With all due respect, that will never ever ever fucking happen.
But hypothetically, it would look like this: All States are guaranteed two senators, so the question is how many House seats would they get. Congress capped the total number of seats in the House to 435. (Completely arbitrary number that’s about as likely to change as PR/DC getting Statehood.) So in the dream world where DC and PR are given Statehood, their populations would need to be determined, and they would receive a proportional amount of representatives. DC, if it became a State, would be the third smallest, so DC would receive one House rep. PR would be the 33 largest State, and would likely receive about 4 House seats.
Again, this will never happen in the current post-Constitutional America. Those seats would almost all go to Dems, which is why it’ll never fucking happen.
With all due respect, that will never ever ever fucking happen.
It’s crazy that the '09 Congress didn’t push them through. Imagine subsequent congresses in which Dems were functionally guaranteed +2 Senate seats and 2-4 House seats from DC. Imagine Republicans being forced to compete for votes in Puerto Rico, while running anti-Hispanic campaigns at home (Republicans have lost enormous ground in big Latino states like Nevada, Arizona, California, and Texas already).
You’d like to think Dem party with an eye towards the future would ram this through without a second thought. But liberals are nothing if not self-defeating.
Again, this will never happen in the current post-Constitutional America.
I would argue some of the most radical progressive changes to the American system came precisely during periods of disregard to an anachronistic and anti-democratic document like the Constitution. We abolished slavery under martial law. We nationalized the economy under the WW2 War Powers Act. If ever there was a time during which a radical progressive could take the helm without being hamstrung by conservatives in their own party, it would be in the wake of a constitutional crisis like this.
But you’d need a radical left wing ideologue to get near the reins of office in order to make it happen. It certainly won’t come about under a Gavin Newsome or Pete Buttigieg administration.
We have a fascist, literal criminal as president who is a republican. Based on the demographics of DC/PR, most—if not all—of their representatives and senators would be democrats.
Republicans control the Senate 53-47. You can see why the potential of adding four new Democrat senators would be a dealbreaker for republicans. Adding DC/PR to Congress would have the direct effect of lessening republican power. Republicans will not let that happen, and honestly, from a purely political standpoint, I see the logic (but still staunchly disagree with disenfranchising DC/PR folks).
Economic damage from Trump’s tariffs could cause the Republicans to lose the House and maybe the Senate in 2026. They might even lose the majority in some Republican controlled state legislatures. Voters will blame the party currently in power. Democrats can run on deauthorizing all of the Trump tariffs and help to normalize international trade relationships. If Republicans lose control of the state legislatures then NPVIC could be in reach.
You assume there will be free and fair elections in 2026 and beyond. I don’t see a world in which the trump regime doesn’t meddle in the next election and ensure repubs maintain power. But I mean this with every fiber of my being when I say this, I hope to god you’re right.
I get that this is a political question, but geez people need to slack up a little… This question could have been asked during any administration. If it’s such a democrat advantage then why didn’t they do it 4 years ago?
Easy. Because in order for DC/PR to become states, it would take an act of Congress. Given the reality of the Senate filibuster, a vote to make DC/PR states would require 60 Senators in support. Democrats have not had 60 Senators since the 1970s. Therefore, it has been a political impossibility for the Dems to get enough support to overcome the filibuster and make DC/PR states.
Any other questions, my friend? :) I’m a political scientist, so these questions are fun for me.
With all due respect, that will never ever ever fucking happen.
But hypothetically, it would look like this: All States are guaranteed two senators, so the question is how many House seats would they get. Congress capped the total number of seats in the House to 435. (Completely arbitrary number that’s about as likely to change as PR/DC getting Statehood.) So in the dream world where DC and PR are given Statehood, their populations would need to be determined, and they would receive a proportional amount of representatives. DC, if it became a State, would be the third smallest, so DC would receive one House rep. PR would be the 33 largest State, and would likely receive about 4 House seats.
Again, this will never happen in the current post-Constitutional America. Those seats would almost all go to Dems, which is why it’ll never fucking happen.
It’s crazy that the '09 Congress didn’t push them through. Imagine subsequent congresses in which Dems were functionally guaranteed +2 Senate seats and 2-4 House seats from DC. Imagine Republicans being forced to compete for votes in Puerto Rico, while running anti-Hispanic campaigns at home (Republicans have lost enormous ground in big Latino states like Nevada, Arizona, California, and Texas already).
You’d like to think Dem party with an eye towards the future would ram this through without a second thought. But liberals are nothing if not self-defeating.
I would argue some of the most radical progressive changes to the American system came precisely during periods of disregard to an anachronistic and anti-democratic document like the Constitution. We abolished slavery under martial law. We nationalized the economy under the WW2 War Powers Act. If ever there was a time during which a radical progressive could take the helm without being hamstrung by conservatives in their own party, it would be in the wake of a constitutional crisis like this.
But you’d need a radical left wing ideologue to get near the reins of office in order to make it happen. It certainly won’t come about under a Gavin Newsome or Pete Buttigieg administration.
Why would it never happen?
Reps would never let DC become a state, and Puerto Rico currently prefers being a territory for political reasons.
We have a fascist, literal criminal as president who is a republican. Based on the demographics of DC/PR, most—if not all—of their representatives and senators would be democrats.
Republicans control the Senate 53-47. You can see why the potential of adding four new Democrat senators would be a dealbreaker for republicans. Adding DC/PR to Congress would have the direct effect of lessening republican power. Republicans will not let that happen, and honestly, from a purely political standpoint, I see the logic (but still staunchly disagree with disenfranchising DC/PR folks).
Economic damage from Trump’s tariffs could cause the Republicans to lose the House and maybe the Senate in 2026. They might even lose the majority in some Republican controlled state legislatures. Voters will blame the party currently in power. Democrats can run on deauthorizing all of the Trump tariffs and help to normalize international trade relationships. If Republicans lose control of the state legislatures then NPVIC could be in reach.
You assume there will be free and fair elections in 2026 and beyond. I don’t see a world in which the trump regime doesn’t meddle in the next election and ensure repubs maintain power. But I mean this with every fiber of my being when I say this, I hope to god you’re right.
I get that this is a political question, but geez people need to slack up a little… This question could have been asked during any administration. If it’s such a democrat advantage then why didn’t they do it 4 years ago?
Easy. Because in order for DC/PR to become states, it would take an act of Congress. Given the reality of the Senate filibuster, a vote to make DC/PR states would require 60 Senators in support. Democrats have not had 60 Senators since the 1970s. Therefore, it has been a political impossibility for the Dems to get enough support to overcome the filibuster and make DC/PR states.
Any other questions, my friend? :) I’m a political scientist, so these questions are fun for me.