Say what you will about Susan Collins, she is consistent: consistently short sighted and shallow. When asked this morning about Washington, D.C. becoming the 51st state, she replied that she had a better idea and that was for D.C. to become part of Maryland.
"There is a way to ensure that the residents of DC having voting representation in Congress, and that is for DC to become part of Maryland" — Susan Collins on CNN pic.twitter.com/MOF0kezwGL
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 2, 2021
Now, I think that idea is spiffy. I really do. And let’s just use it as a jumping off point, shall we? After we make D.C. part of Maryland, the next thing we should do is make Maine part of New Hampshire. Then the former state of Maine can be represented by Democrats Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen and that suits me just fine. It’s a way to finally get rid of Susan Collins, and I am all for that.
Or, lacking that remedy, here’s another plan: We just give Maine to the Canadians, and let them do their system of government there. It would be a tough sell, probably, because Canada undoubtedly wouldn’t want Collins as a citizen — and we understand — but that’s another solution.
So I like this new plan of Susan Collins. And I’ve got a better one, still. Let’s just take this out to its logical extension, shall we? We divide up the entire country into North and South, and the North will be blue and the south will be red. Yes, I know it’s not original, but this is Collinsonian logic we’re using here, we have to do the best we can.
If you’re living south of The Line, then you’re in Red World and you’ve got two senators and Blue World is above The Line, same thing, two senators. The line will start roughly south of Sacramento and run straight across the country with North Carolina being the northernmost part of Red World. Anything above that is Blue. Mitch McConnell won’t be happy, because he’ll be living in Blue World, so that’s a bonus to this swell idea.
And if you’re living in what will soon be Red World or Blue World, according to this plan, you just have to move north or south as the case may be, because if you stay where you are, that’s your political posture. Geography is destiny.
The two huge new states, Bluerasia and Rednausea, say, will have only two senators each and they can settle disputes ala Thunderdome. Whichever senator walks out, we take that person’s legislation, and that’s the law. And so it goes.
Thank you, Senator Collins, for inspiring the solution to all qualms electoral in this country. And thank you for your Concern, now and always. We are deeply touched.
Or we could give Maine back to Massachusetts. I’d support reuniting the Dakotas, also – if the Indians get control of the land that’s supposed to be theirs by treaty.
This brave new world of ours could work out. Great idea, the Dakotas.
I can’t help but try and be creative and take ideas that have come to me over the years regarding lesser populated states that are part of the continental U.S. but were originally territories – some named and some not. What has at times gotten me to thinking about it is seeing that huge swath of red on the electoral map, especially in a chunk of the south and particularly west of the Mississippi River – especially the mountain west. The thing is, especially out in the mountain states few states have much population which is easy to spot when you look at electoral votes by state. So my thought has been that instead of adding states we should combine some of them. Here goes my first real attempt:
Let’s say we allow each of the original thirteen states to keep their status and in one case add to it’s borders. This article brought up the subject of Maine. Most of the folks who live in that state live down close to NH so make Maine part of New Hampshire. They’d be pissed about it but since Vermont is tiny both physically and in population add them to NH too. The new state could continue to be called New Hampshire, or perhaps New England or some other name they might choose. After doing all that you’d have a modest sized state that currently has eleven electoral votes, which would with only two Senators be reduced to seven.
What we now call the states of Mississippi and Alabama were once the Mississippi territory. Both are decent sized already but since they both suck and “thank god for” each other (the old joke about thank god for MS/AL because while we might be 49th THEY are worse!” let them have each other so they can suffer at the bottom together as one state. Let em fight it out about what to call their new former territory become separate states and now new state. They currently have fifteen electoral votes which would with the loss of two Senators be reduced to thirteen.
Moving west, remember learning about the Louisiana Purchase in school growing up? A huge swath of land that effectively doubled the physical size of our country. It would be split up some before much state status as we now know it was granted – and I’m referring to the part once called the Missouri Territory which included what is now Iowa (see what I’m up to?) in addition to what we now know as Missouri, and it also led to the Arkansas Territory which was what we now know as the states of Arkansas and Oklahoma. The rest was literally called unnamed territory for a while but included what we now know as Kansas and Nebraska. Given the whole Kansas-Nebraska Act I say like the southern states of AL and MS let em have each other. Make them one state (they can fight it out for what to call it) and that currently add up to 11 electoral votes but with only two Senators be reduced to nine. The Dakotas? Combine them and they’d still currently add up to only six electoral votes but it would maybe be easier just to go with one fairly good size (geographically) state of Dakota with only two Senators (and four electoral votes). And at least there wouldn’t be any fighting over the name.
Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are all similar and despite their size sparsely populated enough to only have a combined ten electoral votes at the moment so make em all one state. We might lose Tester (who will probably retire anyway) but the other side would lose three certain GOP Senators so it comes out ok as far as I’m concerned.
Utah? Give them a choice of joining either Nevada or Colorado (assuming Nevada will have them) or the just mentioned new state of whatever MT, ID and WY winds up calling itself. I think the two Senators from a Nevada/Utah combo might split, but if Utah decided to go with the other group it would be awesome for us!
This next one will be a little painful, but sometimes you have to take your medicine. And like a properly prescribed medicine I think over time it will lead to improvement. Arizona and New Mexico were once the New Mexico Territory. Both are purple although AZ has only barely gotten to that point and given what is likely to happen with redistricting (not to mention Synema doing her best to piss away her seat) isn’t a lock to even become solidly purple, much less blue. A lot of retirees move there (instead of FL) and that group for reasons that have always defied logic is solidly Republican. New Mexico is also purple but with I think a stronger bluish tint. Anyway, make it one big state that currently has a combined total of sixteen electoral votes. And I think at worst we’d have a Party split with the two Senators.
Don’t think I’ve forgotten West “by god” Virginia! What’s now WV was a part of Virginia that the latter didn’t really care much about and the events of the Civil War led to its becoming its own state. Give them the choice of rejoining Virginia (IF Virginia wants them which I doubt) or Kentucky. Given how Virginia has become solidly blue and trending to become deeply blue I’m betting the goobers in WV would hook up with Kentucky if they had to choose. Call that new state Appalachia, or White Wingnuttia or whatever but even though the western part of KY isn’t technically what’s called Appalachia it pretty much is the same. Poor, white and proud of their refusal to adapt to changes like coal being on life support and in need of a mercy killing. Currently the two states have thirteen electoral votes, four of which are Senators. Of that three are hard core GOP and one is GOP-Lite. If he runs again and Republicans put up a good candidate he’s toast if he doesn’t retire. And if he does that seat is lost. Keep in mind something about Kentucky. Folks tend to think of it as a southern state, and therefore possessing a significant but under-mobilized segment of black (and other minority) voters. It doesn’t. Like WV, Kentucky has a small minority population – blacks made up less than nine percent in the last census (most of them in the Louisville area) and negligible amounts of other minorities. So a combined WV and KY would leave us two GOP Senators, but only two instead of three-and-a-half or eventually four!
Now all that wouldn’t reduce the overall number of electoral votes by all that much. In fact, I’m in favor of adding Congressional districts as Representatives now have numbers of constituents that are wildly out of line with the founder’s vision of a “People’s House.” However, it would have a helluva impact on the makeup of the Senate. A lot more safely GOP seats would be lost than Democratic ones. Both California and Texas (much as I hate to admit it with the latter) would still have a legitimate grievance over having only two Senators given both the physical size but especially enormous populations each has. Still, it would alter the balance of the Senate and in a good way, and even reduce some of the unfairness in the Electoral College. Not enough in my view, and I’d still like to see a direct popular vote decide the Presidency but it would be progress in the proper direction.
Not that this would ever happen but I’d love to see something like this get proposed by someone with national status so it would be talked about. If only to hear Republicans scream like they’d been scalded with boiling oil and thrust in front of a six inch busted steam pipe!
Actually, Dennis, you’re oversimplifying the electoral vote counts in there. Remember, the country has 538 electoral votes BECAUSE of House membership which is based on population. BUT, it’s not going to just be a case of (for instance) “[Mississippi and Alabama] currently have fifteen electoral votes which would with the loss of two Senators be reduced to thirteen.” Currently, the states have a combined population of roughly 8 million people which would put the new single state smack dab between Virginia (with its 8.6 million people and 11 electoral votes) and Washington (with its 7.7 million people and 10 electoral votes).
See, if DC did become part of Maryland, the Electoral College would drop back to 535 since the House of Representatives has only 435 members and the Senate has only 100 members. DC’s 3 electoral votes are the result of the 23rd Amendment (the key point being “A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State” so DC cannot have 4 electoral votes even if its population surged to be as large as New York City’s). DC would be treated as if it were just another city (or city/county) in Maryland–like Baltimore or Annapolis. Maryland’s population might increase enough to warrant its gaining another House seat (which would come at the expense of ANOTHER state’s losing a seat) but, in any event, it would require the entire state to be redistricted.
I will grant that, in many cases, adding State A and State B will give a fair approximation of its post-combined electoral votes but, again, it tends to overlook how the overall political map would result when you factor in the whole country’s being affected. A forty-nine state US would have 533 electoral votes–435 House seats plus 98 Senators. A forty-state US would have 515 electoral votes–435 House seats plus 80 Senators. On top of it, the current “population-to-representative” ratio varies from state to state. Montana currently has two representatives who “represent” just under 543,000 people while Idaho also has two representatives who “represent” just over 920,000 people (Montana’s total population is just under 1.1 million people; Idaho’s population is just over 1.8 million).
Thanks for taking the time to consider my thoughts. It’s the first time I’ve attempted to put something on paper (so to speak). I kept bringing up current EC totals for the various proposed mergers to illustrate the relative lack of overall people in them but the outsized influence they have in the Senate. Take away all those relatively lightly populated states with two Senators and only one (or two, in some cases a couple more) Representatives and the balance in the House isn’t affected much (at least at first glance I don’t think so) but the Senate? The GOP would lose a lot more Senators than Democrats would and that was the point of the exercise. I’m sure the GOP would love for Texas to have more Senators, but on the balance they know that California would also get even more if things were fair so on that basis alone it would be a non-starter given their already considerable built in advantage. Texas turning purple would only make them dig in more.
The whole thing was an ugly compromise made to get slave holding states to adopt the new Constitution. Hell, even some non-slave states that were relatively small in population liked the idea of having a bigger voice even if the proposal of two Senators per state was prompted for about as ugly a reason as one can imagine. Madison fought like hell against the notion of each state having two Senators (regardless of population) enshrined in the Constitution and there were others who agreed with him, but in the end they really needed to get something viable in place as the Articles of Confederation were a disaster that threatened to doom our young country. As a result the founders compromised on some issues and punted others down the road. No less than Jefferson and Adams showed in their correspondence a belief that in forty or fifty years it would be a desirable, if not necessary thing to hold a new Constitutional Convention. That never happened, and now would be a truly dangerous thing. Which is why conservatives have been (mostly) quietly at work (like the Federalist Society was for so long with the judiciary and SCOTUS) to shape things so that one would be called.
Personally, I would rather have the North be Red and the South be Blue because I live in Arizona.
That would work for me as well, since I’m in southern Nevada. But you know Texas, Florida, etc. won’t go along with that.
I’m surprised that Collins, with all her bright ideas didn’t suggest that Puerto Rico could become the largest island in Florida.. No wonder she couldn’t realize that the Dumpf hadn’t “learned his lesson,” when she clearly has not learned anything.
If Maine is going to be annexed by Canada, I hope we get enough notice so I can move there.
Also, why don’t we eliminate the Senate altogether?
I mean, think of how much money we’ll save and it’s not like they DO anything anyway.