What should DC's future look like ?

[Frodo]

Make it part of Maryland, the same way Ottawa is part of Ontario.

Making it a state would be too tricky and not politically realistic, but it is inexcusable that DC residents don’t have proper representation in the government that they’re forced to host.

[Karpatsky]

DC getting 2 senators lul

still better than Wyoming

[Sirius_]

At this point it might as well become a state having a population larger than a few current states. The fact that it is controlled by congress, which DC can't send real representatives to, is unfair.

[windjammer]

Make it a state, it's more populated than Wyoming and this is unfair they don't have representation.

[muon2]

Day one of a Democratic trifecta should be admitting Washington DC as a state. Only acceptable answer.

DC doesn't want to join Maryland and Maryland doesn't want DC.

you have to get a constitutional amendment to do that

No, you don't. The Constitution doesn't define what the area of the federal district consists of, just that it can't be larger than 10 square miles. In fact, the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to define by legislation what the federal district consists of.

Just a statute redefining the federal district to consist of just the Mall and important federal buildings (the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the White House, the Library of Congress, various administration and support buildings) would be fine. Then the rest of DC can be organized into a state.

Exactly, just shrink it to this:

According to the 23rd Amendment this new federal district would still receive 3 presidential electors.

Which Congress may provide for the manner of appointment, and may choose not to appoint. If no appointment is made, they are not considered in determining a majority.

The area need not be made a federal district. It could be a national historical park when the capital is moved to a more central location. Old Capital National Historical Park.

Or Congress could assign the electors of a rump DC to the winner of the national popular vote.

[ilikeverin]

Retrocession seems like the best way to go.  I'm sympathetic to proponents of DC statehood, but the way statehood goes in the US, we'd need to find a (perceived) Republican "buddy" to become a state at the same time, and that's nigh impossible.  Giving the District to Maryland isn't a bad way to go, and has the nice side effect of reducing the number of jurisdictions in the area - coordinating local services (e.g., Metro) is a total nightmare.  Cheers to jim and muon for pointing out ways to make the 23rd amendment less of an issue!

[Virginiá]

Retrocession seems like the best way to go.  I'm sympathetic to proponents of DC statehood, but the way statehood goes in the US, we'd need to find a (perceived) Republican "buddy" to become a state at the same time, and that's nigh impossible.  Giving the District to Maryland isn't a bad way to go, and has the nice side effect of reducing the number of jurisdictions in the area - coordinating local services (e.g., Metro) is a total nightmare.  Cheers to jim and muon for pointing out ways to make the 23rd amendment less of an issue!

Would we? Maybe if the question is about getting bipartisan support, but DC could be made a state without them if Democrats ever find themselves with that kind of power again. There is a good argument in giving DC at least proper representation (whether it's through statehood or a new, special constitutional amendment), but for Republicans to insist on getting a new state of their own, it comes off nakedly partisan.

Of course, I'm sure conservatives say that about pro-DC statehood people too, but there are hundreds of thousands of DC residents (myself included, as a former resident) who feel as Americans we deserve fair representation regardless of which party stands to benefit.

[ilikeverin]

Retrocession seems like the best way to go.  I'm sympathetic to proponents of DC statehood, but the way statehood goes in the US, we'd need to find a (perceived) Republican "buddy" to become a state at the same time, and that's nigh impossible.  Giving the District to Maryland isn't a bad way to go, and has the nice side effect of reducing the number of jurisdictions in the area - coordinating local services (e.g., Metro) is a total nightmare.  Cheers to jim and muon for pointing out ways to make the 23rd amendment less of an issue!

Would we? Maybe if the question is about getting bipartisan support, but DC could be made a state without them if Democrats ever find themselves with that kind of power again. There is a good argument in giving DC at least proper representation (whether it's through statehood or a new, special constitutional amendment), but for Republicans to insist on getting a new state of their own, it comes off nakedly partisan.

Of course, I'm sure conservatives say that about pro-DC statehood people too, but there are hundreds of thousands of DC residents (myself included, as a former resident) who feel as Americans we deserve fair representation regardless of which party stands to benefit.

That's well and good, and I'm entirely in agreement with you in principle, but the fact remains that there were very few states admitted into the Union without a balancing one, most notably slave vs. free until the 1850s.  Wanting a Republican "buddy" state may seem to you to be nakedly partisan, but admitting a new state that everyone believes is entirely assured to be a completely safe Democratic one for the foreseeable future seems just as nakedly partisan to people on the other side.  Retrocession allows for that very admirable principle (which almost led to the dissolution of my current relationship, since I refused to give up my full citizenship to move into the District!) to be enacted in a way that Republicans may not find so onerous.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Retrocession seems like the best way to go.  I'm sympathetic to proponents of DC statehood, but the way statehood goes in the US, we'd need to find a (perceived) Republican "buddy" to become a state at the same time, and that's nigh impossible.  Giving the District to Maryland isn't a bad way to go, and has the nice side effect of reducing the number of jurisdictions in the area - coordinating local services (e.g., Metro) is a total nightmare.  Cheers to jim and muon for pointing out ways to make the 23rd amendment less of an issue!

Would we? Maybe if the question is about getting bipartisan support, but DC could be made a state without them if Democrats ever find themselves with that kind of power again. There is a good argument in giving DC at least proper representation (whether it's through statehood or a new, special constitutional amendment), but for Republicans to insist on getting a new state of their own, it comes off nakedly partisan.

Of course, I'm sure conservatives say that about pro-DC statehood people too, but there are hundreds of thousands of DC residents (myself included, as a former resident) who feel as Americans we deserve fair representation regardless of which party stands to benefit.

That's well and good, and I'm entirely in agreement with you in principle, but the fact remains that there were very few states admitted into the Union without a balancing one, most notably slave vs. free until the 1850s.  Wanting a Republican "buddy" state may seem to you to be nakedly partisan, but admitting a new state that everyone believes is entirely assured to be a completely safe Democratic one for the foreseeable future seems just as nakedly partisan to people on the other side.  Retrocession allows for that very admirable principle (which almost led to the dissolution of my current relationship, since I refused to give up my full citizenship to move into the District!) to be enacted in a way that Republicans may not find so onerous.

Where would such a state be found? What territory would be in it?

[Pandaguineapig]

Retrocession seems like the best way to go.  I'm sympathetic to proponents of DC statehood, but the way statehood goes in the US, we'd need to find a (perceived) Republican "buddy" to become a state at the same time, and that's nigh impossible.  Giving the District to Maryland isn't a bad way to go, and has the nice side effect of reducing the number of jurisdictions in the area - coordinating local services (e.g., Metro) is a total nightmare.  Cheers to jim and muon for pointing out ways to make the 23rd amendment less of an issue!

Would we? Maybe if the question is about getting bipartisan support, but DC could be made a state without them if Democrats ever find themselves with that kind of power again. There is a good argument in giving DC at least proper representation (whether it's through statehood or a new, special constitutional amendment), but for Republicans to insist on getting a new state of their own, it comes off nakedly partisan.

Of course, I'm sure conservatives say that about pro-DC statehood people too, but there are hundreds of thousands of DC residents (myself included, as a former resident) who feel as Americans we deserve fair representation regardless of which party stands to benefit.

That's well and good, and I'm entirely in agreement with you in principle, but the fact remains that there were very few states admitted into the Union without a balancing one, most notably slave vs. free until the 1850s.  Wanting a Republican "buddy" state may seem to you to be nakedly partisan, but admitting a new state that everyone believes is entirely assured to be a completely safe Democratic one for the foreseeable future seems just as nakedly partisan to people on the other side.  Retrocession allows for that very admirable principle (which almost led to the dissolution of my current relationship, since I refused to give up my full citizenship to move into the District!) to be enacted in a way that Republicans may not find so onerous.

Where would such a state be found? What territory would be in it?

Either 1. Northern Mariana Islands are very republican despite their small population or 2. Split a current blue state (Probably Illinois or Washington) give the rural/suburban voters who make up a majority of the territory but a minority of the votes, their own state. Or even 3. Create a democratic "super-state" that includes D.C as well as the surrounding Virginia and Maryland suburbs, thus making Virginia a red State and Maryland a Swing State

[Sol]

Retrocession seems like the best way to go.  I'm sympathetic to proponents of DC statehood, but the way statehood goes in the US, we'd need to find a (perceived) Republican "buddy" to become a state at the same time, and that's nigh impossible.  Giving the District to Maryland isn't a bad way to go, and has the nice side effect of reducing the number of jurisdictions in the area - coordinating local services (e.g., Metro) is a total nightmare.  Cheers to jim and muon for pointing out ways to make the 23rd amendment less of an issue!

I agreee, consolidating jurisdictions there'd be good. Which is why DC should become part of Virginia.

[Virginiá]

I agreee, consolidating jurisdictions there'd be good. Which is why DC should become part of Virginia.

That is something I could begrudgingly get behind, but only after all possible options for making DC its own state have failed. If Republicans are going to demand DC be merged with a state out of partisanship, then it ought to go into the least Democratic state possible, which is Virginia (I know VA already got their parts of DC back a long time ago). It's not the worst compromise - Virginia isn't overly competitive for Republicans in statewide elections anyway.

[DINGO Joe]

Should be added to West Virginia and watch the fun begin.