The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

That is an interesting proposition. Not including Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, the new state would have more than double the population of California (approximately 80+ million people). The new state would likely increase its representation in the U.S. House (going from 111 Representatives to 112-113 depending on reapportionment), but would lose 36 Senate seats (going from 38 to 2).

EDIT: Continuing with this proposition, and how it would have altered the 2016 Presidential Election - Donald Trump would have won the new state by over 4 million votes, capturing its 114 electoral votes. There would have been only 502 Electoral Votes in this new configuration, meaning Trump would have needed 252 electoral votes to win. Combined with his other victories, Trump would have captured 300-301 (depending on what state lost an electoral vote based on reapportionment) to Clinton's 201-202 (despite winning the popular vote by 3+ million). In other words, it appears that the new state would disproportionately help Republicans even further in the Electoral College. On the plus side for Democrats, they would almost certainly dominate the Senate for the foreseeable future.

To be reasonable just collapse everybody west of the Mississippi river and east of the coastal states (CA, OR, WA) that has fewer than 10 EV.

9 LA
6 AR
7 IA
7 OK
6 KS
5 NE
3 SD
3 ND
5 NM
9 CO
3 WY
3 MT
5 UT
4 ID
5 NV

80 EV minus 26 EV from lost Senate seats = 54 EV, 1 fewer than CA.

Losing 13 states for a new total of 37, the Senate would go to 74 of which this superstate would have 2, just like CA and DE. However it would have 52 House districts.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

That to me is the worst part here. Lets say the dude lost his temper. How about a simple and humble apology even with some weasel words trying to explain himself. Instead trying to blame it on some "liberal reporter" makes it look like 1) he thinks unprovoked assault is okay as long as its for partisan reasons, and 2) he like Trump is perfectly willing to make stuff up if the facts don't align the way he'd like.

Do we really need yet another representative in DC like this?

Republican Congressmen and Media: Haw, haw; he'll fit right in!

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) told MSNBC that he rejects using violence and blamed the alleged assault on “the left” for taking what he called a “confrontational approach.”

“The left has precipitated this intense, confrontational approach throughout the country in recent months.

You see who the real victim here, don't you? I mean after Gleiwitz the Germans just had no choice.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

The entire Republican Party can go **** themselves.

Congressman Duncan Hunter of California said: “It’s not appropriate behavior. Unless the reporter deserved it,” according to the Associated Press.

“We didn’t have a course on body-slamming when I went to school. I missed that course. I’m sorry I missed that,” said Louie Gohmert, a Republican of Texas.

“I reject any kind of thing where we use physical violence in a situation like that,” said Trent Franks, a conservative from Arizona. “It should not have happened and the law will have to be the ultimate arbiter.”

But he also claimed: “The left has precipitated this intense, confrontational approach throughout the country in recent months.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/25/paul-ryan-montana-gop-greg-gianforte-ben-jacobs

 

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

The entire Republican Party can go **** themselves.

We have the power as a people to vote every single sitting Republican in the House out in 18 months. If every registered Democrat and Unaffiliated showed up on election day and voted them out we would flip all but about 100 seats, even if every Republican who voted in 2016 repeated.

Start from 100% turnout of all anti-GOP voters. Aim for that. There is no way to convince the GOP base so let them go.

 

[joecct]

We have the power as a people to vote every single sitting Republican in the House out in 18 months. If every registered Democrat and Unaffiliated showed up on election day and voted them out we would flip all but about 100 seats, even if every Republican who voted in 2016 repeated.

Start from 100% turnout of all anti-GOP voters. Aim for that. There is no way to convince the GOP base so let them go.

Then you end up with California. Do you really want that??

 

[unofan]

Then you end up with California. Do you really want that??

Yeah, living in the world's 5th largest economy would really suck.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Then you end up with California. Do you really want that??

Um. Yes?

But I'd still be in AZ. I mean, until La Reconquista. But a couple more GOP administrations and Mexico's standard of living will be well above the US.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

To be reasonable just collapse everybody west of the Mississippi river and east of the coastal states (CA, OR, WA) that has fewer than 10 EV.

9 LA
6 AR
7 IA
7 OK
6 KS
5 NE
3 SD
3 ND
5 NM
9 CO
3 WY
3 MT
5 UT
4 ID
5 NV

80 EV minus 26 EV from lost Senate seats = 54 EV, 1 fewer than CA.

Losing 13 states for a new total of 37, the Senate would go to 74 of which this superstate would have 2, just like CA and DE. However it would have 52 House districts.

It would still have a pro-Republican effect on the Electoral College (Trump would have won 300-212, needing 257 to win), and a pro-Democrat effect on the U.S. Senate (assuming both of the new state's Senators are Republican, Democrats would currently have a 40-32-2 (realistically, 42-32) advantage).

EDIT: Nevada has 6 EV.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

It would still have a pro-Republican effect on the Electoral College

I find that hard to believe with losing 26 EV from their lost Senate seats. Granting that the Commonwealth of Cornhole's state leg would pack those districts as pro-GOP as possible, I doubt they could flip 13 Dem districts. I'm not even sure they'd have 13 Dem districts to start with out of 52 and you're going to have to do something really creative to disenfranchise New Orleans, Ames, Kansas City, Albuquerque, Denver, and Las Vegas.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

I find that hard to believe with losing so many EV from their lost Senate seats. Granting that the Commonwealth of Cornhole's state leg would pack those districts as pro-GOP as possible, I doubt they could switch 13 Dem districts. I'm not even sure they'd have 13 Dem districts to start with.

Think about it. If we're going to assume that the Republicans would win the new state (which is I believe is a fair assumption), Democrats lose Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico (20 EV). Iowa (6 EV) would also be lost, but Democrats may have already lost that state. Meanwhile, the "reliably Republican" states in that group (Louisiana (8 EV), Arkansas (6 EV), Oklahoma (7 EV), Kansas (6 EV), Nebraska (5 EV), South Dakota (3 EV), North Dakota (3 EV), Wyoming (3 EV), Montana (3 EV), Utah (6 EV), and Idaho (4 EV)) total 54 Electoral votes...so Republicans lose exactly nothing. Throw in that the new "magic number" is lower (257 EV), those same 54 Electoral votes are now more important. That results in a pro-Republican effect on the Electoral College.

EDIT: Perhaps you're thinking about the U.S. House. I'm talking about the Electoral College for the Presidential Vote.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Think about it. If we're going to assume that the Republicans would win the new state (which is I believe is a fair assumption), Democrats lose Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico (20 EV). Iowa (6 EV) would also be lost, but Democrats may have already lost that state. Meanwhile, the "reliably Republican" states in that group (Louisiana (8 EV), Arkansas (6 EV), Oklahoma (7 EV), Kansas (6 EV), Nebraska (5 EV), South Dakota (3 EV), North Dakota (3 EV), Wyoming (3 EV), Montana (3 EV), Utah (6 EV), and Idaho (4 EV)) total 54 Electoral votes...so Republicans lose exactly nothing. Throw in that the new "magic number" is lower (257 EV), those same 54 Electoral votes are now more important. That results in a pro-Republican effect on the Electoral College.

EDIT: Perhaps you're thinking about the U.S. House. I'm talking about the Electoral College for the Presidential Vote.

No, I was talking about the EC. You're right, it may be a wash.

So JFC, let's do it!

With 37 states we'll break the mental block of not being able to go over 50, and so we can start annexing all the beautiful democracies we've set up all over the world. Japan and Germany might be enough to offset Haiti, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, the Philippines, the DR, and Iraq, and there's room to grow for Syria, a reunified Korea, Cuba, and one more...

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

No, I was talking about the EC. You're right, it may be a wash.

So JFC, let's do it!

With 37 states we'll break the mental block of not being able to go over 50, and so we can start annexing all the beautiful democracies we've set up all over the world. Japan and Germany might be enough to offset Haiti, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, the Philippines, the DR, and Iraq, and there's room to grow for Syria, a reunified Korea, Cuba, and one more...

One nitpicky point before we combine a quarter of the country...it wouldn't be a wash. For it to be a wash, Democrat and Republican losses would need to be equal. As stated above, Democrats are losing 20 EVs plus a theoretical swing state. Republicans are losing nothing. As previously discussed, it would have a pro-Republican effect on the Electoral College.

EDIT: Unless you're referencing the wash as the Republicans get an advantage with the Electoral College and Democrats get an advantage with the Senate...in which case, disregard my post.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

it wouldn't be a wash. For it to be a wash, Democrat and Republican losses would need to be equal. As stated above, Democrats are losing 20 EVs plus a theoretical swing state. Republicans are losing nothing. As previously discussed, it would have a pro-Republican effect on the Electoral College.

OK, I broke the math down. First of all I made a mistake, it's 15 states collapsing to 1, not 14.

The Fifteen (LA, AR, IA, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, NM, CO, WY, MT, UT, ID, NV):
Senate: 30 (24 R 6 D)
House: 50 (40 R 10 D)
EV: 80 (60 R 20 D)

Cornhole:
Senate: 2 (2 R 0 D) {-22 R, -6 D}
House: 50 (40 R 10 D)
EV: 52 (52 R 0 D) {-8 R, -20 D}

US, now:
Senate: 100 (52 R 48 D)
House: 435 (241 R 194 D)
EV: 538 (306 R 232 D)

US, after Cornhole:
Senate: 72 (30 R 42 D) {-22 R, -6 D}
House: 435 (241 R 194 D)
EV: 510 (298 R 212 D) {-8 R, -20 D} <-- you are correct, this is a net R gain in the EC

One nitpicky point before we combine a quarter of the country...

By Senate strength: 30/100: 30%
By House strength: 50/435: 11%

Hence the original problem.

 

[unofan]

OK, I broke the math down. First of all I made a mistake, it's 15 states collapsing to 1, not 14.

Right now:
Senate: 30 (24 R 6 D)
House: 50 (40 R 10 D)
EV: 80 (60 R 20 D)

Cornhole:
Senate: 2 (2 R 0 D) {-22 R, -6 D}
House: 50 (40 R 10 D)
EV: 52 (52 R 0 D) {-8 R, -20 D}

US, before Cornhole:
Senate: 100 (52 R 48 D)
House: 435 (241 R 194 D)
EV: 538 (306 R 232 D)

US, after Cornhole:
Senate: 72 (30 R 42 D) {-22 R, -6 D}
House: 435 (241 R 194 D)
EV: 510 (298 R 212 D) {-8 R, -20 D}

The house would likely shift somewhat, too. For instance, combining Wyoming with anything should result in a loss of a house seat, since Wyoming wouldn't qualify for one on its own if it weren't its own state and guaranteed the league minimum. That said, I don't know if it'd stay in the new state or get shifted to California or Florida.

 

[aparch]

OK, I broke the math down. First of all I made a mistake, it's 15 states collapsing to 1, not 14.

The Fifteen (LA, AR, IA, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, NM, CO, WY, MT, UT, ID, NV):

Was Missouri missed in recalculating the Cornhole State, or does it just get divvied up between Iowa and Arkansas?

Either way, I'd be happy seeing the Cardinals disappear off the map. The Blues can stay though.

 

[aparch]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Also, the State of Cornhole would be home to three MLB teams (aforementioned Cardinals, Royals, Rockies), two NHL teams (Blues, Avalanche), two NBA teams (Pelicans, Thunder), and three NFL teams (Broncos, Saints, eventually the Raiders).

Essentially, the State of Cornhole would have the same sports representation as the State of New York.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Also, the State of Cornhole would be home to three MLB teams (aforementioned Cardinals, Royals, Rockies), two NHL teams (Blues, Avalanche), two NBA teams (Pelicans, Thunder), and three NFL teams (Broncos, Saints, eventually the Raiders).

Essentially, the State of Cornhole would have the same sports representation as the State of New York.

The Nuggets, Jazz and Chiefs would like to say hello, and New York doesn't even have one NBA team...

 

[bronconick]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

There was some clickbaity website that got linked on facebook a few times where all 50 states got re-drawn based on population

 

[aparch]

The Nuggets, Jazz and Chiefs would like to say hello, and New York doesn't even have one NBA team...

Good catches.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Was Missouri missed in recalculating the Cornhole State, or does it just get divvied up between Iowa and Arkansas?

Either way, I'd be happy seeing the Cardinals disappear off the map. The Blues can stay though.

MO has 10 EV so it remains a state along with TX, AZ and MN.

In the Big Four sports, Cornhole would have:

NHL: Denver, Vegas
MLB: Colorado
NFL: Denver, New Orleans, Las Vegas
NBA: Denver, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Utah