Do you support DC statehood?

[Sol]

Moreover, there are plenty of federal countries where the capitol is in a state (or equivalent) and/or the Federal District has the equivalent of statehood. Canada and Mexico spring to mind. Though both of those countries have challenges I'd argue that neither of them come from the issue's which you seem concerned with.

[°Leprechaun]

Yes, although it might make sense for DC to become part of MD or VA.
They definitely should get to vote for two Senators and one Representative either way.
No taxation without representation is a core value in the US.

[7,052,770]

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.

LOL, the only reason anyone opposes it is because it will send Democrats to Congress.

We would support DC statehood even if it were a Republican area, because the principle that all Americans should be represented in Congress [unless they explicitly don't want to be, like American Samoa] rises over everything. I also support statehood for Puerto Rico and Guam, even though those 2 states are rarely going to be 100% Democratic in Congress.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

LOL, the only reason anyone opposes it is because it will send Democrats to Congress.

That's the primary reason, but not the only reason, people oppose it. Personally, I favor the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment over Statehood.

[Del Tachi]

LOL, the only reason anyone opposes it is because it will send Democrats to Congress.

No fewer than 5 posters in this thread (only two of who were Republicans) have suggested the federal status of D.C. is important as a separation of powers issue.  The national capital being under the administration of the federal government is a model replicated around the world.  It takes a special type of partisan hackery to always paint your opposition in the least flattering light possible. 

We would support DC statehood even if it were a Republican area, because the principle that all Americans should be represented in Congress [unless they explicitly don't want to be, like American Samoa] rises over everything. I also support statehood for Puerto Rico and Guam, even though those 2 states are rarely going to be 100% Democratic in Congress.

Oh please, Harry.  Cut it out with the sanctimonious bull.  It takes absolutely zero conviction to say what you would do in a hypothetical situation.  If Washington, D.C. was a Republican-leaning city on the Kansas high plains, liberals would simply justify opposing its admission as a state on the grounds that it would further exacerbate the population imbalance inherent in the U.S. Senate.  Admitting D.C. as it stands presents the same problem and even though it's recently become very popular for liberals to deride the one state, one vote nature of the Senate they overlook the very argument they make in favor of the partisan advantage the "Douglass Commonwealth" could deliver.   

If you want to be consistent, fix the Senate and then address D.C. statehood. 

[AGA]

The Constitution should be amended to expand the House by two seats, one for DC and one more for the rest of the country (so that neither the electoral college nor the House can tie), and DC should (maybe) get two senators. I do not support statehood per se because I think that the federal government should have total control over its main buildings and that the plan of carving out the area with the federal buildings is too messy.

[Stuart98]

Whether the constitution should be amended or not is a moot point; it's nigh impossible to amend the constitution at present and I don't think delaying voting rights to DC citizens until the political situation has changed for the better is at all fair to them. Given that an amendment to give DC proper congressional representation isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future, the only viable options are statehood and status quo, and the former is more fair to the residents of DC than the latter.

[fhtagn]

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.

LOL, the only reason anyone opposes it is because it will send Democrats to Congress.

We would support DC statehood even if it were a Republican area, because the principle that all Americans should be represented in Congress [unless they explicitly don't want to be, like American Samoa] rises over everything. I also support statehood for Puerto Rico and Guam, even though those 2 states are rarely going to be 100% Democratic in Congress.

If you actually bothered to read my post before replying, you'd have noticed the first part:

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

[7,052,770]

No fewer than 5 posters in this thread (only two of who were Republicans) have suggested the federal status of D.C. is important as a separation of powers issue.  The national capital being under the administration of the federal government is a model replicated around the world.  It takes a special type of partisan hackery to always paint your opposition in the least flattering light possible.

                     
This from Del Tachi of all people, who proudly describes himself as a hack who "carries water" for Trump even though he knows he's an idiot and admits he sees politics merely as a game who he wants Republicans to win. You present yourself in the least flattering light - I don't have to do anything.

Oh please, Harry.  Cut it out with the sanctimonious bull.  It takes absolutely zero conviction to say what you would do in a hypothetical situation. 

I would support DC statehood regardless of how they vote. If North Dakota or somewhere were just a territory and wanted to be a state, I would support its admission. I can't speak for anyone else, but it's a safe bet that a lot more liberals think like I do than the reverse. If DC leaned Republican, 100% of Republicans would gladly support its admission (and would've done so years ago), with enough liberal support to call it "bipartisan."

If you want to be consistent, fix the Senate and then address D.C. statehood. 

No doubt it would be fairer to also allocate senators proportionally to US population, but that's never going to happen, period. No small or even medium-sized state is ever going to agree to that.

[7,052,770]

If you actually bothered to read my post before replying, you'd have noticed the first part:

                     

I read your post. You want to just make it part of Maryland because you think that's more favorable to Republicans.

But America has no history of doing this. We didn't tell Alaska, "Oh, you can just be part of Washington." We didn't just give Hawaii to California. No territory has ever tried to get statehood, only to be absorbed into an existing state.

Now if DC and Maryland residents wanted this arrangement, I wouldn't fight it, but Republicans pushing this "alternative plan" are solely doing so to keep Democrats out of Congress rather than any kind of principles.

[7,052,770]

Oh, and just for the record, DC's position of having no representation at all in the national legislature is not common around the world by any stretch of the imagination:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_districts_and_territories

Only Australia, which does allow the ACT representation, but not as much as the states get, is even comparable.

[fhtagn]

If you actually bothered to read my post before replying, you'd have noticed the first part:

                     

I read your post. You want to just make it part of Maryland because you think that's more favorable to Republicans.

But America has no history of doing this. We didn't tell Alaska, "Oh, you can just be part of Washington." We didn't just give Hawaii to California. No territory has ever tried to get statehood, only to be absorbed into an existing state.

Now if DC and Maryland residents wanted this arrangement, I wouldn't fight it, but Republicans pushing this "alternative plan" are solely doing so to keep Democrats out of Congress rather than any kind of principles.

Culturally, it's no different than it's immediate surrounding areas in MD. There's no reason a small portion of a city shouldn't just become part of a state it's already similar to. There's no reason it should be it's own state.

It's not even remotely comparable to your post about making Alaska part of Washington or Hawaii part of California and you know it.

[7,052,770]

If you actually bothered to read my post before replying, you'd have noticed the first part:

                     

I read your post. You want to just make it part of Maryland because you think that's more favorable to Republicans.

But America has no history of doing this. We didn't tell Alaska, "Oh, you can just be part of Washington." We didn't just give Hawaii to California. No territory has ever tried to get statehood, only to be absorbed into an existing state.

Now if DC and Maryland residents wanted this arrangement, I wouldn't fight it, but Republicans pushing this "alternative plan" are solely doing so to keep Democrats out of Congress rather than any kind of principles.

Culturally, it's no different than it's immediate surrounding areas in MD. There's no reason a small portion of a city shouldn't just become part of a state it's already similar to. There's no reason it should be it's own state.

It's not even remotely comparable to your post about making Alaska part of Washington or Hawaii part of California and you know it.

Wrong, you are just a shameless hack. Not a single one of the 37 states admitted after the original 13 have ever faced any possibility of just being tacked onto another state, and none of the 50 states have ever had a separate territory added onto them in lieu of giving that territory its own statehood.

And there are plenty examples of new states being culturally similar to an already-existing border state at the time, and yet this has never been a consideration. You (and your fellow Republican hacks) just want to change the norms for Douglass because you know your policies and attitudes will have a hard time getting votes there, and you don't want to even try.

That's a key difference in Republicans and Democrats. When people don't support us, we go out and try to convince them to change their minds. It's worked wonders in the suburbs over the last few years. When people don't support yall, you just try to prevent them from being able to vote at all.

[fhtagn]

If you actually bothered to read my post before replying, you'd have noticed the first part:

                     

I read your post. You want to just make it part of Maryland because you think that's more favorable to Republicans.

But America has no history of doing this. We didn't tell Alaska, "Oh, you can just be part of Washington." We didn't just give Hawaii to California. No territory has ever tried to get statehood, only to be absorbed into an existing state.

Now if DC and Maryland residents wanted this arrangement, I wouldn't fight it, but Republicans pushing this "alternative plan" are solely doing so to keep Democrats out of Congress rather than any kind of principles.

Culturally, it's no different than it's immediate surrounding areas in MD. There's no reason a small portion of a city shouldn't just become part of a state it's already similar to. There's no reason it should be it's own state.

It's not even remotely comparable to your post about making Alaska part of Washington or Hawaii part of California and you know it.

Wrong, you are just a shameless hack. Not a single one of the 37 states admitted after the original 13 have ever faced any possibility of just being tacked onto another state, and none of the 50 states have ever had a separate territory added onto them in lieu of giving that territory its own statehood.

And there are plenty examples of new states being culturally similar to an already-existing border state at the time, and yet this has never been a consideration. You (and your fellow Republican hacks) just want to change the norms for Douglass because you know your policies and attitudes will have a hard time getting votes there, and you don't want to even try.

That's a key difference in Republicans and Democrats. When people don't support us, we go out and try to convince them to change their minds. It's worked wonders in the suburbs over the last few years. When people don't support yall, you just try to prevent them from being able to vote at all.

The parts of DC affected are just a portion of an existing city, something that makes quite a bit more sense to tack onto an existing state than it ever will making it it's own state. It's not even remotely the same as the argument you are trying to present.

Get back to me when you have a real argument worth taking seriously.

[7,052,770]

If you actually bothered to read my post before replying, you'd have noticed the first part:

                     

I read your post. You want to just make it part of Maryland because you think that's more favorable to Republicans.

But America has no history of doing this. We didn't tell Alaska, "Oh, you can just be part of Washington." We didn't just give Hawaii to California. No territory has ever tried to get statehood, only to be absorbed into an existing state.

Now if DC and Maryland residents wanted this arrangement, I wouldn't fight it, but Republicans pushing this "alternative plan" are solely doing so to keep Democrats out of Congress rather than any kind of principles.

Culturally, it's no different than it's immediate surrounding areas in MD. There's no reason a small portion of a city shouldn't just become part of a state it's already similar to. There's no reason it should be it's own state.

It's not even remotely comparable to your post about making Alaska part of Washington or Hawaii part of California and you know it.

Wrong, you are just a shameless hack. Not a single one of the 37 states admitted after the original 13 have ever faced any possibility of just being tacked onto another state, and none of the 50 states have ever had a separate territory added onto them in lieu of giving that territory its own statehood.

And there are plenty examples of new states being culturally similar to an already-existing border state at the time, and yet this has never been a consideration. You (and your fellow Republican hacks) just want to change the norms for Douglass because you know your policies and attitudes will have a hard time getting votes there, and you don't want to even try.

That's a key difference in Republicans and Democrats. When people don't support us, we go out and try to convince them to change their minds. It's worked wonders in the suburbs over the last few years. When people don't support yall, you just try to prevent them from being able to vote at all.

The parts of DC affected are just a portion of an existing city, something that makes quite a bit more sense to tack onto an existing state than it ever will making it it's own state. It's not even remotely the same as the argument you are trying to present.

Get back to me when you have a real argument worth taking seriously.

Well Douglass is going to be a state in 6 months regardless of whether you are too much of a hack to take it seriously or not, so 🤷‍♂️

[Former President tack50]

Moreover, there are plenty of federal countries where the capitol is in a state (or equivalent) and/or the Federal District has the equivalent of statehood. Canada and Mexico spring to mind. Though both of those countries have challenges I'd argue that neither of them come from the issue's which you seem concerned with.

If anything, I would argue that not giving the federal capital representation in Congress is the exception, not the norm.

Even when the capital is its own separate city state like in Australia (ACT), Brazil (Distrito Federal), Argentina (CABA) or Germany (Land Berlin); the capital city is still represented in the lower house and even in the upper house, just like every other state

[Former President tack50]

LOL, the only reason anyone opposes it is because it will send Democrats to Congress.

No fewer than 5 posters in this thread (only two of who were Republicans) have suggested the federal status of D.C. is important as a separation of powers issue.  The national capital being under the administration of the federal government is a model replicated around the world.  It takes a special type of partisan hackery to always paint your opposition in the least flattering light possible. 

Uh, no it is not?

Most federal countries actually do give their capital city full home rule and full representation in their Congress. Most of the time it is through "statehood in all but name"; although statehood period is far from uncommon.

For an example in action, just look at Land Berlin in Germany.

Would you accept a Constitutional amendment that reinforced DC's home rule and gave them 1 Rep and 2 Senators? If not, why shouldn't DC have the same representation?

[7,052,770]

Would you accept a Constitutional amendment that reinforced DC's home rule and gave them 1 Rep and 2 Senators? If not, why shouldn't DC have the same representation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment

Something kinda like that actually passed Congress in 1978, though not with explicit home rule, but it has only ever gotten 16 of the needed 38 states to ratify.

[Del Tachi]

No fewer than 5 posters in this thread (only two of who were Republicans) have suggested the federal status of D.C. is important as a separation of powers issue.  The national capital being under the administration of the federal government is a model replicated around the world.  It takes a special type of partisan hackery to always paint your opposition in the least flattering light possible.

This from Del Tachi of all people, who proudly describes himself as a hack who "carries water" for Trump even though he knows he's an idiot and admits he sees politics merely as a game who he wants Republicans to win. You present yourself in the least flattering light - I don't have to do anything.

Everyone carries water for their team.  Why else would you call yourself "a Democrat?"  However, this doesn't mean there aren't well-contrived, principled arguments in support of partisan political goals.  The fact that you can't see this about both sides just proves you're a juvenile-level partisan hack.

Oh please, Harry.  Cut it out with the sanctimonious bull.  It takes absolutely zero conviction to say what you would do in a hypothetical situation.

I would support DC statehood regardless of how they vote. If North Dakota or somewhere were just a territory and wanted to be a state, I would support its admission. I can't speak for anyone else, but it's a safe bet that a lot more liberals think like I do than the reverse. If DC leaned Republican, 100% of Republicans would gladly support its admission (and would've done so years ago), with enough liberal support to call it "bipartisan."

Once again, it's beyond easy for you to say this when there's absolutely zero, real-world political consequences to consider.  You believing in your heart of hearts that the good, principled Democrats would act this way is also historically unprecedented.  Even during the relatively bipartisan era of the 1950s, Alaska and Hawaii (our two newest states) had to be admitted together as part of a partisan balancing act.     

[Del Tachi]

Oh, and just for the record, DC's position of having no representation at all in the national legislature is not common around the world by any stretch of the imagination

But representation in the national legislature is a completely different question than incorporation of the national capital as a sovereign, federal entity (i.e., a state), and there's no reason that two are even tangentially related except for Democrats' wishes to gain partisan advantage as quickly and easily as possible.

LOL, the only reason anyone opposes it is because it will send Democrats to Congress.

No fewer than 5 posters in this thread (only two of who were Republicans) have suggested the federal status of D.C. is important as a separation of powers issue.  The national capital being under the administration of the federal government is a model replicated around the world.  It takes a special type of partisan hackery to always paint your opposition in the least flattering light possible. 

Uh, no it is not?

Most federal countries actually do give their capital city full home rule and full representation in their Congress. Most of the time it is through "statehood in all but name"; although statehood period is far from uncommon.

(1) Under federal statue, D.C. already has home rule.
(2) "Statehood" as a concept varies significantly from country to country, so any apples-to-apples comparison of the relative rights and privileges between Federal districts around the world starts off on pretty unstable footing.  Just at first glance I see that Argentina, Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria and Venezuela have levels of incorporation for their national capitals less than that of their federal states or provinces, the question of representation notwithstanding.  You could enlarge this list to include a lot of Federal capitals around the world with diminished sovereignty or direct Federal input into their local affairs, but you'd be including a lot of unique, full-of-asterisks type relationships that would be hard to understand without really delving into the constitutional nuances of countries I don't know a lot about.

Would you accept a Constitutional amendment that reinforced DC's home rule and gave them 1 Rep and 2 Senators? If not, why shouldn't DC have the same representation?

I would accept a constitutional amendment expanding the size of the House to give D.C. and other U.S. territories voting representation in the House commensurate with their populations (i.e., they could grow and shrink based on the Census.)  However, I would not support D.C. getting senators because in principle the U.S. Senate represents not individual citizens but the sovereign interests of the several States, which D.C. is and should not be among.  I don't think the Senate should be a "one man, one vote" kind of body so I'm find with D.C. being excluded.

I would, however, be open to some kind of constitutional revision maybe shrinking some of the exclusive powers enjoyed by the Senate, such as having Presidential executive and judicial appointments approved by a bicameral committee of legislators as opposed to the full Senate. 

[Former President tack50]

Oh, and just for the record, DC's position of having no representation at all in the national legislature is not common around the world by any stretch of the imagination

But representation in the national legislature is a completely different question than incorporation of the national capital as a sovereign, federal entity (i.e., a state), and there's no reason that two are even tangentially related except for Democrats' wishes to gain partisan advantage as quickly and easily as possible.

LOL, the only reason anyone opposes it is because it will send Democrats to Congress.

No fewer than 5 posters in this thread (only two of who were Republicans) have suggested the federal status of D.C. is important as a separation of powers issue.  The national capital being under the administration of the federal government is a model replicated around the world.  It takes a special type of partisan hackery to always paint your opposition in the least flattering light possible. 

Uh, no it is not?

Most federal countries actually do give their capital city full home rule and full representation in their Congress. Most of the time it is through "statehood in all but name"; although statehood period is far from uncommon.

(1) Under federal statue, D.C. already has home rule.
(2) "Statehood" as a concept varies significantly from country to country, so any apples-to-apples comparison of the relative rights and privileges between Federal districts around the world starts off on pretty unstable footing.  Just at first glance I see that Argentina, Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria and Venezuela have levels of incorporation for their national capitals less than that of their federal states or provinces, the question of representation notwithstanding.  You could enlarge this list to include a lot of Federal capitals around the world with diminished sovereignty or direct Federal input into their local affairs, but you'd be including a lot of unique, full-of-asterisks type relationships that would be hard to understand without really delving into the constitutional nuances of countries I don't know a lot about.

Would you accept a Constitutional amendment that reinforced DC's home rule and gave them 1 Rep and 2 Senators? If not, why shouldn't DC have the same representation?

I would accept a constitutional amendment expanding the size of the House to give D.C. and other U.S. territories voting representation in the House commensurate with their populations (i.e., they could grow and shrink based on the Cens.)  However, I would not support D.C. getting senators because in principle the U.S. Senate represents not individual citizens but the sovereign interests of the several States, which D.C. is and should not be among.  I don't think the Senate should be a "one man, one vote" kind of body so I'm find with D.C. being excluded.

I would, however, be open to some kind of constitutional revision maybe shrinking some of the exclusive powers enjoyed by the Senate, such as having Presidential executive and judicial appointments approved by a bicameral committee of legislators as opposed to the full Senate. 

Re home rule: I think even to this day Congress can take out any DC law it wants? That's not really proper home rule. to be honest.

As for representation, note that; other than Australia, literally every other federal country gives their capital city the same representation as the regular states. Even Australia still gives the ACT senate representation (just less than the regular states)

So the "normal" thing to do would be to give DC 2 Senators.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

DC Statehood defeats the purpose of it being.....DC.

[Ferguson97]

DC Statehood defeats the purpose of it being.....DC.

So why should the residents of DC have no representation in Congress?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

DC Statehood defeats the purpose of it being.....DC.

So why should the residents of DC have no representation in Congress?

Statehood is only the easiest, not the only way to give DC representation in Congress.  That said, I don't think it is a good idea to have a State whose only industry is politics.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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.         

Both federalism and separation of powers are threatened by deep institutional rot and DC statehood would hardly change any of that. Invoking ether of these two as plausibly threatened by DC statehood is trying to protect a false ideal.

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.   

I know I'm going to get Gish galloped in response, but this paragraph is crazy. There's no reason other than institutional momentum that either historic or modern concepts of "states" as places full of miners or farmers (??) are worth protecting at all. If anything, a useful Senate would have more representation that is designated explicitly for urban areas.