<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Australia/America</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/</link>
	<description>Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:00:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-768</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:22:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-768</guid>
		<description>I read &lt;a href=&#039;http://www.theroadtosurfdom.com&#039;&gt;The Road to Surfdom&lt;/a&gt; and I would certainly vote Democrat. So there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I read <a href='http://www.theroadtosurfdom.com'>The Road to Surfdom</a> and I would certainly vote Democrat. So there.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Parish</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-767</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Parish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:06:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-767</guid>
		<description>I wonder how many Australian readers of &lt;a href=&quot;http://timblair.spleenville.com/&quot;&gt;Tim Blair&#039;s blog&lt;/a&gt; would vote Democrat in the US if they had the vote.  Zero is my guess. Of course they may not be typical of conservative voters, but I wouldn&#039;t be all that confident.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I wonder how many Australian readers of <a href="http://timblair.spleenville.com/">Tim Blair&#8217;s blog</a> would vote Democrat in the US if they had the vote.  Zero is my guess. Of course they may not be typical of conservative voters, but I wouldn&#8217;t be all that confident.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-766</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:46:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-766</guid>
		<description>Consider the sad plight of the &lt;a href=&#039;http://www.democrats.org.au&gt;australian Democrats&lt;/a&gt; who whave little in common with the US Democrats.The Bush war against California would make it more sensible for that state to join Australia. California would get 12 senators out of 88 and 106 representatives out of 171. Federal parliament could meet in alternate years in Canberra and Sacramento. Done the other way the Australian states would get 12 US senators, 20 US representatives and 32 presidential electors. We&#039;d have to think of something to do with Canberra. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Consider the sad plight of the <a href='http://www.democrats.org.au>australian Democrats</a> who whave little in common with the <span class="caps">US </span>Democrats.The Bush war against California would make it more sensible for that state to join Australia. California would get 12 senators out of 88 and 106 representatives out of 171. Federal parliament could meet in alternate years in Canberra and Sacramento. Done the other way the Australian states would get 12 US senators, 20 US representatives and 32 presidential electors. We&#8217;d have to think of something to do with Canberra.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Weatherson</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-765</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Weatherson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-765</guid>
		<description>I agree with Nick that the parties might drift over time to reflect the new reality. After all, Massachusetts and Rhode Island both have Republican governors (and have had for a while now), so the Republican party can in principle moderate its views if faced with a more moderate electorate. Theory says that adding Australia would have this effect, and I think the theory might be right here.But any kind of cooperation between the parties would be problematic for just the reasons I mentioned. I&#039;d guess a majority of the Liberal Party, at least at the Federal and State Cabinet level, are more like conservative Democrats than like any kind of Republican. All through the 90s their mantra was balanced budgets at all costs, though they have (quite reasonably I think) toned that down a bit in recent times. If the Liberal Party tried to become more like the Republican Party, it would lose a lot of its best and brightest. (Where would they go? Who knows, because they wouldn&#039;t join the Labor Party.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I agree with Nick that the parties might drift over time to reflect the new reality. After all, Massachusetts and Rhode Island both have Republican governors (and have had for a while now), so the Republican party can in principle moderate its views if faced with a more moderate electorate. Theory says that adding Australia would have this effect, and I think the theory might be right here.But any kind of cooperation between the parties would be problematic for just the reasons I mentioned. I&#8217;d guess a majority of the Liberal Party, at least at the Federal and State Cabinet level, are more like conservative Democrats than like any kind of Republican. All through the 90s their mantra was balanced budgets at all costs, though they have (quite reasonably I think) toned that down a bit in recent times. If the Liberal Party tried to become more like the Republican Party, it would lose a lot of its best and brightest. (Where would they go? Who knows, because they wouldn&#8217;t join the Labor Party.)</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mitch</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-764</link>
		<dc:creator>mitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:28:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-764</guid>
		<description>I really don&#039;t think the guy is &lt;i&gt;recommending&lt;/i&gt; that Australia become the 51st state, except in a Swiftian way. He is an American expatriate who wishes that Australia was more interested in being Australian. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I really don&#8217;t think the guy is <i>recommending</i> that Australia become the 51st state, except in a Swiftian way. He is an American expatriate who wishes that Australia was more interested in being Australian.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kokomo</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-763</link>
		<dc:creator>kokomo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:34:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-763</guid>
		<description>Zippy:  Go to http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/taubmancenter/publications/fisc/ and browse through the relavant documents to see the extent to which your home state has been subsidized or looted by the federal government.And surprisingly I suppose we are still on topic.  Should California subsidize Montana?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Zippy:  Go to <a href="http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/taubmancenter/publications/fisc/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/taubmancenter/publications/fisc/</a> and browse through the relavant documents to see the extent to which your home state has been subsidized or looted by the federal government.And surprisingly I suppose we are still on topic.  Should California subsidize Montana?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-762</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:24:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-762</guid>
		<description>While this is an unlikely scenarion, wouldn&#039;t it be more likely that the existing Australian parties would continue to exist but would make some sort of alliance with the two main parties in the US? Senators, representatives and governors would be either Liberal or Labor but would work with either the Republican or Democrat Parties, with some sort of agreement  to come together at elections.In the long run, you&#039;d expect to see the various parties merge, or at least become very close (the DFL in Minnesota could be an example, but I&#039;m not entirely sure of the background there) but in the short term, I would expect that the Australian parties would keep their own identities, if only to stop some &#039;True Aussie&#039; party stealing all the votes at the first elections.Which is probably way too much detail for a subject that&#039;s unlikely ever to happen in my lifetime.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>While this is an unlikely scenarion, wouldn&#8217;t it be more likely that the existing Australian parties would continue to exist but would make some sort of alliance with the two main parties in the US? Senators, representatives and governors would be either Liberal or Labor but would work with either the Republican or Democrat Parties, with some sort of agreement  to come together at elections.In the long run, you&#8217;d expect to see the various parties merge, or at least become very close (the <span class="caps">DFL</span> in Minnesota could be an example, but I&#8217;m not entirely sure of the background there) but in the short term, I would expect that the Australian parties would keep their own identities, if only to stop some &#8216;True Aussie&#8217; party stealing all the votes at the first elections.Which is probably way too much detail for a subject that&#8217;s unlikely ever to happen in my lifetime.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Con Tendem</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-761</link>
		<dc:creator>Con Tendem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:05:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-761</guid>
		<description>Interesting discussion. I understand the theory behind admitting states in pairs, but clearly it did not really work, since we have not had real partisan parity for much of the history. I cannot imagine why Australia, or Canada, would ever consider joining the USA short of a brewing interstellar nuclear war. If they did not join during the Cold War, why now? &lt;br /&gt;That said, I think that considering these countries a sure Democtratic vote is probably wrong in medium-to-long-term. Even if the people they elect are closer to the Democtratic Party side of the USA, they would be locally elected and thus be much more &quot;republican&quot; about many issues, esp. in Australia than many US Democrats. Moreover, given time and a democratic majority in the A/US Congress and White House the inhabitants of the Down Under might just become as disillusioned with democrats as many Americans have become. Since they would directly elect their representatives they would be much more likely to vote the way their constituences are, perhaps left-of-center socially and right-of-center economically and militarily. We could easily see Australia become strongly republican in 10 or 15 years of Democratic mismanagement (and vise versa after another 10-15 years of Republican mismanagement). Clearly this is very hypothetical, but somehow fun. &lt;br /&gt;ps. wish you had trackback.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Interesting discussion. I understand the theory behind admitting states in pairs, but clearly it did not really work, since we have not had real partisan parity for much of the history. I cannot imagine why Australia, or Canada, would ever consider joining the <span class="caps">USA</span> short of a brewing interstellar nuclear war. If they did not join during the Cold War, why now? <br />
That said, I think that considering these countries a sure Democtratic vote is probably wrong in medium-to-long-term. Even if the people they elect are closer to the Democtratic Party side of the <span class="caps">USA</span>, they would be locally elected and thus be much more &#8220;republican&#8221; about many issues, esp. in Australia than many <span class="caps">US </span>Democrats. Moreover, given time and a democratic majority in the A/US Congress and White House the inhabitants of the Down Under might just become as disillusioned with democrats as many Americans have become. Since they would directly elect their representatives they would be much more likely to vote the way their constituences are, perhaps left-of-center socially and right-of-center economically and militarily. We could easily see Australia become strongly republican in 10 or 15 years of Democratic mismanagement (and vise versa after another 10-15 years of Republican mismanagement). Clearly this is very hypothetical, but somehow fun. <br />
ps. wish you had trackback.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Martens</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-760</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Martens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:32:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-760</guid>
		<description>Kokomo, I&#039;m afraid I don&#039;t have any complete access to the Congressional Record from the 19th century, so, here are are the states and the dates of the next election.  Succeeding years is the same election cycle, which is as close to simultaneous as the US Congress gets.Indiana &amp; Mississippi - 1818Illinois &amp; Alabama - 1820Maine &amp; Missouri - 1822Arkansas &amp; Michigan - 1838In my history class, I recall being told that  Iowa and Wisconsin were admitted in 1846 and 1848 because of the admission of Texas and Florida as slave states.  The longer time was due to the Mexican War interfering with the bargaining.  Initially, the slave states hoped to make several states out of Texas.Minnesota &amp; Oregon - 1860For 1860, I have some election data access.  Unfortunately only for the Presidential election and not Congress.  Minnesota by 60-some percent voted for Douglas in 1860.  Only 36% of Oregonians voted for Douglas, although because it was an unexpected four candidate election, Douglas still took the state.North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming - 1892From &lt;a href=&quot;http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/nov11.html&quot;&gt;Today in History&lt;/a&gt; at the Library of Congress:&lt;blockquote&gt; During the period 1878-1889, Congress consistently rejected appeals for Washington statehood despite its growing population. Denial of statehood was largely due to a concern that the lack of an interstate railroad connection would interfere in the effective governance of Oregon as a state. More significantly, the legislators hesitated to disturb the delicate balance of Democrats and Republicans in Congress by creating another state. Finally, a decade after its initial request, Congress admitted Washington into the Union along with Montana and the Dakotas.&lt;/blockquote&gt;Arizona &amp; New Mexico - 1912I have not been able to find a footnoted source which points to Republican resistance to admitting potentially Democratic New Mexico to the union - I did find an unfootnoted one &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cia-g.com/~rockets/dNMhist.factors&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  I have had no difficulty finding sources linking New Mexico statehood to Arizona statehood.  In the 1912 Presidential election, both voted for Wilson by narrow margins in a three candidate race which suggests that it makes some sense for Republicans to have delayed statehood until there were more even chances for both parties.Alaska &amp; Hawaii - 1960Hawaii went for Kennedy in 1960, and Alaska for Nixon.  I had always understood that to have been part of the deal.Now, I lack access to a regular university library, so this is all web research of uncertain pedigree.  Still, considering the resources I have on hand, I think my case is decent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Kokomo, I&#8217;m afraid I don&#8217;t have any complete access to the Congressional Record from the 19th century, so, here are are the states and the dates of the next election.  Succeeding years is the same election cycle, which is as close to simultaneous as the <span class="caps">US </span>Congress gets.Indiana &#038; Mississippi &#8211; 1818Illinois &#038; Alabama &#8211; 1820Maine &#038; Missouri &#8211; 1822Arkansas &#038; Michigan &#8211; 1838In my history class, I recall being told that  Iowa and Wisconsin were admitted in 1846 and 1848 because of the admission of Texas and Florida as slave states.  The longer time was due to the Mexican War interfering with the bargaining.  Initially, the slave states hoped to make several states out of Texas.Minnesota &#038; Oregon &#8211; 1860For 1860, I have some election data access.  Unfortunately only for the Presidential election and not Congress.  Minnesota by 60-some percent voted for Douglas in 1860.  Only 36% of Oregonians voted for Douglas, although because it was an unexpected four candidate election, Douglas still took the state.North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming &#8211; 1892From <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/nov11.html">Today in History</a> at the Library of Congress:<blockquote> During the period 1878-1889, Congress consistently rejected appeals for Washington statehood despite its growing population. Denial of statehood was largely due to a concern that the lack of an interstate railroad connection would interfere in the effective governance of Oregon as a state. More significantly, the legislators hesitated to disturb the delicate balance of Democrats and Republicans in Congress by creating another state. Finally, a decade after its initial request, Congress admitted Washington into the Union along with Montana and the Dakotas.</blockquote>Arizona &#038; New Mexico &#8211; 1912I have not been able to find a footnoted source which points to Republican resistance to admitting potentially Democratic New Mexico to the union &#8211; I did find an unfootnoted one <a href="http://www.cia-g.com/~rockets/dNMhist.factors">here</a>.  I have had no difficulty finding sources linking New Mexico statehood to Arizona statehood.  In the 1912 Presidential election, both voted for Wilson by narrow margins in a three candidate race which suggests that it makes some sense for Republicans to have delayed statehood until there were more even chances for both parties.Alaska &#038; Hawaii &#8211; 1960Hawaii went for Kennedy in 1960, and Alaska for Nixon.  I had always understood that to have been part of the deal.Now, I lack access to a regular university library, so this is all web research of uncertain pedigree.  Still, considering the resources I have on hand, I think my case is decent.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kokomo</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-759</link>
		<dc:creator>kokomo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:15:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-759</guid>
		<description>I suppose if you disregard the intervening years between &quot;pairs&quot; then every state could be rationalized as one half of a pair.  Why would FL, IA, WS, and TX count as pairs?  And those earlier 8 you mention -- were they really pairs?  :-)Second, showing that pairs were admitted, which you have not yet done, is not to show that they were admitted to balance partisan interests. In the multiple year quadruple you mention, three of the states voted for the Democratic candidate in 1848 and one (Florida) for the winning Whig (Zach Taylor).  So your partisan pairs theory is not consistent with the data I&#039;m looking at.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I suppose if you disregard the intervening years between &#8220;pairs&#8221; then every state could be rationalized as one half of a pair.  Why would FL, IA, WS, and TX count as pairs?  And those earlier 8 you mention&#8212;were they really pairs?  :-)Second, showing that pairs were admitted, which you have not yet done, is not to show that they were admitted to balance partisan interests. In the multiple year quadruple you mention, three of the states voted for the Democratic candidate in 1848 and one (Florida) for the winning Whig (Zach Taylor).  So your partisan pairs theory is not consistent with the data I&#8217;m looking at.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: unf</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-758</link>
		<dc:creator>unf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:59:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-758</guid>
		<description>So who says Americans would even let Australia in?  I would point out that: 1) Australians talk funny; 2) Australia is too damn far away; 3) we already have a game called football and don&#039;t need another; 4) everyone knows that Melbourne is in Florida; and 5) it would just be too damn confusing for it to always be a different day in one part of the country.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>So who says Americans would even let Australia in?  I would point out that: 1) Australians talk funny; 2) Australia is too damn far away; 3) we already have a game called football and don&#8217;t need another; 4) everyone knows that Melbourne is in Florida; and 5) it would just be too damn confusing for it to always be a different day in one part of the country.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Martens</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-757</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Martens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:27:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-757</guid>
		<description>Kokomo, it went on well past the antebellum period:Alaska &amp; Hawaii - 1959Arizona &amp; New Mexico - 1912North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming - 1889/90That&#039;s 10 states out of 14 since the end of the Civil War.  Several of the 1889/90 batch had tried for years to become states and were prevented exactly because it would mess up the balance of power in the Senate, only becoming states when a whole bunch could be admitted at once with more partisan equality.And free/slave pairs before the Civil War come to another 8 states, 12 if you count Florida, Texas, Iowa and Wisconsin together over three years.  That&#039;s 24 out of 50 states, or 24 of the 39 states that weren&#039;t part of the 13 colonies.  I&#039;d say that qualifies as &quot;usually.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Kokomo, it went on well past the antebellum period:Alaska &#038; Hawaii &#8211; 1959Arizona &#038; New Mexico &#8211; 1912North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming &#8211; 1889/90That&#8217;s 10 states out of 14 since the end of the Civil War.  Several of the 1889/90 batch had tried for years to become states and were prevented exactly because it would mess up the balance of power in the Senate, only becoming states when a whole bunch could be admitted at once with more partisan equality.And free/slave pairs before the Civil War come to another 8 states, 12 if you count Florida, Texas, Iowa and Wisconsin together over three years.  That&#8217;s 24 out of 50 states, or 24 of the 39 states that weren&#8217;t part of the 13 colonies.  I&#8217;d say that qualifies as &#8220;usually.&#8221; </p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zippy</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-756</link>
		<dc:creator>zippy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-756</guid>
		<description>Um... California &quot;subsidizes&quot; the US how?  Did I miss something?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Um&#8230; California &#8220;subsidizes&#8221; the US how?  Did I miss something?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kokomo</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-755</link>
		<dc:creator>kokomo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:33:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-755</guid>
		<description>First off, the idea that US states were &quot;usually&quot; admitted in pairs is ridiculous.  A few states, primarly in the antebellum period, were admitted in pairs, but this was to balance slave interests and not party interests.  Second, states were often admitted to gain partisan advantage, which of course is why lightly populated states like Nevada were admitted.     Third, given the Republican party&#039;s unseemly quest to manufacture a permanent majority (see FL vote count, CO redistricting, TX redistricting) you could expect the Republicans to promptly admit any right-leaning territory that exists. Finally, the really big issue for state expansion will be net transfers.  California already subsidizes the US. Would an Aussie be happy to do the same?  Likely not.  And no self-respecting red-state voter would ever vote to subsidize an Aussie.  Particularly if it was a federally subsidized red-ink red state.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>First off, the idea that US states were &#8220;usually&#8221; admitted in pairs is ridiculous.  A few states, primarly in the antebellum period, were admitted in pairs, but this was to balance slave interests and not party interests.  Second, states were often admitted to gain partisan advantage, which of course is why lightly populated states like Nevada were admitted.     Third, given the Republican party&#8217;s unseemly quest to manufacture a permanent majority (see FL vote count, CO redistricting, TX redistricting) you could expect the Republicans to promptly admit any right-leaning territory that exists. Finally, the really big issue for state expansion will be net transfers.  California already subsidizes the US. Would an Aussie be happy to do the same?  Likely not.  And no self-respecting red-state voter would ever vote to subsidize an Aussie.  Particularly if it was a federally subsidized red-ink red state.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/16/australiaamerica/comment-page-1/#comment-754</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:12:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=48#comment-754</guid>
		<description>I think you&#039;re right about Australian Coalition voters going Democrat. My father, an unabashed reactionary if ever there was one, consistently said he would support the US Democrats if he were American.We were both fairly pleased when we both voted the same way in the republic referendum because we wanted an elected president. It was certainly the only time that happened.I&#039;d think every state except would go Democrat. Ditto New Zealand if they joined. While the Australian Right would probably adore the idea they&#039;d become hysterical about any threat to the position of Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I think you&#8217;re right about Australian Coalition voters going Democrat. My father, an unabashed reactionary if ever there was one, consistently said he would support the <span class="caps">US </span>Democrats if he were American.We were both fairly pleased when we both voted the same way in the republic referendum because we wanted an elected president. It was certainly the only time that happened.I&#8217;d think every state except would go Democrat. Ditto New Zealand if they joined. While the Australian Right would probably adore the idea they&#8217;d become hysterical about any threat to the position of Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced

Served from: crookedtimber.org @ 2012-02-13 05:35:46 -->
