and stuff to Democrats, most likely, so Republicans may make an effort to block their statehood. On the other hand, doing so would be a really huge dick move and everyone would hate them for it, so that might not happen!
Click to expand...

Republicans and Democrats have been doing this since the majority of the Western U.S. was territories. For example, if a Republican state wanted to be added, the Democrats would compromise and add a more Democratic supporting state as well. The solution: add PR but cut Texas into fourths. Or at least thirds.
Click to expand...

That doesnt add more states for the republicans. That just splits the existing Texas electoral votes among 3-4 states. That would actually be WORSE for the Republicans than allowing PR to join alone. Electoral votes are based on population, not on number of states.
Click to expand...
Each state's amount of electoral votes are determined by their representation to Congress (which is the amount of Representatives plus Senators). If Texas were cut into four pieces, there would be a net gain of six electoral votes for the area (and assuming that these areas are designed to be Republican strongholds and they vote accordingly, it could very well mean a safe six extra electoral votes for the Republicans and six more Republican Senators). So it could be beneficial for them if done "correctly."
Click to expand...

Not sure Texas would want this anyways. Texans are pretty prideful of their history. Plus all the oil in the area. I cant see them wanting to split that up, losing potential oil taxes for the areas that dont get the "cash land" as well having to pay taxes on shipping across state lines that didnt effectively exist before. Also, I cant see Texans wanting to give up being "Texans" as you cant necessarily have three Texas, unless you do something like North, South, East, West Texas, which is kind of ridic in my opinion. Sure it could work, but I see the economic pitfalls outweighing any political gain. I'm not sure it would work.

(btw, is this the reason why North and South Dakota exist? I knew why West Virginia and Virgina exist and why North and South Carolina exist, but could never remember why the Dakota's exist.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back