When Adding New States Helped Republicans

[Rich2018]

So if DC and PR were added as new states, how many more Representatives would we have ?

We know we'd get 4 more senators.

 

[tanj]

The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.

When Adding New States Helped the Republicans

Putting new stars on the U.S. flag has always been political. But D.C. statehood is a modest partisan ploy compared with the mass admission of underpopulated western territories—which boosts the GOP even 130 years later.

www.theatlantic.com

those other states added had far more to offer the United States than do either the proposed DC or Puerto Rico additions.
the last two admitted, Alaska and Hawaii, both detached from the mainland, but offered a great boost to strategic defense of the country.

why can't we discuss the merits of adding those two new states apart from the perks that they will gain. what do they bring to the table?

 

[Rich2018]

those other states added had far more to offer the United States than do either the proposed DC or Puerto Rico additions.
the last two admitted, Alaska and Hawaii, both detached from the mainland, but offered a great boost to strategic defense of the country.

With bases that were already there.

why can't we discuss the merits of adding those two new states apart from the perks that they will gain. what do they bring to the table?

What do "Red" states like Montana bring to the table ?

 

[yankintx]

So your justification for taking an action obviously aimed at gaining long term political power is "well they did it first". If that's the case democrats want to make then don't expect republicans to not do the same at every opportunity in every city, state and national opportunity they have. This thinking is going to be the ruination of the nation as we cannot find any common ground because political power is always first. The extremism of the left as they lean towards a marxist/socialist autocratic government prevents compromise. It seems in their view compromise is, "you do it our way, you concede on every issue and you give us 100% of our demands. If not there will be no peace."
Where does the country go from there.

After the insurrection on Jan 6, and the GOP holding there nose, there is no going back. Congrats Righties, the bar truly is set low.

 

[Glitch]

those other states added had far more to offer the United States than do either the proposed DC or Puerto Rico additions.
the last two admitted, Alaska and Hawaii, both detached from the mainland, but offered a great boost to strategic defense of the country.

why can't we discuss the merits of adding those two new states apart from the perks that they will gain. what do they bring to the table?

Adding Puetro Rico as the 51st State is not a problem. US territories have regularly become US States throughout US history.

The problem starts when you are talking about making DC a State. That will require an amendment to the US Constitution altering or abolishing Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that gives Congress the authority to establish DC as the national capitol. In addition to repealing the Twenty-Third Amendment. Then there is the issue of obtaining both Maryland and Virginia's approval as required by Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

One thing the anti-American left did not take into consideration is that by creating two more States, with a fixed 435 House Representatives, they will be taking two House Representatives away from two other States. Most likely New York and California since they are the most populated. So the Democrats proposing this stupidity will not gain anything in the House. They will swap a seat in California for a seat for DC, and swap out a seat in New York for a seat for Puerto Rico. However, four new Senators will be added.

When Republicans take back control of the House and Senate, they will just add Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa as States, which will gain them eight new Senate seats and that will take four more House Representatives away from populated Democrat-controlled States.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So your justification for taking an action obviously aimed at gaining long term political power is "well they did it first". If that's the case democrats want to make then don't expect republicans to not do the same at every opportunity in every city, state and national opportunity they have. This thinking is going to be the ruination of the nation as we cannot find any common ground because political power is always first. The extremism of the left as they lean towards a marxist/socialist autocratic government prevents compromise. It seems in their view compromise is, "you do it our way, you concede on every issue and you give us 100% of our demands. If not there will be no peace."
Where does the country go from there.

Something tells me that you are older and your whole life you have probably been talking about the left taking America towards Marxism and Socialism. It must be a pretty damn slow road to socialism...

 

[Rich2018]

Something tells me that you are older and your whole life you have probably been talking about the left taking America towards Marxism and Socialism. It must be a pretty damn slow road to socialism...

The RW would call a national health service "socialism"

They absolutely have no clue what socialism is - to them it's the unknown bogey-man under the bed.

 

[tanj]

Adding Puetro Rico as the 51st State is not a problem. US territories have regularly become US States throughout US history.

The problem starts when you are talking about making DC a State. That will require an amendment to the US Constitution altering or abolishing Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that gives Congress the authority to establish DC as the national capitol. In addition to repealing the Twenty-Third Amendment. Then there is the issue of obtaining both Maryland and Virginia's approval as required by Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

One thing the anti-American left did not take into consideration is that by creating two more States, with a fixed 435 House Representatives, they will be taking two House Representatives away from two other States. Most likely New York and California since they are the most populated. So the Democrats proposing this stupidity will not gain anything in the House. They will swap a seat in California for a seat for DC, and swap out a seat in New York for a seat for Puerto Rico. However, four new Senators will be added.

When Republicans take back control of the House and Senate, they will just add Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa as States, which will gain them eight new Senate seats and that will take four more House Representatives away from populated Democrat-controlled States.

the permanent apportionment act of 1929 is just a law. having even the smallest majority in the house and senate would give them the ability to just change that.

other than voting and representation benefits for the new states, what do you feel is the benefit to the United States as a whole of adding Puerto Rico and DC as states?
what do they bring to the table as new states? i doubt that in the past we have added new states just for the benefit of those in the state. in terms of representation and voting, every territory would stand to benefit. but the question is what do they bring to the table.

 

[tanj]

The RW would call a national health service "socialism"

They absolutely have no clue what socialism is - to them it's the unknown bogey-man under the bed.

lets see... socialism involves government control of the means of production. in the case of healthcare, the "means of production" is the means of providing health care.
so government controlled healthcare would appear to be a certain degree of socialism.

I think it would be better to provide as complete a definition of socialism as you can in order to help the discussion.

 

[Rich2018]

lets see... socialism involves government control of the means of production. in the case of healthcare, the "means of production" is the means of providing health care.

A health service is not a means of production any more than the police, fire dept or army are

so government controlled healthcare would appear to be a certain degree of socialism.

Absolutely no it wouldn't
I know you'll probably say you don't care what happens in other countries, but you should
In the UK, the "right wing" Conservative Party under Boris Johnson is deeply committed to the National Health Service (NHS) and promised to build 43 hospitals in the recent British General Election

Ditto Canada and Australia - neither of which is a "socialist" country either

I think it would be better to provide as complete a definition of socialism as you can in order to help the discussion.

Socialism is state control over the means of production: eg: factories, farms, mines
Basically anything that generates money for the economy

It does not include state owned services that are not run for a profit: eg: police, military, prison, park services, sanitation, schools and hospitals.

 

[Glitch]

the permanent apportionment act of 1929 is just a law. having even the smallest majority in the house and senate would give them the ability to just change that.

other than voting and representation benefits for the new states, what do you feel is the benefit to the United States as a whole of adding Puerto Rico and DC as states?
what do they bring to the table as new states? i doubt that in the past we have added new states just for the benefit of those in the state. in terms of representation and voting, every territory would stand to benefit. but the question is what do they bring to the table.

It would require more than a simple majority to override a filibuster, and without an amendment to the US Constitution DC is not going anywhere.

The benefit to the US, as a whole, would be primarily financial. The federal government (a.k.a. US taxpayers) would no longer be responsible for funding the US territory. The newly formed State would be responsible for taxing its own citizens and only funding what they can afford because they would be required to balance their budget. They would no longer have the unlimited pocketbook of the federal government.

All States were added for the benefit the US. It didn't really matter what the people living in the newly formed State wanted. As I previously pointed out, Alaska voted to become a State several times, and Hawaii never voted to become a State. Both Alaska and Hawaii were added for their strategic benefit to the US.

I'm just not sure what strategic benefit the US would gain from making Puerto Rico a State, but Guam would be a good place for a US Marine Corps base once they leave Okinawa. Guam is also much closer to currently contested Spratley islands in the South China Sea. Both the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa could also be strategically important to the US for similar reasons.

The State of Puerto Rico, on the other hand, wouldn't even be a good naval base since we already have Guantánamo Bay. Puerto Rico has about as much strategic value to the US as the US Virgin Islands, which is to say not a great deal.

 

[tanj]

It would require more than a simple majority to override a filibuster, and without an amendment to the US Constitution DC is not going anywhere.

The benefit to the US, as a whole, would be primarily financial. The federal government (a.k.a. US taxpayers) would no longer be responsible for funding the US territory. The newly formed State would be responsible for taxing its own citizens and only funding what they can afford because they would be required to balance their budget. They would no longer have the unlimited pocketbook of the federal government.

All States were added for the benefit the US. It didn't really matter what the people living in the newly formed State wanted. As I previously pointed out, Alaska voted to become a State several times, and Hawaii never voted to become a State. Both Alaska and Hawaii were added for their strategic benefit to the US.

I'm just not sure what strategic benefit the US would gain from making Puerto Rico a State, but Guam would be a good place for a US Marine Corps base once they leave Okinawa. Guam is also much closer to currently contested Spratley islands in the South China Sea. Both the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa could also be strategically important to the US for similar reasons.

The State of Puerto Rico, on the other hand, wouldn't even be a good naval base since we already have Guantánamo Bay. Puerto Rico has about as much strategic value to the US as the US Virgin Islands, which is to say not a great deal.

the democrats have expressed no opposition to ending the filibuster.
I agree on the amendment.

Puerto Rico seems to have a problem with the funding what they can afford part. for various reasons, they are a mess that would take quite some time to straighten out.

 

[Glitch]

the democrats have expressed no opposition to ending the filibuster.

An empty threat. They know that if they eliminate the filibuster it will only come back to bite them in the ass when the GOP take control. Precisely what happened after Sen. Reid abolished the filibuster for judicial nominees. That bit Democrats in the ass so badly that we now have a very conservative Supreme Court with 6 conservative and only 3 leftist justices. Do you really think they will want to role that dice again?

FYI, I consider abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees to be the only constitutionally correct course of action. The US Constitution states "with the advice and consent of the Senate." That requires an up or down vote. Which makes filibustering any Senate vote for treaties and "ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States" unconstitutional.

Puerto Rico seems to have a problem with the funding what they can afford part. for various reasons, they are a mess that would take quite some time to straighten out.

They have been a US territory for so long they don't know what it is like to have to balance a budget. They have never had to be fiscally responsible before. That is the advantage of all US territories, the US taxpayer picks up the bill. Just like the federal government, they have bottomless funds as long as they remain a territory and not a State.

 

[tanj]

An empty threat. They know that if they eliminate the filibuster it will only come back to bite them in the ass when the GOP take control. Precisely what happened after Sen. Reid abolished the filibuster for judicial nominees. That bit Democrats in the ass so badly that we now have a very conservative Supreme Court with 6 conservative and only 3 leftist justices. Do you really think they will want to role that dice again?

FYI, I consider abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees to be the only constitutionally correct course of action. The US Constitution states "with the advice and consent of the Senate." That requires an up or down vote. Which makes filibustering any Senate vote for treaties and "ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States" unconstitutional.


They have been a US territory for so long they don't know what it is like to have to balance a budget. They have never had to be fiscally responsible before. That is the advantage of all US territories, the US taxpayer picks up the bill. Just like the federal government, they have bottomless funds as long as they remain a territory and not a State.

i think they are betting on it being a very long time before the GOP takes control away from them.

 

[Glitch]

i think they are betting on it being a very long time before the GOP takes control away from them.

I'll gladly take that bet.

First, the odds are very good that Democrats will lose seats in the House during the 2022 mid-term election. There was only one time in the last 70 years when the party who gained the White House also gained seats in the House during the mid-term. That was Bush in 2002, when he actually gained GOP seats in the House. At all other times the party that controlled the White House lost seats in the House. Look at what happened to Obama in 2010, and Trump in 2018.

Whether or not Democrats will lose enough seats to lose the majority remains to be seen. It really depends on how stupid Democrats are in 2022. It was the illegal Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 that really cost Democrats in the 2010 mid-term election. Just like it was the Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994 that cost Democrats the majority in both the House and Senate after that mid-term election. We will see if the Democrats can refrain from doing anything monumentally stupid between now and November 2022. Somehow I don't that that will be possible, not with Nancy "we have to pass it to see whats in it" Pelosi.

 

[mrjurrs]

Adding Puetro Rico as the 51st State is not a problem. US territories have regularly become US States throughout US history.

The problem starts when you are talking about making DC a State. That will require an amendment to the US Constitution altering or abolishing Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that gives Congress the authority to establish DC as the national capitol. In addition to repealing the Twenty-Third Amendment. Then there is the issue of obtaining both Maryland and Virginia's approval as required by Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

One thing the anti-American left did not take into consideration is that by creating two more States, with a fixed 435 House Representatives, they will be taking two House Representatives away from two other States. Most likely New York and California since they are the most populated. So the Democrats proposing this stupidity will not gain anything in the House. They will swap a seat in California for a seat for DC, and swap out a seat in New York for a seat for Puerto Rico. However, four new Senators will be added.

When Republicans take back control of the House and Senate, they will just add Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa as States, which will gain them eight new Senate seats and that will take four more House Representatives away from populated Democrat-controlled States.

Quick reminder...your interpretation of the Constitution is not accurate.
1- Basis for getting MD and VA approval? I know you say Art. 4, Sec. 3, Cl. 1. It's not there.-
2-DC would remain as federal capitol, rest of the land would likely have a new name.
3-States don't lose seats based on total population of the state, they lose them on proportion of the population. CA & NY? Maybe, maybe not. Likely some would come from those states that added reps...TX?

 

[Glitch]

Quick reminder...your interpretation of the Constitution is not accurate.
1- Basis for getting MD and VA approval? I know you say Art. 4, Sec. 3, Cl. 1. It's not there.-

That is because you flat-out refused to actually read the US Constitution, like a good Democrat.

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." --- Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution {emphasis added}

2-DC would remain as federal capitol, rest of the land would likely have a new name.

States are not under federal control, and no State can be the capitol of the federal government. Which is why Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the US Constitution was created in the first place, specifically to make DC the federal capitol.

If you want to make DC a State it requires an amendment to the US Constitution to either alter or repeal Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and the repeal of the Twenty-Third Amendment, in addition to the approval of both Maryland's and Virginia's State legislature as required by Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

3-States don't lose seats based on total population of the state, they lose them on proportion of the population. CA & NY? Maybe, maybe not. Likely some would come from those states that added reps...TX?

Actually, they do lose seats based on total population. The mass exodus from both the leftist sh*thole states of New York and California has already cost both States one US House Representative each. Other States that are also experiencing a mass exodus include Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, West Virginia, and Michigan.

Altogether the GOP are looking at gaining at least seven new US House Representatives seats, including three new seats in Florida, Texas, and Arizona just due to the redistribution of the population during the 2020 Census. The other States gaining a US House Representative include North Carolina, Oregon, Colorado, and Montana.

Already Democrats are losing seats in the US House and the mid-term elections are still 18 months away.

 

[mrjurrs]

That is because you flat-out refused to actually read the US Constitution, like a good Democrat.

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." --- Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution {emphasis added}


States are not under federal control, and no State can be the capitol of the federal government. Which is why Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the US Constitution was created in the first place, specifically to make DC the federal capitol.

If you want to make DC a State it requires an amendment to the US Constitution to either alter or repeal Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and the repeal of the Twenty-Third Amendment, in addition to the approval of both Maryland's and Virginia's State legislature as required by Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.


Actually, they do lose seats based on total population. The mass exodus from both the leftist sh*thole states of New York and California has already cost both States one US House Representative each. Other States that are also experiencing a mass exodus include Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, West Virginia, and Michigan.

Altogether the GOP are looking at gaining at least seven new US House Representatives seats, including three new seats in Florida, Texas, and Arizona just due to the redistribution of the population during the 2020 Census. The other States gaining a US House Representative include North Carolina, Oregon, Colorado, and Montana.

Already Democrats are losing seats in the US House and the mid-term elections are still 18 months away.

A new state of 'Columbia' would not be in the jurisdiction of another state and would not be formed by the junction of two or more states.

DC would remain the federal capitol. It would be smaller. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 has zero to do with this and I'm not catching your point about Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. See section 2 of the 23rd. Congress shall make laws to enforce the Amendment.

States are not awarded seats based on total population, they are awarded on a formula that includes population. Why does WY (@ 580 k) have the same number of reps as ND (@760 k)?

The GOP will not pick up 7 seats, 5 maximum.

When does the new districts vote? Numbers remain the same until 2022. Although I hear rumors of more malfeasance surfacing in the Census count during 45's administration. Color me shocked. Redistricting doesn't happen until it happens.

 

[Rich2018]

i think they are betting on it being a very long time before the GOP takes control away from them.

A fairly safe bet.

 

[Glitch]

A new state of 'Columbia' would not be in the jurisdiction of another state and would not be formed by the junction of two or more states.

You do comprehend that DC currently was formed by the junction of two States, correct? If the national capitol is not going to be within an existing State, and you want to abolish Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 that created DC in the first place, then that only leaves US territories to place the national capitol.

Are Democrats seriously considering moving the national capitol to some US territory, like Guam or the US Virgin Islands? Because they can't leave it in DC if they make it a State. The Twenty-Third Amendment must also be repealed by another amendment before DC can be made into a State. Which requires the approval of 38 State legislatures. So that is a foregone conclusion that it will never happen.

DC would remain the federal capitol. It would be smaller. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 has zero to do with this and I'm not catching your point about Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. See section 2 of the 23rd. Congress shall make laws to enforce the Amendment.

It cannot be both a State and the national capitol. It is either one or the other, but it cannot be both.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 is what created DC as the national capitol. So if you intend to make DC into a State and not alter Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, then you must find a new location for the national capitol. Like it says, a location where Congress has jurisdiction "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..." That includes moving the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, and all the monuments to the new capitol location.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution requires not just congressional approval, but also the approval of any State legislature that shares the border of a newly created State. When DC was chosen as the capitol both Maryland's and Virginia's State legislature gave their approval to cede their land to form the national capitol. Approval from State legislatures would not be necessary to make Puerto Rico a State since no other State borders the island. The same thing was also true for Hawaii and Alaska when they were added as States. However, to make DC into a new State it would require the approval of both Maryland and Virginia State legislatures.

States are not awarded seats based on total population, they are awarded on a formula that includes population. Why does WY (@ 580 k) have the same number of reps as ND (@760 k)?

States are awarded seats based on total population. It is the percentage of the total population of the State in comparison to the total population of the rest of the nation. Wyoming (578,759) has 0.175% of the US population (331,449,281). South Dakota (884,659) has 0.267% of the US population. Which is why both States only have one US House Representative.

Based on the 2020 Census, it requires a minimum population of 1,000,000 or 0.302% of the total population before a State can be awarded their second US House Representative seat. Which is why Rhode Island (1,059,361), Montana (1,068,778), Maine (1,344,212), New Hampshire (1,359,711), and Idaho (1,787,065) will all have two US House Representatives and why Delaware (973,764) still has only one US House Representative.

 

[Rich2018]

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution requires not just congressional approval, but also the approval of any State legislature that shares the border of a newly created State. When DC was chosen as the capitol both Maryland's and Virginia's State legislature gave their approval to cede their land to form the national capitol. Approval from State legislatures would not be necessary to make Puerto Rico a State since no other State borders the island. The same thing was also true for Hawaii and Alaska when they were added as States. However, to make DC into a new State it would require the approval of both Maryland and Virginia State legislatures.

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."​

So if you took a chuck of say S.Carolina and a chuck of Georgia and made a state it would need the approval of:
1. Georgia
2. S.Carolina
3. Congress

But DC is not part of any state so it does not require the approval of Maryland or W.Virginia for statehood

 

[mrjurrs]

You do comprehend that DC currently was formed by the junction of two States, correct? If the national capitol is not going to be within an existing State, and you want to abolish Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 that created DC in the first place, then that only leaves US territories to place the national capitol.

Are Democrats seriously considering moving the national capitol to some US territory, like Guam or the US Virgin Islands? Because they can't leave it in DC if they make it a State. The Twenty-Third Amendment must also be repealed by another amendment before DC can be made into a State. Which requires the approval of 38 State legislatures. So that is a foregone conclusion that it will never happen.


It cannot be both a State and the national capitol. It is either one or the other, but it cannot be both.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 is what created DC as the national capitol. So if you intend to make DC into a State and not alter Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, then you must find a new location for the national capitol. Like it says, a location where Congress has jurisdiction "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..." That includes moving the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, and all the monuments to the new capitol location.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution requires not just congressional approval, but also the approval of any State legislature that shares the border of a newly created State. When DC was chosen as the capitol both Maryland's and Virginia's State legislature gave their approval to cede their land to form the national capitol. Approval from State legislatures would not be necessary to make Puerto Rico a State since no other State borders the island. The same thing was also true for Hawaii and Alaska when they were added as States. However, to make DC into a new State it would require the approval of both Maryland and Virginia State legislatures.


States are awarded seats based on total population. It is the percentage of the total population of the State in comparison to the total population of the rest of the nation. Wyoming (578,759) has 0.175% of the US population (331,449,281). South Dakota (884,659) has 0.267% of the US population. Which is why both States only have one US House Representative.

Based on the 2020 Census, it requires a minimum population of 1,000,000 or 0.302% of the total population before a State can be awarded their second US House Representative seat. Which is why Rhode Island (1,059,361), Montana (1,068,778), Maine (1,344,212), New Hampshire (1,359,711), and Idaho (1,787,065) will all have two US House Representatives and why Delaware (973,764) still has only one US House Representative.

Absolutely DC was formed from two states. The new state would NOT be formed from 2 states, it would be formed from the District of Columbia. The only DC requirement is that it not exceed 10 miles.

DC would remain the capitol. It would only be smaller than it is. MD and VA approval is not required, no land is coming from their states.

You are wrong about why WY and VT have one rep. It is because that is in the Constitution (minimum representation).

Again, your claim that Repsn are based on total population is quite simply...incorrect.

"The current method used, the Method of Equal Proportions, was adopted by congress in 1941 following the census of 1940. This method assigns seats in the House of Representatives according to a "priority" value. The priority value is determined by multiplying the population of a state by a "multiplier." Each of the 50 states is given one seat out of the current total of 435. The next, or 51st seat, goes to the state with the highest priority value and becomes that state's second seat. This continues until all 435 seats have been assigned to a state. This is how it is done."

Computing Apportionment

www.census.gov

 

[Rich2018]

Absolutely DC was formed from two states. The new state would NOT be formed from 2 states, it would be formed from the District of Columbia. The only DC requirement is that it not exceed 10 miles.

Which is what I just said.

 

[mrjurrs]

Which is what I just said.

? My response was to a different post.

 

[Rich2018]

? My response was to a different post.

I know. You just echoed my post though.