A enraging expose from Jon Oliver on voting rights.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's a highly simplistic assumption. I don't think the average American believes that non-whites shouldn't be allowed to vote. Maybe the average Republican does, but even that's dubious.

And I really hate it when people make smug little proclamations that change is impossible as though their cynicism is objective fact. I feel like what they're saying is "Progress is impossible, so you should give up and not try to make things better while I wallow in how much smarter I think I am because I'm cynical."

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's also fallacious, as Hawaii is majority Asian.

The one way to do it is to admit PR/Virgin Islands as one state, and the remaining Pacific territories as one state. There's no reason a state couldn't have a constitution which says "we are a loose federation for constitutional voting reasons, and each county basically sets all the laws". That would let each of the small territories keep its own customs and laws. The constitution doesn't require a state to have homogeneous law, just laws that don't break the federal constitution. You don't need a bicameral state legislature, either. So why not have a state whose constitution gives it almost no powers, and has a small administrative council, while all the popular elections and popular power are managed by each of the different former territories now a part of it? This would be a very easy solution and would just require writing the constitution of the new state to allow this. The same could be done to give the Virgin Islands autonomy inside of PR as a state.

For that matter, it could also be a way to give Native Americans more governance -- why not remove all Indian Tribes from the states they're presently in, and make them into a single Native American state? Each tribe would still be a legal tribe with all the prerogatives thereof, but instead of fighting with the government of the state it's in endlessly, as state governments invariably try to dictate to the tribes, they'd have their own state, which would just happen to be geographically discontiguous. But the constitution of the Native American state would be written to account for this, and allow each reservation to proceed autonomously.

[Terralthra]

A perhaps more practical issue is that all four of the Pacific US Territories (Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgins and the US Marianas) have a smaller population combined than even the least populous state, Wyoming. Combining them is likely to serve them poorly, given their disparate population needs and desires, and making them each states would massively disproportionately represent them in Congress, even the House. The most populous of them, Guam, would have one Representative representing ~154k people, while the Rep. from Wyoming represents 3 times that many (and that state is overrepresented, compared to the median Congressional District).

As far as Senatorial representation, I know they're supposed to be equal between states, not populations, but I can imagine several of the larger states, my own among them, being quite unhappy. Being outnumbered in Senatorial representation by 8 Senators who represent fewer people than any of literally dozens of moderately-sized cities within our state wouldn't go over well. It'd be like counting Vancouver Island as its own province equal in power to British Columbia.

It's also fallacious, as Hawaii is majority Asian.

Plurality, not majority. 38%.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A perhaps more practical issue is that all four of the Pacific US Territories (Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgins and the US Marianas) have a smaller population combined than even the least populous state, Wyoming. Combining them is likely to serve them poorly, given their disparate population needs and desires, and making them each states would massively disproportionately represent them in Congress, even the House. The most populous of them, Guam, would have one Representative representing ~154k people, while the Rep. from Wyoming represents 3 times that many (and that state is overrepresented, compared to the median Congressional District).

As far as Senatorial representation, I know they're supposed to be equal between states, not populations, but I can imagine several of the larger states, my own among them, being quite unhappy. Being outnumbered in Senatorial representation by 8 Senators who represent fewer people combined than any of several moderately-sized cities within our state wouldn't go over well. It'd be like counting Vancouver Island as its own province equal in power to British Columbia.

It's also fallacious, as Hawaii is majority Asian.

Plurality, not majority. 38%.

Sorry; I elaborated on my idea more with an edit, so you should read it -- and I believe it was majority Asian at the time it was admitted to the Union. White population has grown, not shrunk. Also recall that "mixed race" is a big category in Hawaii--but in 1960 those people would have been forced to identify as Asian.

[Gandalf]

For that matter, it could also be a way to give Native Americans more governance -- why not remove all Indian Tribes from the states they're presently in, and make them into a single Native American state? Each tribe would still be a legal tribe with all the prerogatives thereof, but instead of fighting with the government of the state it's in endlessly, as state governments invariably try to dictate to the tribes, they'd have their own state, which would just happen to be geographically discontiguous. But the constitution of the Native American state would be written to account for this, and allow each reservation to proceed autonomously.

A group of smaller Native American states might be more feasible if you're looking to go down this route. Lumping all Native American tribes into one big discontinuous state leaves it open to some problematic and at times ugly inter-tribal politics*, like if you merged Oregon and Georgia. A group of smaller states representing a region or language group would make the states a little more viable as there could be something closer to a common identity.

*If the US is anything like Australia, this is a bigger problem than one might think.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For that matter, it could also be a way to give Native Americans more governance -- why not remove all Indian Tribes from the states they're presently in, and make them into a single Native American state? Each tribe would still be a legal tribe with all the prerogatives thereof, but instead of fighting with the government of the state it's in endlessly, as state governments invariably try to dictate to the tribes, they'd have their own state, which would just happen to be geographically discontiguous. But the constitution of the Native American state would be written to account for this, and allow each reservation to proceed autonomously.

A group of smaller Native American states might be more feasible if you're looking to go down this route. Lumping all Native American tribes into one big discontinuous state leaves it open to some problematic and at times ugly inter-tribal politics*, like if you merged Oregon and Georgia. A group of smaller states representing a region or language group would make the states a little more viable as there could be something closer to a common identity.

*If the US is anything like Australia, this is a bigger problem than one might think.

Heh, yes, I've thought of that, but I didn't want to over-complexify the idea when introducing it. There are enough Native Americans in the US to justify on the order of 8 - 10 states anyway if you include people not on federal tribal rolls, or about six states limited to the existing rolls. That would go a long way to rectifying the injustices wrought.

[Simon_Jester]

The obstacle to the 'loosely federated state' idea I see is how many federal programs are designed to interface with substantially-sized state bureaucracies. There'd be a lot of frustration dealing with the feds for this reason, although it could be managed if everyone involved were determined to make it work somehow.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The obstacle to the 'loosely federated state' idea I see is how many federal programs are designed to interface with substantially-sized state bureaucracies. There'd be a lot of frustration dealing with the feds for this reason, although it could be managed if everyone involved were determined to make it work somehow.

The fact that the state delegates food stamp/education money authority to each "County" level administration in its constitution doesn't seem like it would be a massive hindrance to the functioning of federal law -- I mean, the enabling legislation should still be the same.

[Irbis]

I think that latter notion (uniting the Pacific island territories) may have actually been proposed at one point. The downside of it is the scale of the geographic dispersal (thousands of miles), which means that culturally the various islands self-identify as fairly different individual territories; they don't really share an identity apart from the common allegiance to the US.

You mean, just like Alaska (except with glaciers and towns instead of sea and islands)?

[The Romulan Republic]

For that matter, it could also be a way to give Native Americans more governance -- why not remove all Indian Tribes from the states they're presently in, and make them into a single Native American state? Each tribe would still be a legal tribe with all the prerogatives thereof, but instead of fighting with the government of the state it's in endlessly, as state governments invariably try to dictate to the tribes, they'd have their own state, which would just happen to be geographically discontiguous. But the constitution of the Native American state would be written to account for this, and allow each reservation to proceed autonomously.

A group of smaller Native American states might be more feasible if you're looking to go down this route. Lumping all Native American tribes into one big discontinuous state leaves it open to some problematic and at times ugly inter-tribal politics*, like if you merged Oregon and Georgia. A group of smaller states representing a region or language group would make the states a little more viable as there could be something closer to a common identity.

*If the US is anything like Australia, this is a bigger problem than one might think.

Heh, yes, I've thought of that, but I didn't want to over-complexify the idea when introducing it. There are enough Native Americans in the US to justify on the order of 8 - 10 states anyway if you include people not on federal tribal rolls, or about six states limited to the existing rolls. That would go a long way to rectifying the injustices wrought.

Am I the only one who gets slightly ill at the idea of having a state created specifically for a particular race? Maybe there's something big I'm missing, but it gives these ugly apartheid vibes.

Edit: It seems to be basically saying "These minorities can't and/or shouldn't exist successfully under the same system of government.", and therefore essential goes against the entire idea of a racially diverse society.

[AniThyng]

Am I the only one who gets slightly ill at the idea of having a state created specifically for a particular race? Maybe there's something big I'm missing, but it gives these ugly apartheid vibes.

Edit: It seems to be basically saying "These minorities can't and/or shouldn't exist successfully under the same system of government.", and therefore essential goes against the entire idea of a racially diverse society.

You already have specifically created "majority-minority" seats...

[The Romulan Republic]

Elaborate, because I'm damn sure that their are no Congressional seats that can only go to people of a certain group, and if that's not what you're saying I'm not sure what you're saying.

[Gandalf]

Heh, yes, I've thought of that, but I didn't want to over-complexify the idea when introducing it. There are enough Native Americans in the US to justify on the order of 8 - 10 states anyway if you include people not on federal tribal rolls, or about six states limited to the existing rolls. That would go a long way to rectifying the injustices wrought.

It would go a long way, for sure. Also, having ten or so indigenous senators might go a fair way to improving their lot in US society through a seat at the trough of US government spending.

Am I the only one who gets slightly ill at the idea of having a state created specifically for a particular race? Maybe there's something big I'm missing, but it gives these ugly apartheid vibes.

You might be missing the half a millennium or so of conquest followed by systematised brutality because they had committed the sin of occupying land without the proper skin colour.

[Tribble]

Sorry, my lack of understanding of the American government is coming into play here. What exactly is an American territory? What powers and jurisdictions does an American territory have? Why is it that American territories have no representation at the federal level?

In Canada, a territory is an area which is technically under the direct control of the Federal government. Unlike the provinces, Canadian territories have no inherent jurisdiction over anything. Practically speaking it doesn't amount to much though because the Federal government has devolved most provincial powers to the territories via legislation, and they have representation in both the House of Commons and the Senate. And anyone born in a territory is a Canadian citizen.

EDIT: btw I'm not arguing over which system is superior or anything, I'm just curious as to the differences.

[Dominus Atheos]

RTFA

Or in this case

WTFV

[Sea Skimmer]

An added element is that if the territories became states, suddenly diplomacy could get a little more interesting since we are now talking about national waters around Guam, the Marinas, and so forth, as much as Hawaii and California. I don't know how much of an issue that would be, but our borders would be suddenly quite stretched.

Nope. All those waters already belong to the US. US states are allowed to enforce local laws to a 3 mile limit. The 12, 24 and 200nm limits are all federal and apply to all US landmasses. 'Statehood' is completely irrelevant to international law on this matter.

In fact the real US situation is not only does it police the waters of all those islands, by treaty it also helps polices the waters of several independent countries in the central Pacific because they have no hope of doing so alone. See the Compact of Free Association for details of that.

[Rogue 9]

Elaborate, because I'm damn sure that their are no Congressional seats that can only go to people of a certain group, and if that's not what you're saying I'm not sure what you're saying.

He's talking about gerrymandered state congressional districts, many of which are purposely majority-minority (or majority the minority political party, at any rate) so that the majority also has a guaranteed majority of the total elected representatives.

[Dominus Atheos]

RTFA

Or in this case

WTFV

Okay, that may have been a little harsh. Here is another video that explains things a little better, and with more balance.



But seriously, read (and watch) the OP before commenting please.

[The Romulan Republic]

Heh, yes, I've thought of that, but I didn't want to over-complexify the idea when introducing it. There are enough Native Americans in the US to justify on the order of 8 - 10 states anyway if you include people not on federal tribal rolls, or about six states limited to the existing rolls. That would go a long way to rectifying the injustices wrought.

It would go a long way, for sure. Also, having ten or so indigenous senators might go a fair way to improving their lot in US society through a seat at the trough of US government spending.

Am I the only one who gets slightly ill at the idea of having a state created specifically for a particular race? Maybe there's something big I'm missing, but it gives these ugly apartheid vibes.

You might be missing the half a millennium or so of conquest followed by systematised brutality because they had committed the sin of occupying land without the proper skin colour.

Ah, sarcastic condesention. I suppose that's better than nothing when you have no real argument.

Yes, I am aware of the conquest of indigenous people. Yes, a lot of horrible shit was done. This does not explain why the best solution is giving the natives a separate state that enshrines semi-apartheid. You have simply implied this this is so with no real evidence and treated it as self-evident. You also threw in the implication that anyone who disagrees is racist and ignorant.

Fuck off and come back when you have a real argument.

[The Romulan Republic]

Elaborate, because I'm damn sure that their are no Congressional seats that can only go to people of a certain group, and if that's not what you're saying I'm not sure what you're saying.

He's talking about gerrymandered state congressional districts, many of which are purposely majority-minority (or majority the minority political party, at any rate) so that the majority also has a guaranteed majority of the total elected representatives.

I see.

Well, gerrymandering is a problem but I'm not sure how best to address it. I don't think its quite the same as "This state for this race." though.

[Simon_Jester]

Am I the only one who gets slightly ill at the idea of having a state created specifically for a particular race? Maybe there's something big I'm missing, but it gives these ugly apartheid vibes.

Edit: It seems to be basically saying "These minorities can't and/or shouldn't exist successfully under the same system of government.", and therefore essential goes against the entire idea of a racially diverse society.

When it comes to the Native Americans, race is not the only issue at stake.

The native tribes on the reservations were independent political entities that the US waged aggressive war on. In general, they were methodically cheated whenever a treaty was signed, with the result that nearly every tribe is economically weakened by lack of lands or resources they were explicitly promised by treaty. Moreover, the US has exploited the reservation system to keep most of the tribes economically and culturally subjugated.

All these are complaints that the natives can reasonably lodge as a nation looking at the US's actions as a nation. They were always independent, and never gave that up willingly; it's simply that they have been forced into a position of submission and helplessness by the size and armament of the United States. Even then, they did not agree to give up all autonomy and become just another bunch of ordinary citizens.

And so the natives are not just another racial group of Americans; they never agreed to be subsumed into the American population entirely. We cannot reasonably say of the natives "but our melting pot is supposed to allow all races to live together!"

Because they never signed up to jump into our melting pot in the first place; they were forced in, and it wasn't justified to impose that on them against their will.

So the 'melting pot' argument isn't justification for denying the natives political representation to protect their (heavily violated) rights.

[The Romulan Republic]

First of all, I am aware that their are differences between the situation of the Native Americans and the situations of other groups. That said, I am not convinced that these differences justify creating a separate state for certain groups of people. If they are part of the United States, they should be part of the same system and society. If they are not part of the United States (and I recognize that large parts of the country, if not the entire country, were taken from their inhabitants by force), then they should be a separate nation altogether. Of course, that doesn't work in practice because if we were to give the natives all of their land back we would have to pretty much disband the United States (I do not wish to legitimize secession). At some point (and believe me I do not say this lightly because I recognize that a lot of truly horrific things were done to Native Americans), you have to accept that you can't undo the past, and you just have to do the best you can to treat everyone equally going forward.

And you might note that I never used the term "melting pot", a term I do not like because it implies that all cultures should merge into a homogenous mix. I have no problem with cultural diversity so long as all people are ultimately subject to the same laws and part of the same state.

I also think it is a mistake for you to refer to the natives as if they are a homogenous group. I imagine their are a variety of feelings on the issue in the native population, seeing as how it is comprised of a large number of individuals, though admittedly I don't have any statistics on the subject on hand at the moment.

[The Romulan Republic]

And I realize that this has gotten rather off-topic, for which I'm sorry. But I feel that it is important to express my discomfort with the idea of creating a state at least partially based on race. And frankly that should make anyone else uncomfortable too. Sometimes I feel like progressiveness has bent around in a loop until, with the best of intentions no doubt, its ended up in the same place as white supremacism, more or less. Separate but equal.

[Tribble]

RTFA

Or in this case

WTFV

Okay, that may have been a little harsh. Here is another video that explains things a little better, and with more balance.



But seriously, read (and watch) the OP before commenting please.

I appreciate the video, it summed things up rather nicely. Thanks!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Native Americans HAVE different countries. Those countries are presently in a state of vassalage to the United States. That is the legal definition of an Indian reservation.

At any rate, I fundamentally disagree with your definition of equality. I think different ethnic groups have a right to enforce their own customs through their own laws. If Nebraska and New York can have different laws, why can't Native Americans have different laws from California? A federal system already functionally allows each state to enforce its own mores. Here, I actually think it's racist for you to suggest that a distinct group of people with their own distinct needs should be included within New York, as in the case of the Seneca. Why shouldn't they be able to choose their representatives just like New Yorkers can separate from Pennsylvanians? If federalization includes the right to legislate on guns and healthcare and marijuana, why are we going to demand federalization be based on random geographic lines instead of a set of shared values?

Is Germany racist for forcing all the Bavarians to be in Bavaria and live under Bavarian law? On the contrary it seems like as a clearly defined unique group of German citizens, Bavarians actually prefer to have the right to control some of their own destiny in a collective fashion.

The simple fact of the matter "The Romulan Republic", is that I find your beliefs on Native reservations to be profoundly racist, ignorant, and anglocentric. They're based on the assumption that all people are inherently better off under white law. That white notions of civil rights work best for all people, and that individuals in Native reservations have no right to preserve elements of their own custom, religion, language, and legal code by having a framework for doing so (called a "state" in this instance, or else a reservation as it currently stands) distinct from other groups of people.

At any rate, it gets even more fundamentally absurd when you consider that they'd still have to comply with the overarching constitution. If being a group of white people living on the Mississippi instead of a group of white people living in Cascadia is a good enough reason to have separate US Constitution compliant state constitutions, why isn't being a group of native Americans a good reason to have a separate state-level constitution? There's no good answer to that, and you need to step back and think about it for a bit. Ethnic groups have as much right to exist as people do, and more to the point, they have an especial right to decide on their own laws, language, and custom.

We've stolen everything else from them, we've maimed and tortured and raped and killed so much that we changed the very climate of the world with our holocaust, and now a bunch of libertarians and leftists alike want to finish the job and erase their very identity and the very last of their sovereign land. God, but THAT'S the sickening thing. Liberals thought they could integrate Native Americans before, so they took away their reservations and they forced them to farm and they forced them to learn the white man's ways, and made them more broken, more ignorant, more helpless, more divorced from happy lives. The Agent on the reservation forcing people to wear Victorian dresses and plant wheat for the sake of equality and progress drove as many into the helpless, despairing death of drink as the cavalryman shot on the frontier.

All they want to do is live their own lives, according to their own values and customs. And that's somehow 'wrong' in your worldview.

The correct response to what you propose is resistance. The just thing to do, of course, is to negotiate, and finally settle the end of five hundred years of slaughter.