The question is what percentage of these workers are undocumented?
That's covered in the article:
The USDA estimated that between 2020-2022 about 32% of crop farmworkers were U.S. born, 7% were immigrants who had obtained citizenship, 19% were authorized immigrants, mostly permanent residents or green-card holders and the remaining 42% were unauthorized to work. The majority of these workers have Latino backgrounds.
If they split California into 3, the northern state might be red (or swing) but the other two would definitely be blue because of SR and LA. Look at a map of election results by county.
With Texas, at least a couple of them would have to be blue because some would contain the blue urban areas. Same with FL, at least one new state would be blue. if CA, TX, and FL all did it. If they divided into 5 states it might even out. Of course there would have to be negotiations to get enough people and the parties to agree to the boundaries, which should prevent too much of an advantage to one side or the other, especially if people don't want their cities be split between two states.
But regardless of the results for the Senate, the point is that the people in most populous states of this country are not getting their fair representation in our federal government and that needs to change.
Then of course as long as we're altering our makeup of states, we have to give the citizens DC representation and make that a state. And Puerto Rico should be able to decide if it wants to become a state as well.
Something that might work out better and would be a lot easier to do (thought still not very easy), would be to split into 3 (or 4?) states.
California has almost 12% of the US population concentrated in that one state! By far most of the states contain about 2% or less of the US population each.
By splitting, the population would be better represented in the Senate with 6 senators between them instead of only 2, and there might be a net gain in some other benefits that are given on the state level.
edit: I see that someone had already brought this idea up, but IMO it's a good idea that they should seriously consider!
Thanks for posting the text. I went to it again and this time instead of saying it was for paid subscribers only, it said I could view the article if I would sign up for a free account. I suppose they randomly pick one or the other approach, or maybe they try to get you to pay for a sub first, then try to get you to go for a free signup to at least get your email address.
Thanks for pointing out that community, because I've been trying to figure out how to get some kind of news feed that only covers the important things that we actually need to know about, without having to subject myself to the firehose of irrelevant bullshit that the media breathlessly covers as if it was just as important as news about stuff that is actually happening and getting buried in all that distracting trash.
Keeptrack seems like it should work for me for this purpose. It looks like posts there will be just the actual actions taken by our new overlords that impact us, without all the crap that's just bluster for drama and stoking the base.
Exactly. Every time I see someone post that "akshully, chronological order is also an algorithm" (which I see a lot), it makes me think of the old "what you are calling Linux is akshully GNU/Linux" thing. Please people, let that go.
Because you know perfectly well that when we talk about "algorithms" we're specifically referring to corporate social media manipulative algorithms designed to increase engagement, NOT a simple sort of posts by date or number of upvotes. mkay?
Obama's inauguration had the coldest conditions since Reagan's and he still had a massive crowd. Trump is a pathetic little coward who's scared to death of a small crowd size and everyone making fun of him by doing that gesture Obama made in his convention speech.
Both are quite plausible explanations but I'd guess he's more terrified of a small crowd than a shooter since given the security precautions, the first is far more likely than the second.
Neither Medicare nor most health insurance covers hearing aids, or glasses for that matter. And it's not like hearing aids magically make people able to hear like normal.
leadore @ leadore @lemmy.world Posts 8Comments 786Joined 1 yr. ago
That's covered in the article: