Now that PR is going to be a state, will the structure of the House change?

[hobbsyoyo]

Will the House finally have more than 435 members now that Puerto Rico is probably destined for statehood (no joke - see the thread on this in the Tavern)?

Why are they fixed at 435 when that doesn't allow actually proportional representation?

Also, which new flag design do you guys like?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So no one has anything to say about the potential changes to the House makeup?

Won't they have to add seats to the House if they add Senators?

 

[dutchfire]

Wikipedia:

The total number of voting representatives is fixed by law at 435

I don't know when they would something about the distribution though. The next census would be a logical moment, but that is unpracticably far away. On the other hand, giving them a seat now, would mean substracting a seat somewhere else, leading to redistricting *shudder*

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Wikipedia:

I don't know when they would something about the distribution though. The next census would be a logical moment, but that is unpracticably far away. On the other hand, giving them a seat now, would mean substracting a seat somewhere else, leading to redistricting *shudder*

That's one reason I could see either political party in Congress opposing statehood - they are afraid of losing seats here and now even though they may actually pick up some when Puerto Ricans choose reps.

 

[bombshoo]

When Alaska and Hawaii became states they temporarily added reps for them, and then removed them and redistributed when they did the next census.

 

[LightSpectra]

Whoa, ahead of the gun are we. A nonbinding referendum is about an iota above an official poll. No guarantees that Peurto Rico's going to be a state.

And this isn't really history, but I'm assuming this was meant for OT.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Whoa, ahead of the gun are we. A nonbinding referendum is about an iota above an official poll. No guarantees that Peurto Rico's going to be a state.

And this isn't really history, but I'm assuming this was meant for OT.

How is it not history that there is a real possibility that the US is going to gain a new state?

It's not as slippery as you posit either.

 

[Dachs]

How is it not history that there is a real possibility that the US is going to gain a new state?

It hasn't happened yet, if it will happen at all. That's futurology, not history, and it doesn't usually have much to do with history, since history has very little, if any, predictive power.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It hasn't happened yet, if it will happen at all. That's futurology, not history, and it doesn't usually have much to do with history, since history has very little, if any, predictive power.

So the fact that a majority of Puerto Ricans have voted in favor of becoming a 51st state for the first time ever isn't history-worthy in and of itself?

And this question in the OP:

Why are they fixed at 435 when that doesn't allow actually proportional representation?

has an answer that deserves some historical analysis. Though I guess if everyone wants to ignore it because this thread isn't worthy of being here then awesomesauce.

 

[Dachs]

So the fact that a majority of Puerto Ricans have voted in favor of becoming a 51st state for the first time ever isn't history-worthy in and of itself?

That was a potential tangent for the thread, not the purpose.

If the thread were about discussing why Puerto Rican referenda on statehood have turned out the way they have, historically, talking about electoral trends and reasons for changing opinions in the electorate, with the OMG PR COULD BE A NEW STATE GAISE stuff shoved off to one side, then you might have a point. But practically any potential OT thread could have a plausible reason to derail into history. And the main purpose of this thread was clearly not discussion of the past.

And this question in the OP:


has an answer that deserves some historical analysis. Though I guess if everyone wants to ignore it because this thread isn't worthy of being here then awesomesauce.

That isn't really even true. It doesn't matter what the total number of delegates are for proportionality, what matters is their relationship to each other. And that's hardly a question that involves much history either.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And the main purpose of this thread was clearly not discussion of the past.

Fair enough I'll shut'er down.

 

[emzie]

When Alaska and Hawaii became states they temporarily added reps for them, and then removed them and redistributed when they did the next census.

The 435 number is set by law, but it just so happens the people who are bound by that law are also the people that write the laws. Congress can up it if it so desires, temporarily or permanently.

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: Not history - closed at OP's request.