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?

[Santander]

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.

[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.

[Virginiá]

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.

[emailking]

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia)

I guess the issue is the residential areas. "DC" could just be the land with all the relevant federal buildings where there are almost no residents. The residential areas could potentially be a state or absorbed into other states.

[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.

[DrScholl]

What polls say do not matter. What matters is fairness and representation. DC deserves votes in both houses of Congress regardless of what a poll says.

[Santander]

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia)

I guess the issue is the residential areas. "DC" could just be the land with all the relevant federal buildings where there are almost no residents. The residential areas could potentially be a state or absorbed into other states.

A federal district has to encompass a functional city that can support the government's business in order to make sense. A rump district of government buildings resembling the Vatican is not suitable for that purpose, as it would still be subject to all of the same issues of the capital being in one state, just without the capital legally being in the state.

While DC getting voting representation is fine, the status quo is not that bad either. Residence in DC is completely voluntary, and they enjoy some privileges like lower taxes, particularly at the lower end, and better infrastructure, thanks to direct federal government funding and the economic behemoth that is the US federal government.

[SteveRogers]

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia)

I guess the issue is the residential areas. "DC" could just be the land with all the relevant federal buildings where there are almost no residents. The residential areas could potentially be a state or absorbed into other states.

A federal district has to encompass a functional city that can support the government's business in order to make sense. A rump district of government buildings resembling the Vatican is not suitable for that purpose, as it would still be subject to all of the same issues of the capital being in one state, just without the capital legally being in the state.

While DC getting voting representation is fine, the status quo is not that bad either. Residence in DC is completely voluntary, and they enjoy some privileges like lower taxes, particularly at the lower end, and better infrastructure, thanks to direct federal government funding and the economic behemoth that is the US federal government.

What exactly are the issues of the federal capital being located within one state?

[Former President tack50]

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia)

I guess the issue is the residential areas. "DC" could just be the land with all the relevant federal buildings where there are almost no residents. The residential areas could potentially be a state or absorbed into other states.

A federal district has to encompass a functional city that can support the government's business in order to make sense. A rump district of government buildings resembling the Vatican is not suitable for that purpose, as it would still be subject to all of the same issues of the capital being in one state, just without the capital legally being in the state.

While DC getting voting representation is fine, the status quo is not that bad either. Residence in DC is completely voluntary, and they enjoy some privileges like lower taxes, particularly at the lower end, and better infrastructure, thanks to direct federal government funding and the economic behemoth that is the US federal government.

What exactly are the issues of the federal capital being located within one state?

Yeah. Most other federal countries either have the federal capital be a state by itself (Germany and Land Berlin; Australia and the ACT; etc) or they have the federal capital inside one state (a great example being Ottawa in Canada, which even if it sits right at the border is still firmly in Ontario)

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

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.

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia) When it comes to Constitutional issues, you have to do things right, not just whatever's expedient.

I am also not opposed to voting representation, but statehood is the wrong solution to the problem. DC statehood means that one (sovereign) state will have control over the infrastructure, laws, and planning, and thus undue influence and control, of the national capital, which is a place that exists solely do the work of all 50 states. (the rump DC idea ignores this fact) It would also raise taxation and fairness issues, with the DC government currently receiving 40% of its annual revenues from direct federal funding.

Not sure about Brazil, but the Australian Capital Territory has Senators (not as many as a state would though) and Represenatives. Granted, Australia doesn’t have an executive elected by electoral college.

[Santander]

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia)

I guess the issue is the residential areas. "DC" could just be the land with all the relevant federal buildings where there are almost no residents. The residential areas could potentially be a state or absorbed into other states.

A federal district has to encompass a functional city that can support the government's business in order to make sense. A rump district of government buildings resembling the Vatican is not suitable for that purpose, as it would still be subject to all of the same issues of the capital being in one state, just without the capital legally being in the state.

While DC getting voting representation is fine, the status quo is not that bad either. Residence in DC is completely voluntary, and they enjoy some privileges like lower taxes, particularly at the lower end, and better infrastructure, thanks to direct federal government funding and the economic behemoth that is the US federal government.

What exactly are the issues of the federal capital being located within one state?

Yeah. Most other federal countries either have the federal capital be a state by itself (Germany and Land Berlin; Australia and the ACT; etc) or they have the federal capital inside one state (a great example being Ottawa in Canada, which even if it sits right at the border is still firmly in Ontario)

Canada is a much less federal country than Australia or the US, so it's not that contentious. (provinces instead of states) Again, there is no problem with having representation for DC residents, the problem is statehood itself, what statehood means, why a federal district was created in the first place, and why it is needed today.

I have already explained in my previous posts the main reasons.

[Virginiá]

For proponents of statehood, those issues are not as important as the issue of representation and the ability to govern themselves without interference. I myself am not really a huge proponent of statehood but rather some solution that gives DC the same representation and doesn't involve MD retrocession, which is equally unlikely and not necessarily what DC residents want either. The fact is, absent any viable alternative, statehood is the next best thing, and it supersedes the concerns of placing a rump district within the new state - a set issues that seems like they could be managed somewhat when drafting the new state constitution, where the federal government can ask for certain policies to be enshrined before admitting the new state.

[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.

[SteveRogers]

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia)

I guess the issue is the residential areas. "DC" could just be the land with all the relevant federal buildings where there are almost no residents. The residential areas could potentially be a state or absorbed into other states.

A federal district has to encompass a functional city that can support the government's business in order to make sense. A rump district of government buildings resembling the Vatican is not suitable for that purpose, as it would still be subject to all of the same issues of the capital being in one state, just without the capital legally being in the state.

While DC getting voting representation is fine, the status quo is not that bad either. Residence in DC is completely voluntary, and they enjoy some privileges like lower taxes, particularly at the lower end, and better infrastructure, thanks to direct federal government funding and the economic behemoth that is the US federal government.

What exactly are the issues of the federal capital being located within one state?

Yeah. Most other federal countries either have the federal capital be a state by itself (Germany and Land Berlin; Australia and the ACT; etc) or they have the federal capital inside one state (a great example being Ottawa in Canada, which even if it sits right at the border is still firmly in Ontario)

Canada is a much less federal country than Australia or the US, so it's not that contentious. (provinces instead of states) Again, there is no problem with having representation for DC residents, the problem is statehood itself, what statehood means, why a federal district was created in the first place, and why it is needed today.

I have already explained in my previous posts the main reasons.

You haven’t explained any reasons though

[Santander]

You haven’t explained any reasons though

You should learn to read, then.

[SteveRogers]

You haven’t explained any reasons though

You should learn to read, then.

Can you give a concrete example of how such a state would exert “undue influence” over the federal government?

[Santander]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

IndyTX and Virginia already made some great points, but I would like to also add that, under the current system, Congress has virtually all control over the city that the mayor is practically reduced to a figurehead.  If statehood is not an option, it should either be merged with another state, or at the very least, Congress should treat DC as if it were a sovereign state and give more power to mayors and local legislators.  For example, don't let random congresspeople like Andy Harris decide that DC can't legalize cannabis after it passes a binding referendum in favor of it.  And there is no reason DC should have non-voting delegates in Congress instead of congresspeople who can vote on legislation.

If you are a supporter of federalism, you should at least agree that the status quo is incredibly unfair to DC residents and should be reformed.

[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.

[Santander]

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?

[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?

[Mr. Smith]

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.

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia) When it comes to Constitutional issues, you have to do things right, not just whatever's expedient.

I am also not opposed to voting representation, but statehood is the wrong solution to the problem. DC statehood means that one (sovereign) state will have control over the infrastructure, laws, and planning, and thus undue influence and control, of the national capital, which is a place that exists solely do the work of all 50 states. (the rump DC idea ignores this fact) It would also raise taxation and fairness issues, with the DC government currently receiving 40% of its annual revenues from direct federal funding.

Canada does just fine with Ottawa in Ontario.

[Santander]

Canada does just fine with Ottawa in Ontario.

Provinces aren't states. Australia is a much closer analogue to the US than Canada.

[SteveRogers]

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?