Two-Thirds Of Americans Oppose DC Statehood

[Slander and/or Libel]

Why would the majority of Democrats/liberals oppose DC statehood?

Probably because literal "statehood" for a city (a city supposed to be for all 50 states) doesn't make sense. Yes, it gets it voting representation which Im not opposed to ... but actual statehood for a city is dumb. If this poll was flawed for not being a push polls telling respondents about the poor plight of DC then its also flawed for not presenting voting representation without statehood as an option.

Why is this stupid? Is it because it's way smaller geographically than other states? That doesn't make much sense, if that's it.

And what's the mechanism for providing DC voting representation in Congress without statehood?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Why would the majority of Democrats/liberals oppose DC statehood?

Probably because literal "statehood" for a city (a city supposed to be for all 50 states) doesn't make sense. Yes, it gets it voting representation which Im not opposed to ... but actual statehood for a city is dumb. If this poll was flawed for not being a push polls telling respondents about the poor plight of DC then its also flawed for not presenting voting representation without statehood as an option.

Why is this stupid? Is it because it's way smaller geographically than other states? That doesn't make much sense, if that's it.

And what's the mechanism for providing DC voting representation in Congress without statehood?

A Constitutional amendment.

That's what I figured, though I didn't know if anybody else had some other mechanism in mind. But saying it should take place through constitutional amendment is as good as saying it shouldn't happen.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Probably because literal "statehood" for a city (a city supposed to be for all 50 states) doesn't make sense. Yes, it gets it voting representation which Im not opposed to ... but actual statehood for a city is dumb. If this poll was flawed for not being a push polls telling respondents about the poor plight of DC then its also flawed for not presenting voting representation without statehood as an option.

That is more of a theoretical option. You can't give DC residents representation in the House and Senate without a constitutional amendment, which is never going to happen, which is part of why the statehood option is preferable - it's the only real option. And is it even constitutional to give DC a seat in the House? I think you would have a more informed opinion of this than I, but the constitution seems to make clear that House seats are for states only:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Presumably a constitutional amendment giving DC votes in the House and Senate would override that portion of the Constitution, but like you said, it's never going to happen anyway.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I think the concerns about a federal district being a state (or within a state) itself are extremely overblown. Maybe they would have made sense closer to the beginning of the country, when they worried that having the federal district within its boundaries would have given a state special status AND there were only 12 other states. But if DC were admitted as a state, it would be one of 51+. Its power to exert status as the home of the federal government would extend only so far as 1/51 of the votes in the Senate and 1/435+ votes in the House.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I think the concerns about a federal district being a state (or within a state) itself are extremely overblown. Maybe they would have made sense closer to the beginning of the country, when they worried that having the federal district within its boundaries would have given a state special status AND there were only 12 other states. But if DC were admitted as a state, it would be one of 51+. Its power to exert status as the home of the federal government would extend only so far as 1/51 of the votes in the Senate and 1/435+ votes in the House.

The problem has nothing to do with the level of influence that DC would have in Congress. States are Constitutionally sovereign, with power over anything not delegated to the federal government, giving a hypothetical DC state government undue influence over the federal government and inherently unequal status among the states. The only way to mitigate such conflicts to a Constitutionally and legally tenable level would be to, ironically, pass a Constitutional amendment, at which point you might as well have done it properly in the first place and given them the representation without statehood.

I suppose in theory, you could do something crazy, like having the federal government expropriate 100% of the land in DC, leasing it back to local authorities/businesses/residents, and then establishing a token state, purely to create the legal fiction required for DC representation in Congress, but that is obviously not realistic. Perhaps something even more exotic could be devised to get around the statehood problems, but none of the oversimplistic proposals I've seen (e.g. rump district for government buildings) have addressed any of the real concerns.

What precisely are you claiming? Like what things would the DC state government have control over that would mean it would have undue influence over the federal government? I'm not tracking what the argument is here.

[Slander and/or Libel]

What precisely are you claiming? Like what things would the DC state government have control over that would mean it would have undue influence over the federal government? I'm not tracking what the argument is here.

I've already explained - the law, infrastructure, city planning, to start. If this were not a serious issue that logical people had already considered before, why have countries around the world even bothered with capital districts?

So what about DC having control over its own city planning would give it undue influence over the federal government?

[Slander and/or Libel]

What precisely are you claiming? Like what things would the DC state government have control over that would mean it would have undue influence over the federal government? I'm not tracking what the argument is here.

I've already explained - the law, infrastructure, city planning, to start. If this were not a serious issue that logical people had already considered before, why have countries around the world even bothered with capital districts?

But like, how? Can you give one concrete example?

The law

It doesn't take any imagination to figure that one out.

But what does this mean? Do you mean that DC will be able to make laws that will what, become federal laws? Impact federal laws? Impact the federal government's ability to make laws? All I'm asking for is one concrete example of what you mean.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The federal government has facilities all over the place. In all kinds of states. Most concentrated in DC, obviously, but why would these same concerns not manifest about Pennsylvania or Massachusetts or Georgia?

[Slander and/or Libel]

DC should not be a state, but if it had to be, it should annex Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Prince George's, and Montgomery Counties to actually have a reasonably size and coherence to it. I suspect Dems wouldn't go for that, though.

Actually, throwing Loudoun and Prince William into DC as well might make this a politically fair deal. The Dems get two rock solid Senate seats in the new DC state while turning VA into a swing/tilt GOP state. Worse case is the Ds get a net zero Senate seats, although they could certainly pick off a VA seat in a good year.

Why would Virginia go for that?

[Slander and/or Libel]

What precisely are you claiming? Like what things would the DC state government have control over that would mean it would have undue influence over the federal government? I'm not tracking what the argument is here.

I've already explained - the law, infrastructure, city planning, to start. If this were not a serious issue that logical people had already considered before, why have countries around the world even bothered with capital districts?

But like, how? Can you give one concrete example?

The law

It doesn't take any imagination to figure that one out.

But what does this mean? Do you mean that DC will be able to make laws that will what, become federal laws? Impact federal laws? Impact the federal government's ability to make laws? All I'm asking for is one concrete example of what you mean.

I don't understand how this is so difficult to figure out. Congress maintains authority over DC, even after Home Rule was instituted, so that the laws of the city will not be against the interests of running the business of the 50 United States. The interests of the residents are heard, but must ultimately be balanced against the interests of the rest of the nation.

Obviously, this means DC statehood is open to political blackmail, but even ignoring that, the federal government would be powerless to stop the DC government from creating new taxes, set zoning regulations, or set infrastructure priorities that would hinder the operation of the government. Things as "simple" in other cities such as closing/moving a road/bridge (I don't mean Bridgegate, I mean regular infrastructure), permitting tall buildings to be built downtown, and commuter taxes, would directly affect the operations of the federal government, and by extension the residents of the 50 states, which is unacceptable. These are just examples of very innocent, politics-free decisions that would hinder the federal government. With any degree of political animus, the powers of a state government are vast.

A "cute" solution to the taxation without representation issue would be to exempt DC residents from federal income tax and perhaps even repeal the city government's taxation authority and fund DC directly from the federal government.

I've worked at federal facilities before, in New Jersey and Maryland. They each had multiple entrances, but if one of them closed because of state road work, or because the budget for clearing roads in winter was slashed, then there was a bottleneck, and the operations of that facility were necessarily curtailed. What's the difference?