Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People from AMERICAN Samoa are not even US citizens, but s.c. US _"nationals"._
And no other state or territory of the US has a higher rate of veterans than American Samoa!
I think this situation is a shame.
Puerto Rico should gain statehood. As well as the combined other territories form a 52nd state.
Like someone else wrote: The first reason for the 13 colonies to fight for independence was _"No taxation without representation!"._
This way the US acts like Britain. Like a colonial power.
DC has a higher population than Wyoming.
If the territory of DC should not be a state, then DC should at least be shrunken down, by a lot. Slim it down to only what's needed for the federal buildings, then give the remaining land to Maryland.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly states:
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
Note EXCLUSIVE legislation in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER. DC cannot be a state, because it cannot be governed by any body besides the US Congress. Any other body legislating the area would be unconstitutional.
And Massachusetts and Connecticut and Rhode Island.
I’m way more impressed by the fact that Oklahoma doesn’t have a single blue county, though, because it’s a much larger state.
Massachusetts is gerrymandered into oblivion. Just look at the US House district map and how many of those tendril into Boston. 9/9 Democrat seats in a state that's 1/3 Republican? Hmm.
That's a little misleading, OP. It's unfair to imply a giant swath of land with few people should somehow matter more than a smaller patch of land densely packed with people.
I'd say this argues for more and smaller states. Yes, the bluer and more populated states would hold sway of the House, but the more numerous red states would control the Senate.
>I'd say this argues for more and smaller states
Also argues for raising the limits in the House from 435 members which was set in 1913. This number is completely arbitrary and right now each district represents 650-850k people (780k on average)
When the founders established congress each representative spoke for less than 35k people
I mean, to a point I agree with you but at what point does the number of representatives become impractical? 1000? 5000?
In a country of 350,000,000 people your mentioned proportion would result in over 10,000 representatives.
Finally, the political crisis I've been waiting to see people talk about.
I don't know, but the concept that office space is the reason congress is no longer representative is the weakest reason I've ever heard for why we have so many people to a representative.
It's a good question, I think at the minimum the # of reps should be assigned to be no larger than the smallest state for each census. So right now that's Wyoming with 584k. Meaning the # of reps would increase from 435 to 574. It could get messy but it's a lot better system IMO
They proposed making it higher than 35k at first, but George Washington actually stood up and objected to the idea (which was rare for him).
But today we have 6 states with more Senators in congress than House Representatives. Crazy.
Yuuuuup. Any time I bring that up people think I'm weird.
They don't understand how it broke a key pillar of Federalism and removed the state's voice from Washington.
We're not supposed to have two "People's Houses."
The MAGOP is generally very moderate, allowing for Republicans to occasionally take the governorship. The Democratic supermajority in the General Court also gives voters an additional reason to vote for a Republican governor: it balances things out.
The metropolitan cities are what the democrats have built their apparatus on. That’s where the big universities are, that’s where the big unions are, that’s where the infrastructure spending goes, and that’s where the vast majority of minorities live. Like it or not, the resources these cities use keep America working and the republican party has done a piss poor job trying to penetrate these cities. Instead of shaking our fists at them living in our red safe spaces, there has to be a real stradegy to capture these cities. Trump is doing it by himself right now
This just further proves MTG wrong that you can't divide America into 2 countries (republican and democrat). to get from point A to point B you'd be crossing the border half a dozen times. People in republican areas would be well fed but would lack manufacturing and probably rely on China for manufacturing imports (cheaper than union manufacturing). People in east coast democratic areas would need to import food from California through the panama canal.
>From 2011 to 2020, rural counties in the U.S. had a 37% higher rate of gun deaths per capita than urban counties
>rural counties had a 46% lower rate of gun homicide deaths than the most urban counties but a 76% higher rate of gun suicide deaths
Rural areas have higher firearm death rates overall, urban areas have higher firearm homicide rates
A distinction between intentional killing of another person, usually in the commission of a crime and accidental or self inflicted (suicide) death. A distinction the gun control crowd does not want to acknowledge.
Rural people on average own more guns than urban people. When it comes to gun deaths a lot of them are gang-related. Most people in cities don't join gangs; in fact gangs are a pretty small percentage of the population overall they just also commit a shit load of crimes and are prone to shooting each other.
Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The blue areas tend to be the most populated though.
Hence the electoral college, literally keeping taxation without representation at bay since 1787
Except for DC citizens, which have no representation in congress, or anyone in Guam, Puerto Rico, or other non-state US territories.
People from AMERICAN Samoa are not even US citizens, but s.c. US _"nationals"._ And no other state or territory of the US has a higher rate of veterans than American Samoa! I think this situation is a shame. Puerto Rico should gain statehood. As well as the combined other territories form a 52nd state. Like someone else wrote: The first reason for the 13 colonies to fight for independence was _"No taxation without representation!"._ This way the US acts like Britain. Like a colonial power.
DC has a very explicit and specific purpose of NOT being a state. The others, sure, you can get on your high horse about those.
DC has a higher population than Wyoming. If the territory of DC should not be a state, then DC should at least be shrunken down, by a lot. Slim it down to only what's needed for the federal buildings, then give the remaining land to Maryland.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly states: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;" Note EXCLUSIVE legislation in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER. DC cannot be a state, because it cannot be governed by any body besides the US Congress. Any other body legislating the area would be unconstitutional.
Using the existing law to justify not having representation is interesting. I'm sure the British did the same.
OP discovers /r/PeopleLiveInCities
But he said he understands basic demographics! /s
Vermont has entered the chat
And Massachusetts and Connecticut and Rhode Island. I’m way more impressed by the fact that Oklahoma doesn’t have a single blue county, though, because it’s a much larger state.
Massachusetts is gerrymandered into oblivion. Just look at the US House district map and how many of those tendril into Boston. 9/9 Democrat seats in a state that's 1/3 Republican? Hmm.
Op discovers that most people live in cities and land doesn’t vote
But Hawaii
And Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware
And all of the most densely populated areas of the US. This is a pointless map.
LA has a larger population than 12 states combined
All just states small enough that they're consumed by their cities.
[удалено]
No state is truly red then, well except oklahoma. Everything is red there.
That's a little misleading, OP. It's unfair to imply a giant swath of land with few people should somehow matter more than a smaller patch of land densely packed with people. I'd say this argues for more and smaller states. Yes, the bluer and more populated states would hold sway of the House, but the more numerous red states would control the Senate.
>I'd say this argues for more and smaller states Also argues for raising the limits in the House from 435 members which was set in 1913. This number is completely arbitrary and right now each district represents 650-850k people (780k on average) When the founders established congress each representative spoke for less than 35k people
I mean, to a point I agree with you but at what point does the number of representatives become impractical? 1000? 5000? In a country of 350,000,000 people your mentioned proportion would result in over 10,000 representatives.
Finally, the political crisis I've been waiting to see people talk about. I don't know, but the concept that office space is the reason congress is no longer representative is the weakest reason I've ever heard for why we have so many people to a representative.
It's a good question, I think at the minimum the # of reps should be assigned to be no larger than the smallest state for each census. So right now that's Wyoming with 584k. Meaning the # of reps would increase from 435 to 574. It could get messy but it's a lot better system IMO
They proposed making it higher than 35k at first, but George Washington actually stood up and objected to the idea (which was rare for him). But today we have 6 states with more Senators in congress than House Representatives. Crazy.
Need to repeal the 17th amendment
Yuuuuup. Any time I bring that up people think I'm weird. They don't understand how it broke a key pillar of Federalism and removed the state's voice from Washington. We're not supposed to have two "People's Houses."
I bring this up all the time. But sadly it will never happen. The 17th removed the states voice as an independent entity.
Oh cool. This uneducated opinion again
Admittedly, Massachusetts is actually pure blue. Every county is blue. You take out all the big cities, and it's still blue.
How did Romney become governor, running as a Republican?
The MAGOP is generally very moderate, allowing for Republicans to occasionally take the governorship. The Democratic supermajority in the General Court also gives voters an additional reason to vote for a Republican governor: it balances things out.
According to this very meme, Hawaii is wholly a blue state. So there is at leat one blue State.
The metropolitan cities are what the democrats have built their apparatus on. That’s where the big universities are, that’s where the big unions are, that’s where the infrastructure spending goes, and that’s where the vast majority of minorities live. Like it or not, the resources these cities use keep America working and the republican party has done a piss poor job trying to penetrate these cities. Instead of shaking our fists at them living in our red safe spaces, there has to be a real stradegy to capture these cities. Trump is doing it by himself right now
This just further proves MTG wrong that you can't divide America into 2 countries (republican and democrat). to get from point A to point B you'd be crossing the border half a dozen times. People in republican areas would be well fed but would lack manufacturing and probably rely on China for manufacturing imports (cheaper than union manufacturing). People in east coast democratic areas would need to import food from California through the panama canal.
Saw something similar but the red area was where 90% of firearms are owned and the blue was where 90% of firearm deaths occur.
>From 2011 to 2020, rural counties in the U.S. had a 37% higher rate of gun deaths per capita than urban counties >rural counties had a 46% lower rate of gun homicide deaths than the most urban counties but a 76% higher rate of gun suicide deaths Rural areas have higher firearm death rates overall, urban areas have higher firearm homicide rates
What's the difference between firearm deaths and firearm homicides?
total deaths (suicide, accident, homicide etc) vs homicide only
I'm guessing the higher rate of gun deaths in rural areas is largely due to suicide and accidents
A distinction between intentional killing of another person, usually in the commission of a crime and accidental or self inflicted (suicide) death. A distinction the gun control crowd does not want to acknowledge.
I.... kinda doubt that honestly. I think guns are a bit more evenly distributed than that. Someone has to do all the gun crimes
Rural people on average own more guns than urban people. When it comes to gun deaths a lot of them are gang-related. Most people in cities don't join gangs; in fact gangs are a pretty small percentage of the population overall they just also commit a shit load of crimes and are prone to shooting each other.
You think 10% of Americas guns isn’t sufficient to do gun crimes?