Two-Thirds Of Americans Oppose DC Statehood

[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?

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

The law

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

[emailking]

Like causing a traffic jam Chris Christie style to prevent Congress from voting on a bill that could hurt the state?

I'm not sure I follow either why it's a big deal, other than some far out there scenarios. A lot of members of Congress live in MD or VA anyway.

I guess it might have been particularly bad in the civil war if MD seceded and DC was just some buildings, and lawmakers from the north had to live in the south.

[President Johnson]

The Democrats should do it anyway, along with Puerto Rico and Guam. If Washington citizens have to pay income taxes, they should also chose two senators and representatives.

[Santander]

The Democrats should do it anyway, along with Puerto Rico and Guam. If Washington citizens have to pay income taxes, they should also chose two senators and representatives.

Puerto Rico and Guam don't pay federal taxes. They are also colonial holdings with a very different history acquisition than the US. DC residents also don't pay full taxes, since their local government is subsidized by 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.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

Good, I don't want two more Democrat senators. No thank you sir, I'll pass.

[Grassroots]

Big deal.

Nobody asked Americans if they felt like America needed two Dakotas instead of one, but the Republicans admitted two so they could get four Senate seats out of the deal.

lmao wtf, this is not historically accurate, or accurate in any regard.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Canada does just fine with Ottawa in Ontario.

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

And the Australian Capital Territory has representation in parliament unlike here in the US. Granted, the ACT only has two senators as opposed to the 12 that states have. I believe that it has proportional represenation in the House of Represenatives though. I know they just got a third seat in the most recent election.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

Big deal.

Nobody asked Americans if they felt like America needed two Dakotas instead of one, but the Republicans admitted two so they could get four Senate seats out of the deal.

lmao wtf, this is not historically accurate, or accurate in any regard.

What can I say? Democrats and leftists are prone to making stuff up entirely. This is something you'll need to learn ASAP kid, or you'll have a rough life ahead of ya.

#NYCMMmentorstheyouthofamerica

[Santander]

Canada does just fine with Ottawa in Ontario.

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

And the Australian Capital Territory has representation in parliament unlike here in the US. Granted, the ACT only has two senators as opposed to the 12 that states have. I believe that it has proportional represenation in the House of Represenatives though. I know they just got a third seat in the most recent election.

And again, no problem with representation. Only a problem with statehood.

[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?

The law

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

What law? Federal law trumps any state law.

[President Johnson]

The Democrats should do it anyway, along with Puerto Rico and Guam. If Washington citizens have to pay income taxes, they should also chose two senators and representatives.

Puerto Rico and Guam don't pay federal taxes. They are also colonial holdings with a very different history acquisition than the US. DC residents also don't pay full taxes, since their local government is subsidized by the federal government.

DC residents pay federal income taxes though, that should be enough.

The other two should be admitted for other reasons.

[fluffypanther19]

meh, just give dc more control over their own affairs and maybe a few voting reps in the house and call it a day

[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?

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.

[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?

[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?

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.

None of the laws you mention could be applied against the federal government. States can’t tax the federal government. States can’t tell the federal government how high to build buildings on federal land. So what exactly is the scenario you fear?

[SteveRogers]

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?

Yeah, the Pentagon is in Virginia for crying out loud!

[Santander]

None of the laws you mention could be applied against the federal government. States can’t tax the federal government. States can’t tell the federal government how high to build buildings on federal land. So what exactly is the scenario you fear?

The states can tax the federal government...  what do you think sales taxes and commuter taxes would be? And most of DC is not federal land.

[Santander]

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?

There is only one seat of government. Only one city has Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, foreign embassies, etc.

The only logically and historically coherent argument for ignoring the need for a capital territory is that statehood has been so eroded over time that statehood itself needs to be redefined (though Constitutional amendment), at which point DC's political status would basically resolve itself. DC's political representation problems are far narrower in scope than statehood and should be resolved in the appropriate manner.

[RI]

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.

[Badger]

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.

Voting representation without statehood? As in they would elect two senators and ( presumably, based on census results) one House member, but would remain a separate District continue to be governed by Congress? I've never heard of such a proposal before, and I'd have to mull it over, but off the top of my head I think I could get behind that. It feels to dress that Congress, particularly members who have no Affinity or background in representing the needs of an urban constituency oh, make some really sh**ttastic overrides of local popular will, but it certainly would solve the greatest problem of taxation without representation because of some constitutional anachronism

[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?

[Progressive Pessimist]

I don't put much stock in this poll since most Americans probably don't even know what constitutes statehood.

[Indy Texas]

Big deal.

Nobody asked Americans if they felt like America needed two Dakotas instead of one, but the Republicans admitted two so they could get four Senate seats out of the deal.

lmao wtf, this is not historically accurate, or accurate in any regard.

Yes it is...

The Dakota Territory was divided into the states of North Dakota and South Dakota on November 2, 1889. The admission of two states, as opposed to one, was done for a number of reasons. The two population centers in the territory were in the northeast and southeast corners of the territory, several hundred miles away from each other. On a national level, there was pressure from the Republican Party to admit two states to add to their political power in the Senate.[6]:100–101

[brucejoel99]

Title should read: "Two-thirds of Americans think 51 sounds worse than 50 & don't think more critically than that."