District of Columbia Statehood and Voting Rights

[angus]

go all the way:  option 1.  There are no other fair alternatives, since even the last one puts our nation's capital within the borders of one of the states.  It's time we put the rights of the people of the district ahead of the interests of our party.

[angus]

go all the way:  option 1.  There are no other fair alternatives, since even the last one puts our nation's capital within the borders of one of the states.  It's time we put the rights of the people of the district ahead of the interests of our party.

Why are you a Republican again?

Oh, and let's give the residential areas to Utah.

ouch.  okay, whatever I did to deserve that must have been pretty bad, so I'm sorry for whatever.  Okay, how about, "it's time you secretive controlling bastards stop putting your partisan interests ahead of the rights of the decent hard-working people of DC."

that better?

[angus]

the race issue is a bigger factor than the party issue.

a lot of people, dems and reps alike, would be reluctant to have a majority-minority state.

sad but true.

*snorts* I'm IN one already. Hawaii also counts. Give all the people to Maryland, since it is simply too small in population and area to be a separate state.

I was thinking Mississippi as well.  There is some truth to it:  you have to go to the DMV and you know it's going to be some overweight, undereducated black female who can barely read and whose english you can barely understand taking your order.  Trust me, living even a few months in the third world gives you patience.  Jesus would be proud of how patient I've become.

As Mitty said, "Sad but true."  Still, you have to assume the mantle of egalitarianism.  I say let 'em vote for two senators and a congressman.  A voting one!

[angus]

or three or four.  whatever seven hundred thousand people are worth.  One I think.

Is there some particular disadvantage (I mean a serious one) to having our nation's capital being a real state, with all the rights and priveleges, and burdens, thereunto appertaining?

[angus]

maybe so, but I for one am not into putting more Democrats in Washington.  I just want the people of the district to be a part of the government.  If they decide to choose two D senators and a D congressman, well, that's just where they are now.  Of course, those trends change over long time, etc.  But yes, I suppose there are some who cynically push for the statehood on the basis of political gamesmanship.  I am not one.  I think it's important to distinguish between DC and PR, the latter of whom have voted repeatedly for the status quo.  In fact, I think the most recent election there was held in 2003 and a clear majority wanted to remain a Commonwealth of the United States, minorities wanted either Statehood or independence as a nation.  No so with DC.  They want to be a state.  For what reason, besides keeping Dems at bay (okay that describes the Republicans), or decididing we don't trust blacks enough to make decisions for themselves (okay, that describes the democrats), but for those who are not the Loyalist D or R types, can we give a reasonable non-political, non-racist reason not to make them a state?  I assume some can, and I assume it must have something to do with Washinton (i.e., the national seat of gov't) and not with the District of Columbia (i.e., a place where good, if poor, people live and work).   The problem is, although we can separate Washington and DC in theory, and in our minds, they actually overlap temporally and spatially, so unfortunately, if you're going to let people live in DC, then you have to give them statehood.  (i.e., a say in our collective federal government.)

[angus]

Leave it as an independent district. Give it one or two representatives in the House, and let them share one Senator from each of the neighboring states, giving them two.

you're clearly not in bed with the two big parties, and therefore can be trusted.  why not statehood?  why the complicated arrangement instead? 

[angus]

obviously they wouldn't, nor would anyone else.  the more pertinent question is, if you were in congress and were going to go through the trouble to try to amend the constitution, why not do the right thing according to the wishes of the people of the district?  And if not, why not just say why not and drop it, instead of offering some bizarre, complicated unsatisfactory alternative?

[angus]

well, I had hoped my question could be answered without resorting to political preferences, or voting provclivities.  Because, hell, if you want to do that, then it is easy to understand why it would never become a state.  I won't explain the mechanics of an amendment passing, or the fact that a bipartisan (as opposed to a tripartisan system, for example) greatly enhances the probability that one group will control DC, since you probably know all these things.  I'll only say that I was just wondering, in theory, what is the objection, or plan, outside the bounds of Democrat versus Republican politics.

I start with the recognition that some land (a square piece) was surrendered by MD and VA, and that the VA piece was subsequently ceded to VA.  But the fact that the plot of land was taken (georgetown, foggy bottom, etc.) in the first place suggests that the founders of DC saw fit to ensure that the Capitol wasn't part of any existing state.  I'm only asking what that reason was, and would its purpose be defeated by allowing DC to become it's *own* state?

Somebody going to have a Jack Nicholson moment or what?  Seriously, I don't get this.  Is it treat angus like a mushroom day?  Or is this just something everyone learned in history and I forgot?  or was I just absent that day?

see what I'm saying.  there must have been some reason.  fine.  I'm okay with that.  But WHAT THE  WAS THE REASON?

[angus]

yeah, okay, so the answer is we don't know.  clearly the "city-state" of Wasington, DC would be more populous than probably WY, AK, VT, and maybe MT.  So it's not the population issue.  And if Alaska, Texas, California can be put on the same footing with, say, Rhode Island, then clearly we're not about Square Milage when it comes to apportioning US senators, so those arguments are spurrious.  we only say that "most folks" don't like the idea.  Land area, population, race, and party have all been mentioned in this thread.  Only party stands the test of reason.  If we can put that aside, the others fall quickly. 

[angus]

A18.  thanks.  that all makes sense.  I can see what they had in mind.  I see the failure in what you interpreted as my intent.  actually, as I read back over it, there is an internal inconsistency.  What was in my head was very much like what you are suggesting, however, and it is what I was hinting at by separating Washington and DC.  Peter Orvetti did this, as an art exhibit only, with photos of massive beautiful neoclassical architecture in the Washington part of the duality, and extreme poverty in the DC part of the duality.  But those images always stuck with me and made me think about trying to separate them formally, if possible.  So, although I didn't make it clear apparently, I was suggesting exactly what you are suggesting makes the most sense.  (at least before I got carried away on some weird DNC-esque tangent in which I decided to patronize black folks.  Sorry, that's the vestigial Liberal Democrat coming out of the closet.  That happens sometimes.  Time to break out the old WSJ).  Yeah, I think we're on the same page here.  I do appreciate the technical explanation, as I had lost sight of the original reasoning.

"You want the truth?!  You can't handle the truth!"

not only can we handle it, we deserve it.  sir.

[angus]

The worst mistake they ever made was violating the consitution and allowing people to flow in and have homes built within the districts city limits. I say they should cut up the residential areas and give it to MD.

In principle I agree, but we need to remember that the outskirts of DC were a long carraige ride from the Capitol at its founding.

Actually, that was kind of the point - they built D.C. out in the middle of nowhere, so that the politicians would be away from the momentary passions of the people.

good call.  but now it's a city of 600 thousand in an MSMA of about six million.  And jets are more common than carriages.  changes the whole line of thinking.  I still like A18's "most sense" case.  It seems to uphold the founders intents, while optimizing representation.  Also, it's a nice nod to States Rights, both the concept and the poster, by ceding to Maryland the territory, save that part which is necessary for the maintenance of government.

[angus]

nice work.  as long as we're separating out land area we might as well note that only two-thirds of Rhode Island's 1500 square miles is land.