×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No New States?

pudge (3605) writes | more than 5 years ago

United States 16

It's been almost 50 years since we've had a new state.

We are, as of a few years ago, in the longest period of time without a new state entering the Union. From Arizona's entrance in 1912 to Alaska's in 1959 was just under 47 years. The last state to enter was Hawaii, also in 1959.

Will we ever have a new state?

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

It's been almost 50 years since we've had a new state.

We are, as of a few years ago, in the longest period of time without a new state entering the Union. From Arizona's entrance in 1912 to Alaska's in 1959 was just under 47 years. The last state to enter was Hawaii, also in 1959.

Will we ever have a new state?

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

16 comments

This is a non-issue (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26406485)

You're implying that the US needs more states?

What would be heaps better for the US (and the rest of the world) would be to split it up into 5 or 6 separate countries.

Re:This is a non-issue (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26407991)

A "non-issue"? What are you babbling about?

You're implying that the US needs more states?

No. If I meant to imply that, I would have been quite clear.

What would be heaps better for the US (and the rest of the world) would be to split it up into 5 or 6 separate countries.

How would that be good for the U.S.? And why should I care whether it is good for "the rest of the world"? (I don't.)

Manifest Destiny just took a left turn... (2, Funny)

mwlewis (794711) | more than 5 years ago | (#26406821)

I think we should just admit the inevitable and annex Mexico. Of course, then we'll still have problems with the rest of Central America, so maybe we should just go all the way.

Australia (1)

sr180 (700526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26414115)

Australia was looking close, but our recent change of Government will have put that off a while.

Puerto Rico (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26417723)

Puerto Rico voted on statehood just a few years ago, and decided against it. About the only way we're getting a new state is if a terrirory votes to become a state.

If it's going to happen (1)

Rysc (136391) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421301)

It will happen soon or not very soon.

New states shift the balance of electoral power so one party or the other is always going to be against them purely on a practical, numbers basis. Unless we can get two at once, or change the way we vote for presidents, I don't really think it's likely that there will be any new states in the foreseeable future (~2 decades). One exception might be D.C.; with the democrats in charge of just about everything there's a chance for D.C. statehood in the next few years, but if that doesn't happen I think nothing will happen soon.

Reynolds v. Sims (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26442569)

Pudge, my apologies for this off-topic post in your journal but I've wanted to ask this question of a conservative voice for quite awhile.

Why is it that we haven't heard a lot from the Conservative legal community regarding Reynolds v. Sims [wikipedia.org] ? If you aren't familiar with it it was a SCOTUS ruling back in the 60s that imposed "one man, one vote" on State Legislative districts. Prior to this ruling most States drew the districts for their Upper House geographically -- similar to the way that the US Senate operates.

The Liberal argument is that this isn't fair but I don't see how you can hold it to be "not fair" for a State Senate to be drawn geographically while accepting the fact that the US Senate operates in the same manner. To this reformed liberal it seems like this decision was nothing more than an urban power grab that has disenfranchised rural communities to the tyranny of the majority. Indeed we just witnessed this in my own state as the Democrats were finally able to seize the State Senate, thus removing the last semblance of influence that Upstate NY had in Albany.

I'm curious we don't hear many mainstream Conservative voices talking about this ruling and purposing an alternative scheme that would be more in line with our Republican traditions?

Re:Reynolds v. Sims (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26458333)

I don't know much about it, but it's not too surprising given the Court at the time. And yes, it has resulted in precisely what some people were afraid of: for example, Washington state is completely dominated by Seattle/King County (which has about a third of our population).

Re:Reynolds v. Sims (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26464133)

for example, Washington state is completely dominated by Seattle/King County (which has about a third of our population).

It's the same here unfortunately. New York City (42.8% of the population) completely dominates New York politics. Upstate (37.5%) has no voice at all. Not a single statewide office is held by an Upstater and we just lost our last remaining voice when the Democrats took over the State Senate.

More than anything on the Federal level it's this imbalance in my own state that eventually wind up disillusioning me with the Democratic Party. I did some research into the matter and came up with the Sims ruling. I'd like to see Conservatives/Republicans make this matter a talking point but I can just see the masses whining about "democracy" and saying that it's "more fair" and "majority rules".

Thanks for responding.

Re:Reynolds v. Sims (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26466299)

Yeah. The problem is that much of the Constitution, most particularly the Bill of Rights, but also the composition of the Senate and the Electoral College and the Judiciary, exist to stand up AGAINST the concept of "majority rules." Democracy -- where everyone has a voice in everything and the majority wins -- is Bad.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...