Do you support DC statehood?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:04:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Do you support DC statehood?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Poll
Question: Should the District of Columbia become the Douglass Commonwealth?
#1
Yes
#2
No
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Do you support DC statehood?  (Read 3991 times)
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2020, 10:59:34 PM »

I don't really care either way.
Logged
Coolface Sock #42069
whitesox130
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2020, 10:37:58 PM »

Yes, but only if an equivalent Republican state is added somewhere else.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,459
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2020, 11:15:27 PM »

Yes, but only if an equivalent Republican state is added somewhere else.

"I love democracy.*


*Unless such democracy hurts the GOP."
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2020, 02:40:26 PM »

Yes, it's undemocratic to deny them representation
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2020, 04:58:08 PM »

No. All of DC but the property of the Federal Government should be subject to Maryland. The Founders intended a neutral site for the federal government to do the work of the people.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2020, 08:29:37 PM »

No. All of DC but the property of the Federal Government should be subject to Maryland. The Founders intended a neutral site for the federal government to do the work of the people.

I know I'm guilty of it to some extent as well, but the surest sign of malarkey concerning Constitutional interpretation is the phrase "the Founders intended ...".

That said, it's generally agreed that the primary reason for there to be provision for a Federal district in the Constitution is the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 and the lessons drawn from it.  The primary lesson that was drawn was that the Federal government could not count upon the government of a State that hosted the national capital to do what the Federal government thought was needed to provide for the security of the Federal capital.  However, considering that the trouble was caused by a mutiny of Continental Army soldiers over lack of pay,  I'm doubtful that particular problem could have been solved by the existence of a Federal district alone.

Still, there's nothing in the historical record to indicate anyone was ever worried that having the national capital within a State would cause the national government to be unduly influenced to favor that State above the others, so the idea that it was felt a neutral site was needed is ludicrous.
Logged
Splash
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,038
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2020, 12:12:24 AM »

Statehood is a must and it's really the only available recourse; I think the status of the Purple Line rail project is proof enough that Maryland wants little to do with the District.
Logged
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2020, 04:13:38 PM »

Is this even constitutionally feasible? Would the federal district be restricted to just the federal buildings, and if so, would it still get electoral votes?
Logged
Nightcore Nationalist
Okthisisnotepic.
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,827


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2020, 02:29:22 PM »

Absolutely not, since it's an obvious power grab for the sole political benefit of the Democratic party.  And DC already has enough power and influence.


Although there is a legitimate argument to be made for P.R. statehood, but not for D.C. statehood.  it's too bad PR doesn't have the military strategic benefits of Hawaii/Alaska/Guam etc... in which case I'd support it fully.
Logged
💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)
peenie_weenie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,416
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2020, 04:52:13 PM »

Absolutely not, since it's an obvious power grab for the sole political benefit of the Democratic party.  And DC already has enough power and influence.

There's a pretty obvious difference between "DC" in the federal agency sense (many employees of which do not live in DC!) and the 600K+ people who live here who, with the exception of one (1) vote every four years have absolutely no influence over federal policy.

Also the idea of delineating who does and doesn't deserve federal representation because of the pre-existing mount of influence they currently have seems... very problematic.
Logged
Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy
Alex
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,151
Argentina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2020, 11:01:32 AM »

Absolutely not, since it's an obvious power grab for the sole political benefit of the Democratic party.  And DC already has enough power and influence.

There's a pretty obvious difference between "DC" in the federal agency sense (many employees of which do not live in DC!) and the 600K+ people who live here who, with the exception of one (1) vote every four years have absolutely no influence over federal policy.

Also the idea of delineating who does and doesn't deserve federal representation because of the pre-existing mount of influence they currently have seems... very problematic.

Yeah, we should also arbitrarily reduce the California's number of Representatives and electoral votes by 79.38% as they already have way too much influence, or maybe it's because they vote D
Logged
Sirius_
Ninja0428
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,086
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.00, S: -7.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2020, 11:59:00 AM »

Absolutely not, since it's an obvious power grab for the sole political benefit of the Democratic party.  And DC already has enough power and influence.


Although there is a legitimate argument to be made for P.R. statehood, but not for D.C. statehood.  it's too bad PR doesn't have the military strategic benefits of Hawaii/Alaska/Guam etc... in which case I'd support it fully.
Is refusing to give DC representation in congress because of their political leanings not a form of voter suppression? They are Americans living in America, who deserve the same political rights as all Americans. It doesn't matter how they lean.
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,472
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2020, 12:01:58 PM »

No, the city should be retrocessed to Maryland and the capital should be moved to Wyoming. (n.b. This would have the same partisan affect you're pretending not to hope for by flipping Wyoming but would be justifiable.)
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2020, 02:15:22 AM »

Is this even constitutionally feasible? Would the federal district be restricted to just the federal buildings, and if so, would it still get electoral votes?

Yes, the plan is that the federal district would be reduced to an area around the main government buildings, to be called "The Capital".  Without a constitutional amendment, it'd still get electoral votes, but I understood the plan was to start the process of repealing the 23rd amendment to remove them.  (If that didn't happen, how would the electors even be chosen?)

Anyway, the status quo is clearly unacceptable on basic democratic principles and Maryland doesn't want it back, so yes it should have statehood.  I guess you could argue for it retaining some sort of special non-state status but being given proper representation in Congress via a constitutional amendment, like the Australian Capital Territory, but it'd be easier to get statehood through than that.
Logged
fhtagn
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Vatican City State


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2020, 02:37:41 PM »

Yes, but only if an equivalent Republican state is added somewhere else.

"I love democracy.*


*Unless such democracy hurts the GOP."

We all know the real reason why people here support DC statehood.

It has nothing to do with representation.
Logged
fhtagn
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Vatican City State


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 16, 2020, 02:42:29 PM »

Absolutely not, since it's an obvious power grab for the sole political benefit of the Democratic party.  And DC already has enough power and influence.


Although there is a legitimate argument to be made for P.R. statehood, but not for D.C. statehood.  it's too bad PR doesn't have the military strategic benefits of Hawaii/Alaska/Guam etc... in which case I'd support it fully.
Is refusing to give DC representation in congress because of their political leanings not a form of voter suppression? They are Americans living in America, who deserve the same political rights as all Americans. It doesn't matter how they lean.

Supporting retrocession to MD does exactly what you are claiming to want.

Literally everyone knows the ONLY reason anyone wants to push for DC statehood today is because it would guarantee more safe D seats. Claiming otherwise is just being dishonest.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 16, 2020, 03:52:39 PM »

Literally everyone knows the ONLY reason anyone wants to push for DC statehood today is because it would guarantee more safe D seats. Claiming otherwise is just being dishonest.

There are many, many reasons to support DC statehood and only one reason to oppose it. Are you sure you want to call other people dishonest?
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 16, 2020, 04:02:56 PM »
« Edited: October 16, 2020, 04:09:31 PM by Del Tachi »

Literally everyone knows the ONLY reason anyone wants to push for DC statehood today is because it would guarantee more safe D seats. Claiming otherwise is just being dishonest.

There are many, many reasons to support DC statehood and only one reason to oppose it. Are you sure you want to call other people dishonest?

There are many, many reasons to oppose DC statehood in principle lol

All of the "many, many" reasons Democrats have for supporting it now, they also had for supporting it in 2009-11 when they had a trifecta, or in the 1990s, or whenever.  This is only the latest episode in the running Democratic gig that is let’s-reshape-institutions-that-make-us-lose
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,459
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 16, 2020, 04:21:54 PM »

Yes, but only if an equivalent Republican state is added somewhere else.

"I love democracy.*


*Unless such democracy hurts the GOP."

We all know the real reason why people here support DC statehood.

It has nothing to do with representation.

lol k
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2020, 04:25:23 PM »

Literally everyone knows the ONLY reason anyone wants to push for DC statehood today is because it would guarantee more safe D seats. Claiming otherwise is just being dishonest.

There are many, many reasons to support DC statehood and only one reason to oppose it. Are you sure you want to call other people dishonest?

There are many, many reasons to oppose DC statehood in principle lol

All of the "many, many" reasons Democrats have for supporting it now, they also had for supporting it in 2009-11 when they had a trifecta, or in the 1990s, or whenever.  This is only the latest episode in the running Democratic gig that is let’s-reshape-institutions-that-make-us-lose

It's cute that you say that. There was a vote in 1993, and every year since then it's been proposed but never voted on. At the time of the 1993 votes, Democrats had held the House for about 40 years and the Senate for the overwhelming majority of that time. And you seem to be conveniently forgetting that the Senate used to actually care about rules, so there was a filibuster option that Democrats no longer need to worry about.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 16, 2020, 05:18:00 PM »

The reason D.C. should not be a state today is the same reason why it was created in the first place:  so that Congress and the Federal government would not be under the undue authority or influence of any state.  The constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers are fundamentally incompatible with D.C. statehood.  Federal actions and officials must be independent of state governments and not unduly bound by any state's particular laws.  One sovereign cannot live in the house of another.         

Turning the seat of the federal government into an unpopulated enclave of some new state is no better a solution.    The everyday needs of the Federal government for utilities, roads, safety and transportation could be choked and snarled by a "Douglass Commonwealth" unhappy with some Federal (in)action.  It would be a "plenary power" of any state formed out of D.C. to interfere with these essential services and  exert undue control over the functioning of the federal government.  Maybe the new state would never seek to act this way, but it wouldn't have to be intentional for it to inhibit the functioning of our federal government.  The Douglass Commonwealth could (like many Democrat-run cities) simply wreck the city budget, amass huge amounts of municipal debt, resultingly hallow out local police/schools/infrastructure and leave the Federal government to operate in an unsafe, decrepit shell of a formerly great national capital.  Exclusive control of D.C. by the federal government is the only option that preempts either of these scenarios.   

If admitted, the Douglass Commonwealth would be grossly unlike any other state in our nation, either historically or today.  The federal government is not a visitor upon D.C., the city has grown up around and entirely dependent on it.  It has no identifiable history or economy other than surviving off Federal tax receipts.  It is only 5 percent the size of Rhode Island.  It's 100% urban population would not be home to a single farmer or miner.  As a state, D.C. would be the richest yet have one of the highest poverty rates, simultaneously the most educated yet with the worst high school graduation rates.  Admitting D.C. as a state does not improve upon what some proponents of the idea claim as the great failing of our U.S. Senate - there it would elevate a small, idiosyncratic enclave to the same level of huge, diverse states home to tens of millions.   

All this being said, I'm sympathetic to permanent D.C. residents who want voting representation in Congress.  I'd support adding additional seats so that D.C. (and Puerto Rico and other territories, FWIW) can have voting rights in the House commensurate with their population.   
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 16, 2020, 05:22:28 PM »
« Edited: October 16, 2020, 05:44:46 PM by Del Tachi »

Literally everyone knows the ONLY reason anyone wants to push for DC statehood today is because it would guarantee more safe D seats. Claiming otherwise is just being dishonest.

There are many, many reasons to support DC statehood and only one reason to oppose it. Are you sure you want to call other people dishonest?

There are many, many reasons to oppose DC statehood in principle lol

All of the "many, many" reasons Democrats have for supporting it now, they also had for supporting it in 2009-11 when they had a trifecta, or in the 1990s, or whenever.  This is only the latest episode in the running Democratic gig that is let’s-reshape-institutions-that-make-us-lose

It's cute that you say that. There was a vote in 1993, and every year since then it's been proposed but never voted on. At the time of the 1993 votes, Democrats had held the House for about 40 years and the Senate for the overwhelming majority of that time. And you seem to be conveniently forgetting that the Senate used to actually care about rules, so there was a filibuster option that Democrats no longer need to worry about.

I don't think you understood my point.  Since 1993, Democrats have held Democratic trifectas twice (for a  total of four years.)  Why wasn't D.C. statehood a priority for them then?  After all, the arguments advanced by self-righteous D.C. statehood proponents would equally apply.  Does it maaaaaaaybe have something to with the fact your party now thinks it's pretty f[inks]ed in the Senate?
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2020, 01:29:31 AM »

For those who oppose DC statehood, what's your realistic (i.e. not some shooting the moon solution like a constitutional amendment giving it non-statehood statehood or retrocession which vigorously opposed by Maryland and DC)?
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 17, 2020, 09:48:12 AM »

For those who oppose DC statehood, what's your realistic (i.e. not some shooting the moon solution like a constitutional amendment giving it non-statehood statehood or retrocession which vigorously opposed by Maryland and DC)?

I don’t think increasing the size of the House to give DC voting congressmen would be controversial.  All Americans should have representation in the House, the Senate is a different matter though. 
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 17, 2020, 10:02:15 AM »

For those who oppose DC statehood, what's your realistic (i.e. not some shooting the moon solution like a constitutional amendment giving it non-statehood statehood or retrocession which vigorously opposed by Maryland and DC)?

I don’t think increasing the size of the House to give DC voting congressmen would be controversial.  All Americans should have representation in the House, the Senate is a different matter though. 

I understand the principle behind wanting a federal district above the politics of the states. But, realistically, DC has evolved as a ‘proper’ city far beyond that specific role, and do you really think that it is fair to deny people full participation in their country’s democracy simply because of where they live?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 13 queries.