Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
We don't have City-States in the US and I don't see any reason to start. What's next, Houston becomes a state? Their votes are diluted too. Detroit becomes a state? Why not? They're underrepresented in Michigan because of the rural counties. Sorry, I'm not buying the logic.
This argument doesn't work and it's another example of blending things together that are not the same.
Detroit and Houston are parts of states. They have representation in the Senate and House. DC does not have "diluted" representation. It has zero representation. There's no law or precedent that states need to have a certain geographic size. The only requirement is a population one, one that DC far exceeds.
Keep in mind that your "compromise" proposal argues in favor of effectively diluting Maryland and Virginia residents as well. "We don't have city-states" strikes me as a weird, aesthetic argument. Not one based on any norms regarding democracy or liberty.
In your opinion. My opinion differs. What does DC bring to the table as a state, other than population? Their geography was carved out of other states and it isn't even as large as Rhode Island. What, other than benefit to the Democratic Party is the logic here? I'm all ears...
Giving full enfranchisement to ~700,000 Americans seems like a good thing to me.
Frankly, only viewing these things with the lens of which of the currently existing parties benefits is such a narrow-minded way to look at the issues. The parties and their current coalition of voters will vanish one day and be replaced by a new breakdown of partisanship.
But people being able to vote for legislative branch representation who previously could not will last. And it's an unalloyed good thing.
The best compromise you're going to get from me is to make both DC and Puerto Rico states and force the GOP, slightly, left. My opinion will always be that's a compromise though. The arguments for a DC statehood are flimsy to me and smell like a political power-grab.
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
We don't have City-States in the US and I don't see any reason to start. What's next, Houston becomes a state? Their votes are diluted too. Detroit becomes a state? Why not? They're underrepresented in Michigan because of the rural counties. Sorry, I'm not buying the logic.
This argument doesn't work and it's another example of blending things together that are not the same.
Detroit and Houston are parts of states. They have representation in the Senate and House. DC does not have "diluted" representation. It has zero representation. There's no law or precedent that states need to have a certain geographic size. The only requirement is a population one, one that DC far exceeds.
Keep in mind that your "compromise" proposal argues in favor of effectively diluting Maryland and Virginia residents as well. "We don't have city-states" strikes me as a weird, aesthetic argument. Not one based on any norms regarding democracy or liberty.
In your opinion. My opinion differs. What does DC bring to the table as a state, other than population? Their geography was carved out of other states and it isn't even as large as Rhode Island. What, other than benefit to the Democratic Party is the logic here? I'm all ears...
Giving full enfranchisement to 700,00 Americans seems like a good thing to me.
Frankly, only viewing these things with the lens of which of the currently existing parties benefits, is such a narrow-minded way to look at the issues. The parties and their current coalition of voters will vanish one day and be in a new breakdown of partisanship.
But people being able to vote for legislative branch representation who previously could not will last. And it's an unalloyed good thing.
Put DC into the states it was carved out of. Increase the representation as required. Case closed. DC is not a state. Sorry. I don't agree with you.
Why? DC voters never voted in Maryland or Virginia elections but will now have to follow Maryland and Virginia laws. Maryland and Virginians also don't get a say on whether this happens?
I don't understand why this is such a non-starter for you. DC residents are literally second-class citizens, but you're arguing that they can only get awarded full representation if by doing so they dilute the votes of neighboring, similarly partisan states. I mean, you're making an awfully partisan and petty argument here. I'm at least appealing to some more universal democratic principles.
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
We don't have City-States in the US and I don't see any reason to start. What's next, Houston becomes a state? Their votes are diluted too. Detroit becomes a state? Why not? They're underrepresented in Michigan because of the rural counties. Sorry, I'm not buying the logic.
This argument doesn't work and it's another example of blending things together that are not the same.
Detroit and Houston are parts of states. They have representation in the Senate and House. DC does not have "diluted" representation. It has zero representation. There's no law or precedent that states need to have a certain geographic size. The only requirement is a population one, one that DC far exceeds.
Keep in mind that your "compromise" proposal argues in favor of effectively diluting Maryland and Virginia residents as well. "We don't have city-states" strikes me as a weird, aesthetic argument. Not one based on any norms regarding democracy or liberty.
In your opinion. My opinion differs. What does DC bring to the table as a state, other than population? Their geography was carved out of other states and it isn't even as large as Rhode Island. What, other than benefit to the Democratic Party is the logic here? I'm all ears...
Giving full enfranchisement to 700,00 Americans seems like a good thing to me.
Frankly, only viewing these things with the lens of which of the currently existing parties benefits, is such a narrow-minded way to look at the issues. The parties and their current coalition of voters will vanish one day and be in a new breakdown of partisanship.
But people being able to vote for legislative branch representation who previously could not will last. And it's an unalloyed good thing.
Put DC into the states it was carved out of. Increase the representation as required. Case closed. DC is not a state. Sorry. I don't agree with you.
Why? DC voters never voted in Maryland or Virginia elections but will now have to follow Maryland and Virginia laws. Maryland and Virginians also don't get a say on whether this happens?
I don't understand why this is such a non-starter for you. DC residents are literally second-class citizens, but you're arguing that they can only get awarded full representation if by doing so they dilute the votes of neighboring, similarly partisan states. I mean, you're making an awfully partisan and petty argument here. I'm at least appealing to some more universal democratic principles.
Read my last post. That's pretty much my compromise. DC is not a state.
Edit: A 'state' that is completely urban is not a 'state' in my opinion. Rhode Island grandfather's out in that regard.
Edit of edit: Thus my non-objection to Puerto Rico. My opinion is not political. I'm not basing my opinion on partisanship...
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
We don't have City-States in the US and I don't see any reason to start. What's next, Houston becomes a state? Their votes are diluted too. Detroit becomes a state? Why not? They're underrepresented in Michigan because of the rural counties. Sorry, I'm not buying the logic.
This argument doesn't work and it's another example of blending things together that are not the same.
Detroit and Houston are parts of states. They have representation in the Senate and House. DC does not have "diluted" representation. It has zero representation. There's no law or precedent that states need to have a certain geographic size. The only requirement is a population one, one that DC far exceeds.
Keep in mind that your "compromise" proposal argues in favor of effectively diluting Maryland and Virginia residents as well. "We don't have city-states" strikes me as a weird, aesthetic argument. Not one based on any norms regarding democracy or liberty.
In your opinion. My opinion differs. What does DC bring to the table as a state, other than population? Their geography was carved out of other states and it isn't even as large as Rhode Island. What, other than benefit to the Democratic Party is the logic here? I'm all ears...
Giving full enfranchisement to 700,00 Americans seems like a good thing to me.
Frankly, only viewing these things with the lens of which of the currently existing parties benefits, is such a narrow-minded way to look at the issues. The parties and their current coalition of voters will vanish one day and be in a new breakdown of partisanship.
But people being able to vote for legislative branch representation who previously could not will last. And it's an unalloyed good thing.
Put DC into the states it was carved out of. Increase the representation as required. Case closed. DC is not a state. Sorry. I don't agree with you.
Why? DC voters never voted in Maryland or Virginia elections but will now have to follow Maryland and Virginia laws. Maryland and Virginians also don't get a say on whether this happens?
I don't understand why this is such a non-starter for you. DC residents are literally second-class citizens, but you're arguing that they can only get awarded full representation if by doing so they dilute the votes of neighboring, similarly partisan states. I mean, you're making an awfully partisan and petty argument here. I'm at least appealing to some more universal democratic principles.
Read my last post. That's pretty much my compromise. DC is not a state.
Literally, the main arguments you've made are that this shouldn't happen because it benefits the Democrats too much. That type of argument on statehood does has an unfortunate history in American politics, back when the partisan divide was over the slavery question.
Thankfully, fewer people think this way today. As I think you've demonstrated, there's no good way to appeal to universal ideas about citizenship, democracy or liberty one can make in defense of blocking DC statehood.
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland and I'm on board. There's no need for DC to become a state of it's own. Compromise. Problem solved. GOP might not even care since both VA and MD are pretty much blue states now anyway.
Why? The population of DC is larger than that of several states.
Also, why do we have to compromise on giving US citizens full representation? I mean, giving DC resident 3/5 of a vote would also count as a compromise. And not one anyone should agree to!
We don't have City-States in the US and I don't see any reason to start. What's next, Houston becomes a state? Their votes are diluted too. Detroit becomes a state? Why not? They're underrepresented in Michigan because of the rural counties. Sorry, I'm not buying the logic.
This argument doesn't work and it's another example of blending things together that are not the same.
Detroit and Houston are parts of states. They have representation in the Senate and House. DC does not have "diluted" representation. It has zero representation. There's no law or precedent that states need to have a certain geographic size. The only requirement is a population one, one that DC far exceeds.
Keep in mind that your "compromise" proposal argues in favor of effectively diluting Maryland and Virginia residents as well. "We don't have city-states" strikes me as a weird, aesthetic argument. Not one based on any norms regarding democracy or liberty.
In your opinion. My opinion differs. What does DC bring to the table as a state, other than population? Their geography was carved out of other states and it isn't even as large as Rhode Island. What, other than benefit to the Democratic Party is the logic here? I'm all ears...
Giving full enfranchisement to 700,00 Americans seems like a good thing to me.
Frankly, only viewing these things with the lens of which of the currently existing parties benefits, is such a narrow-minded way to look at the issues. The parties and their current coalition of voters will vanish one day and be in a new breakdown of partisanship.
But people being able to vote for legislative branch representation who previously could not will last. And it's an unalloyed good thing.
Put DC into the states it was carved out of. Increase the representation as required. Case closed. DC is not a state. Sorry. I don't agree with you.
Why? DC voters never voted in Maryland or Virginia elections but will now have to follow Maryland and Virginia laws. Maryland and Virginians also don't get a say on whether this happens?
I don't understand why this is such a non-starter for you. DC residents are literally second-class citizens, but you're arguing that they can only get awarded full representation if by doing so they dilute the votes of neighboring, similarly partisan states. I mean, you're making an awfully partisan and petty argument here. I'm at least appealing to some more universal democratic principles.
Read my last post. That's pretty much my compromise. DC is not a state.
Literally, the main arguments you've made are that this shouldn't happen because it benefits the Democrats too much. That type of argument on statehood does has an unfortunate history in American politics, back when the partisan divide was over the slavery question.
Thankfully, fewer people think this way today. As I think you've demonstrated, there's no good way to appeal to universal ideas about citizenship, democracy or liberty one can make in defense of blocking DC statehood.
My edit wasn't complete before your reply. I'm not partisan about this. Seriously. I have objections to a city being called a 'state'. That's it. No objections to Puerto Rico. Doesn't that mean something?
Speaking for the rest of the world I believe that the most important issue is that the number of stars on your flag should change as little as possible.
Speaking for the rest of the world I believe that the most important issue is that the number of stars on your flag should change as little as possible.
Change two or none as far as I'm concerned. Changing just one is partisan politics.
Edit: A 'state' that is completely urban is not a 'state' in my opinion. Rhode Island grandfather's out in that regard.
This is an aesthetic argument. Imagine saying that Vermont or Wyoming can't be states because there's no large cities in them. It's effectively the same argument. The largest city in Vermont is barely over 40k! I just don't see why this is a principle that outweighs the full enfranchisement of more Americans.
In fact, I'd argue that since the Senate has a disproportionate representation to low urban, low population states, the addition of DC also brings the Senate more in line with representing the country. It's a two front win for democracy.
As @deltago wrote above, the far simpler solution is independent statehood for DC, as opposed to merging with Maryland and Virginia. It's also the one that's stronger in terms of democratic norms -- DC residents have voted for a local government that makes its laws. They haven't voted for the laws of Maryland and Virginia.
Seems arbitrary to define a state as "not being a city". I think it has a meaningful population that is disenfranchised. The current political argument for stopping it from being a state is that the GOP doesnt want to give two senate seats. I firmly believe the GOP would be 100% in favor of DC statehood if they felt it would vote reliably red.
I think there are only two reasonable solutions.
Either statehood needs to be defined explicitly by a series of metrics, At a minimum, you would then have to remove statehood from every state that has a population less than DC. You could introduce other factors that contribute to what makes a state, but the basic premise is that if DC isnt a state, it doesnt make sense that Wyoming is a state. Either both should be, or neither should be.
For the record - I'm against disenfranchisement, so I'd just prefer to make DC a state and leave it be.
The other option is to just let DC decide. Give them 2 (or 3) poll options in a referendum:
A - DC becomes a state.
B - DC agrees to be annexed by Virginia
C - DC agrees to be annexed by Maryland.
Plurality wins. Obviously, they're going to choose statehood because it provides them the most agency. Why are we standing in the way of their agency?
Unfortunately, the way the founding fathers envisioned DC to play out wasn't the way things ended up. My view on how to correct that is to 'directly' correct their shortsightedness and 'directly' undo it. Put the geographic boundaries back to the way they were and reapportion the representation. Problem solved...
Speaking for the rest of the world I believe that the most important issue is that the number of stars on your flag should change as little as possible.
Change two or none as far as I'm concerned. Changing just one is partisan politics.
I think the idea that "partisan politics" is always definitionally bad is one folks really ought to disabuse themselves of. Abolition was a highly partisan issue in its time. Later civil rights set off a new partisan divide. Even in recent history, gay rights was partisan.
Just because something is partisan at some point in history doesn't make it wrong. In fact, almost all significant positive change in democracies start out as partisan fights.
Speaking for the rest of the world I believe that the most important issue is that the number of stars on your flag should change as little as possible.
Change two or none as far as I'm concerned. Changing just one is partisan politics.
I think the idea that "partisan politics" is always definitionally bad is one folks really ought to disabuse themselves of. Abolition was a highly partisan issue in its time. Later civil rights set off a new partisan divide. Even in recent history, gay rights was partisan.
Just because something is partisan at some point in history doesn't make it wrong. In fact, almost all significant positive change in democracies start out as partisan fights.
Partisan isn't 'wrong' per se. Never has been. What's wrong is "My may is the only 'right' way" and fuck everybody else because you're 'evil'.
Speaking for the rest of the world I believe that the most important issue is that the number of stars on your flag should change as little as possible.
Change two or none as far as I'm concerned. Changing just one is partisan politics.
I think the idea that "partisan politics" is always definitionally bad is one folks really ought to disabuse themselves of. Abolition was a highly partisan issue in its time. Later civil rights set off a new partisan divide. Even in recent history, gay rights was partisan.
Just because something is partisan at some point in history doesn't make it wrong. In fact, almost all significant positive change in democracies start out as partisan fights.
Partisan isn't 'wrong' per se. Never has been. What's wrong is "My may is the only 'right' way" and fuck everybody else because you're 'evil'.
Speaking for the rest of the world I believe that the most important issue is that the number of stars on your flag should change as little as possible.
Change two or none as far as I'm concerned. Changing just one is partisan politics.
I think the idea that "partisan politics" is always definitionally bad is one folks really ought to disabuse themselves of. Abolition was a highly partisan issue in its time. Later civil rights set off a new partisan divide. Even in recent history, gay rights was partisan.
Just because something is partisan at some point in history doesn't make it wrong. In fact, almost all significant positive change in democracies start out as partisan fights.
Partisan isn't 'wrong' per se. Never has been. What's wrong is "My may is the only 'right' way" and fuck everybody else because you're 'evil'.
"Case closed. DC is not a state."
Well, in my defense,I never claimed you're evil. I was defending my views that DC doesn't qualify as a 'state'. Attack my reasoning, don't claim I was being personal...
Look I'll concede that if we were drawing up a perfect democracy, a state like DC wouldn't exist. By the same token, a state like Wyoming or Vermont also wouldn't exist. But creating a perfect democracy is not one of our choices.
It's between making DC a state or not. I'm not even sure there's good support for merging DC into its previous states. Again, for reasons of democratic legitimacy, wouldn't those states have to pass a referendum before the federal government imposed something like that? It seems like a "compromise" that actually creates more problem than the process we've had for adding new states. I mean, we have a precedent for this.
It might be aesthetically unpleasant but that cannot be a principle for denying Article I representation. And I favor it because it's also a way to bend the biased representation of the Senate to something slightly more proportional. Although it has to be said even adding PR and DC only does this slightly!
The fact that the GOP relies on unequal representation in order to win minority rule is one of the big reasons why US politics seems so hopeless in recent years.
I can't believe I'm the first person bringing this up, but WTF is up with the border situation? Biden is totally fucking this up. He's not making this OK with anybody. He looks like he's both for both open borders AND for total border security at the same time. You can't be for both. WTF!!!
Look I'll concede that if we were drawing up a perfect democracy, a state like DC wouldn't exist. By the same token, a state like Wyoming or Vermont also wouldn't exist. But creating a perfect democracy is not one of our choices.
It's between making DC a state or not. I'm not even sure there's good support for merging DC into its previous states. Again, for reasons of democratic legitimacy, wouldn't those states have to pass a referendum before the federal government imposed something like that? It seems like a "compromise" that actually creates more problem than the process we've had for adding new states. I mean, we have a precedent for this.
It might be aesthetically unpleasant but that cannot be a principle for denying Article I representation. And I favor it because it's also a way to bend the biased representation of the Senate to something slightly more proportional. Although it has to be said even adding PR and DC only does this slightly!
The fact that the GOP relies on unequal representation in order to win minority rule is one of the big reasons why US politics seems so hopeless in recent years.
Again, the only 'state' that has no rural representation whatsoever is not your best argument.
Look I'll concede that if we were drawing up a perfect democracy, a state like DC wouldn't exist. By the same token, a state like Wyoming or Vermont also wouldn't exist. But creating a perfect democracy is not one of our choices.
It's between making DC a state or not. I'm not even sure there's good support for merging DC into its previous states. Again, for reasons of democratic legitimacy, wouldn't those states have to pass a referendum before the federal government imposed something like that? It seems like a "compromise" that actually creates more problem than the process we've had for adding new states. I mean, we have a precedent for this.
It might be aesthetically unpleasant but that cannot be a principle for denying Article I representation. And I favor it because it's also a way to bend the biased representation of the Senate to something slightly more proportional. Although it has to be said even adding PR and DC only does this slightly!
The fact that the GOP relies on unequal representation in order to win minority rule is one of the big reasons why US politics seems so hopeless in recent years.
Again, the only 'state' that has no rural representation whatsoever is not your best argument.
This is not what the word representation means. This is not just a semantic point. What you mean is it has no rural population. But why is that a requirement to be a state? There's no democratic or liberty-based norm that says you can only get representation if you have a rural population. Heck, democratic political philosophy has a rich history with the pejorative term you've used -- the city-state.
You keep asserting this fact over and over. But, I think it's fair to say, you have done nothing to tie it to universally understood norms about representation.
Look I'll concede that if we were drawing up a perfect democracy, a state like DC wouldn't exist. By the same token, a state like Wyoming or Vermont also wouldn't exist. But creating a perfect democracy is not one of our choices.
It's between making DC a state or not. I'm not even sure there's good support for merging DC into its previous states. Again, for reasons of democratic legitimacy, wouldn't those states have to pass a referendum before the federal government imposed something like that? It seems like a "compromise" that actually creates more problem than the process we've had for adding new states. I mean, we have a precedent for this.
It might be aesthetically unpleasant but that cannot be a principle for denying Article I representation. And I favor it because it's also a way to bend the biased representation of the Senate to something slightly more proportional. Although it has to be said even adding PR and DC only does this slightly!
The fact that the GOP relies on unequal representation in order to win minority rule is one of the big reasons why US politics seems so hopeless in recent years.
Again, the only 'state' that has no rural representation whatsoever is not your best argument.
This is not what the word representation means. This is not just a semantic point. What you mean is it has no rural population. But why is that a requirement to be a state? There's no democratic or liberty-based norm that says you can only get representation if you have a rural population. Heck, democratic political philosophy has a rich history with the pejorative term you've used -- the city-state.
You keep asserting this fact over and over. But, I think it's fair to say, you have done nothing to tie it to universally understood norms about representation.
There is no precedent you can refer to. What other city has been allowed to call themselves a State? There is no legal precedent whatsoever.
Puerto Rico has a thousand times better legal reasoning for statehood than DC. The whole reasoning for DC statehood seems to me as gamesmanship. Call me skeptical and you're totally correct. The chances of me falling for a ciber-scam are pretty neigeable. That skepticism transfers to politics as well...
Look I'll concede that if we were drawing up a perfect democracy, a state like DC wouldn't exist. By the same token, a state like Wyoming or Vermont also wouldn't exist. But creating a perfect democracy is not one of our choices.
It's between making DC a state or not. I'm not even sure there's good support for merging DC into its previous states. Again, for reasons of democratic legitimacy, wouldn't those states have to pass a referendum before the federal government imposed something like that? It seems like a "compromise" that actually creates more problem than the process we've had for adding new states. I mean, we have a precedent for this.
It might be aesthetically unpleasant but that cannot be a principle for denying Article I representation. And I favor it because it's also a way to bend the biased representation of the Senate to something slightly more proportional. Although it has to be said even adding PR and DC only does this slightly!
The fact that the GOP relies on unequal representation in order to win minority rule is one of the big reasons why US politics seems so hopeless in recent years.
Again, the only 'state' that has no rural representation whatsoever is not your best argument.
This is not what the word representation means. This is not just a semantic point. What you mean is it has no rural population. But why is that a requirement to be a state? There's no democratic or liberty-based norm that says you can only get representation if you have a rural population. Heck, democratic political philosophy has a rich history with the pejorative term you've used -- the city-state.
You keep asserting this fact over and over. But, I think it's fair to say, you have done nothing to tie it to universally understood norms about representation.
There is no precedent you can refer to. What other city has been allowed to call themselves a State? There is no legal precedent whatsoever.
I imagine he was referring to historical precedents. The Greek city-states for instance were very important in testing out ideas about democracy.
I think all of the points being discussed have had considerable debate over time as part of local government reorganization in England and that illustrates how views on these can change.
The model of local government put in place in 1974 was essentially that top-tier local authorities (the nearest equivalent to US states, though with significantly less autonomy from national government) should cover mixed geographic areas. That idea received a strong challenge in the 1990s when the national government set up a new commission to review and propose changes to local government structures. They drew up a number of criteria on what local authorities should look like - and one of those was to prize homogeneity above heterogeneity. That meant that 'city states' were actually seen as the preferred model for local government rather than the reverse.
I could see some logic to that idea, but as I was seconded to a team defending the interests of the top-tier authority I worked for at the time, I argued strongly against it . Our argument was successful, but similar arguments elsewhere were generally not - so Norwich, the main city in the top-tier authority of Norfolk, is now the largest city in England that is not itself a top-tier authority.
The local government commission from that time has changed names and roles, but a similar body is still in existence and, from time to time, still addressing reorganization proposals. However, there has been a significant shift in philosophy since that first round of proposals. The weightings given to homogeneity and civic identity have been considerably reduced and that given to efficiency increased. The latter partly covers cost issues, but also how easy in practice it would be to manage services - including co-operation with other local authorities. The vast size of US states means the parallel with local government in England is poor in this respect - boundary issues are a much bigger concern in England.
As an illustration of the change in priorities, by far the smallest top-tier authority created in England in the 1990s was Rutland. With a population of about 37,000 that was well below the suggested size being used by the local government commission (generally seeking 250k+), but the homogeneity of the population and their strong sense of identity saw the authority given separate top-tier status anyway.
That would not happen now though. One result of the discussions over time - and the creation of statutory bodies to do reviews on an as apolitical basis as possible - is an increasing acceptance of pragmatism as a way forward (so seeing what works in a particular situation, rather than trying to apply a common philosophy everywhere). If I apply that current approach to the situation in the US I think the outcome would be pretty clear:
1) the position on representation with DC is so out of line with the rest of the country that it needs to be addressed.
2) by far the simplest way to address it would be to make DC a state, so that's what should happen unless local people are strongly opposed to that.
I can't believe I'm the first person bringing this up, but WTF is up with the border situation? Biden is totally fucking this up. He's not making this OK with anybody. He looks like he's both for both open borders AND for total border security at the same time. You can't be for both. WTF!!!
The infrastructure that was used to process asylum seekers was torn down and replaced by tear gas. The Biden Administration refuses to use the tear gas so they have to quickly rebuild the infrastructure that was there previously.
Biden was in a catch 22. If he didn’t roll back Trump’s controversial policies at the border, the left would be screaming he is working fast enough, and the right would be just shrugging and saying ‘he’s doing exactly what trump was doing’ (he is still getting this flak for not rolling back the COVID restrictions when it comes to asylum seekers, hence your total border security quip).
Because he did quickly roll the policies back, and him getting elected over Trump, asylum seekers think they have a better chance of getting into the country now and are attempting it. It wouldn’t surprise me if many of them are failed recipients that stuck around in Mexico. This influx quickly overwhelmed the already fragile system and they’re attempting to fix it as they go, which is never a smart move.
After DC becomes a state, imagine this conversation:
customer: "Hello, can I book a flight to Washington?"
airline: "Washington DC or Washington state?"
customer: "Well, DC is a state"
airline: "Yes, but where do you want to go?"
customer: "To Washington"
airline: "But Washington DC or state?"
customer: "To the state"
airline: "Ok, just to be sure, you mean the one in the Northwest, right?"
customer: "No, I mean the one that was formerly a city"
Nothing substantial, just felt like the thread could benefit from my completely dumb sense of humor.
Back when Washington was working up to become a state, one proposed name was "Columbia", after the river that forms its southern border. That was rejected because of confusion with the District, so they went for "Washington" instead.
Look I'll concede that if we were drawing up a perfect democracy, a state like DC wouldn't exist. By the same token, a state like Wyoming or Vermont also wouldn't exist. But creating a perfect democracy is not one of our choices.
It's between making DC a state or not. I'm not even sure there's good support for merging DC into its previous states. Again, for reasons of democratic legitimacy, wouldn't those states have to pass a referendum before the federal government imposed something like that? It seems like a "compromise" that actually creates more problem than the process we've had for adding new states. I mean, we have a precedent for this.
It might be aesthetically unpleasant but that cannot be a principle for denying Article I representation. And I favor it because it's also a way to bend the biased representation of the Senate to something slightly more proportional. Although it has to be said even adding PR and DC only does this slightly!
The fact that the GOP relies on unequal representation in order to win minority rule is one of the big reasons why US politics seems so hopeless in recent years.
Again, the only 'state' that has no rural representation whatsoever is not your best argument.
On the contrary, it's actually a very good argument for ameliorating the biased representation in the Senate, and thus not having to pursue much more radical reform of a body that has slowly drifted away from being responsive to voters' will. Making DC and PR states is the compromise, not the maximalist position!
If there are several low-population states out there with no large cities in them, I don't see what's wrong with having one state that's a large city with no rural population. And there are about seven mostly rural states that fit that definition by my count. If anything, this makes the Senate more diverse and thus more responsive to what voters want, thus in turn, increasing democratic legitimacy of the US government.
You should really look up the history of when and how states were added, btw. Arguing that there was ever a principle at play is not supported by history. I've already gone over antebellum compromises, but even post Civil War additions were all ad hoc agreements based in the politics of their time.
Article is by a Boston College history professor: "In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming—the largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later."
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Democrats doing the same today, and there is much, much greater justification based on non-partisan norms about having truly representative legislatures. And they'd be doing it on a much, much smaller scale.
Moreover, it's not the Democrats fault that the GOP feels it cannot win these voters over. It's not the Democrats fault that the current GOP strategy for winning power relies heavily on the disproportionate representation in the Senate and Electoral College. Upholding that status quo is just as much of a "partisan win" as making these reforms would be.
I really don't care how it happens or what form it takes. A 3 electoral vote Washington DC would only decide the most razor-thin election imaginable. The actual advantage would be minimal at best, insignificant in most Presidential contests. But the idea that the 700k residents of one American city shouldn't have Congressional representation like the other 330 million of us is the radical position, not the other way around.
No one can possibly support local government over federal and excuse this, which is, without question, the most blatant interference in local control currently in existence. Nothing even comes close:
Comments
The best compromise you're going to get from me is to make both DC and Puerto Rico states and force the GOP, slightly, left. My opinion will always be that's a compromise though. The arguments for a DC statehood are flimsy to me and smell like a political power-grab.
Why? DC voters never voted in Maryland or Virginia elections but will now have to follow Maryland and Virginia laws. Maryland and Virginians also don't get a say on whether this happens?
I don't understand why this is such a non-starter for you. DC residents are literally second-class citizens, but you're arguing that they can only get awarded full representation if by doing so they dilute the votes of neighboring, similarly partisan states. I mean, you're making an awfully partisan and petty argument here. I'm at least appealing to some more universal democratic principles.
Read my last post. That's pretty much my compromise. DC is not a state.
Edit: A 'state' that is completely urban is not a 'state' in my opinion. Rhode Island grandfather's out in that regard.
Edit of edit: Thus my non-objection to Puerto Rico. My opinion is not political. I'm not basing my opinion on partisanship...
Literally, the main arguments you've made are that this shouldn't happen because it benefits the Democrats too much. That type of argument on statehood does has an unfortunate history in American politics, back when the partisan divide was over the slavery question.
Thankfully, fewer people think this way today. As I think you've demonstrated, there's no good way to appeal to universal ideas about citizenship, democracy or liberty one can make in defense of blocking DC statehood.
My edit wasn't complete before your reply. I'm not partisan about this. Seriously. I have objections to a city being called a 'state'. That's it. No objections to Puerto Rico. Doesn't that mean something?
Change two or none as far as I'm concerned. Changing just one is partisan politics.
This is an aesthetic argument. Imagine saying that Vermont or Wyoming can't be states because there's no large cities in them. It's effectively the same argument. The largest city in Vermont is barely over 40k! I just don't see why this is a principle that outweighs the full enfranchisement of more Americans.
In fact, I'd argue that since the Senate has a disproportionate representation to low urban, low population states, the addition of DC also brings the Senate more in line with representing the country. It's a two front win for democracy.
As @deltago wrote above, the far simpler solution is independent statehood for DC, as opposed to merging with Maryland and Virginia. It's also the one that's stronger in terms of democratic norms -- DC residents have voted for a local government that makes its laws. They haven't voted for the laws of Maryland and Virginia.
I think there are only two reasonable solutions.
Either statehood needs to be defined explicitly by a series of metrics, At a minimum, you would then have to remove statehood from every state that has a population less than DC. You could introduce other factors that contribute to what makes a state, but the basic premise is that if DC isnt a state, it doesnt make sense that Wyoming is a state. Either both should be, or neither should be.
For the record - I'm against disenfranchisement, so I'd just prefer to make DC a state and leave it be.
The other option is to just let DC decide. Give them 2 (or 3) poll options in a referendum:
A - DC becomes a state.
B - DC agrees to be annexed by Virginia
C - DC agrees to be annexed by Maryland.
Plurality wins. Obviously, they're going to choose statehood because it provides them the most agency. Why are we standing in the way of their agency?
Unfortunately, the way the founding fathers envisioned DC to play out wasn't the way things ended up. My view on how to correct that is to 'directly' correct their shortsightedness and 'directly' undo it. Put the geographic boundaries back to the way they were and reapportion the representation. Problem solved...
I think the idea that "partisan politics" is always definitionally bad is one folks really ought to disabuse themselves of. Abolition was a highly partisan issue in its time. Later civil rights set off a new partisan divide. Even in recent history, gay rights was partisan.
Just because something is partisan at some point in history doesn't make it wrong. In fact, almost all significant positive change in democracies start out as partisan fights.
Partisan isn't 'wrong' per se. Never has been. What's wrong is "My may is the only 'right' way" and fuck everybody else because you're 'evil'.
"Case closed. DC is not a state."
Well, in my defense,I never claimed you're evil. I was defending my views that DC doesn't qualify as a 'state'. Attack my reasoning, don't claim I was being personal...
It's between making DC a state or not. I'm not even sure there's good support for merging DC into its previous states. Again, for reasons of democratic legitimacy, wouldn't those states have to pass a referendum before the federal government imposed something like that? It seems like a "compromise" that actually creates more problem than the process we've had for adding new states. I mean, we have a precedent for this.
It might be aesthetically unpleasant but that cannot be a principle for denying Article I representation. And I favor it because it's also a way to bend the biased representation of the Senate to something slightly more proportional. Although it has to be said even adding PR and DC only does this slightly!
The fact that the GOP relies on unequal representation in order to win minority rule is one of the big reasons why US politics seems so hopeless in recent years.
Again, the only 'state' that has no rural representation whatsoever is not your best argument.
This is not what the word representation means. This is not just a semantic point. What you mean is it has no rural population. But why is that a requirement to be a state? There's no democratic or liberty-based norm that says you can only get representation if you have a rural population. Heck, democratic political philosophy has a rich history with the pejorative term you've used -- the city-state.
You keep asserting this fact over and over. But, I think it's fair to say, you have done nothing to tie it to universally understood norms about representation.
There is no precedent you can refer to. What other city has been allowed to call themselves a State? There is no legal precedent whatsoever.
I imagine he was referring to historical precedents. The Greek city-states for instance were very important in testing out ideas about democracy.
I think all of the points being discussed have had considerable debate over time as part of local government reorganization in England and that illustrates how views on these can change.
The model of local government put in place in 1974 was essentially that top-tier local authorities (the nearest equivalent to US states, though with significantly less autonomy from national government) should cover mixed geographic areas. That idea received a strong challenge in the 1990s when the national government set up a new commission to review and propose changes to local government structures. They drew up a number of criteria on what local authorities should look like - and one of those was to prize homogeneity above heterogeneity. That meant that 'city states' were actually seen as the preferred model for local government rather than the reverse.
I could see some logic to that idea, but as I was seconded to a team defending the interests of the top-tier authority I worked for at the time, I argued strongly against it
The local government commission from that time has changed names and roles, but a similar body is still in existence and, from time to time, still addressing reorganization proposals. However, there has been a significant shift in philosophy since that first round of proposals. The weightings given to homogeneity and civic identity have been considerably reduced and that given to efficiency increased. The latter partly covers cost issues, but also how easy in practice it would be to manage services - including co-operation with other local authorities. The vast size of US states means the parallel with local government in England is poor in this respect - boundary issues are a much bigger concern in England.
As an illustration of the change in priorities, by far the smallest top-tier authority created in England in the 1990s was Rutland. With a population of about 37,000 that was well below the suggested size being used by the local government commission (generally seeking 250k+), but the homogeneity of the population and their strong sense of identity saw the authority given separate top-tier status anyway.
That would not happen now though. One result of the discussions over time - and the creation of statutory bodies to do reviews on an as apolitical basis as possible - is an increasing acceptance of pragmatism as a way forward (so seeing what works in a particular situation, rather than trying to apply a common philosophy everywhere). If I apply that current approach to the situation in the US I think the outcome would be pretty clear:
1) the position on representation with DC is so out of line with the rest of the country that it needs to be addressed.
2) by far the simplest way to address it would be to make DC a state, so that's what should happen unless local people are strongly opposed to that.
The infrastructure that was used to process asylum seekers was torn down and replaced by tear gas. The Biden Administration refuses to use the tear gas so they have to quickly rebuild the infrastructure that was there previously.
Biden was in a catch 22. If he didn’t roll back Trump’s controversial policies at the border, the left would be screaming he is working fast enough, and the right would be just shrugging and saying ‘he’s doing exactly what trump was doing’ (he is still getting this flak for not rolling back the COVID restrictions when it comes to asylum seekers, hence your total border security quip).
Because he did quickly roll the policies back, and him getting elected over Trump, asylum seekers think they have a better chance of getting into the country now and are attempting it. It wouldn’t surprise me if many of them are failed recipients that stuck around in Mexico. This influx quickly overwhelmed the already fragile system and they’re attempting to fix it as they go, which is never a smart move.
customer: "Hello, can I book a flight to Washington?"
airline: "Washington DC or Washington state?"
customer: "Well, DC is a state"
airline: "Yes, but where do you want to go?"
customer: "To Washington"
airline: "But Washington DC or state?"
customer: "To the state"
airline: "Ok, just to be sure, you mean the one in the Northwest, right?"
customer: "No, I mean the one that was formerly a city"
Nothing substantial, just felt like the thread could benefit from my completely dumb sense of humor.
Back when Washington was working up to become a state, one proposed name was "Columbia", after the river that forms its southern border. That was rejected because of confusion with the District, so they went for "Washington" instead.
On the contrary, it's actually a very good argument for ameliorating the biased representation in the Senate, and thus not having to pursue much more radical reform of a body that has slowly drifted away from being responsive to voters' will. Making DC and PR states is the compromise, not the maximalist position!
If there are several low-population states out there with no large cities in them, I don't see what's wrong with having one state that's a large city with no rural population. And there are about seven mostly rural states that fit that definition by my count. If anything, this makes the Senate more diverse and thus more responsive to what voters want, thus in turn, increasing democratic legitimacy of the US government.
You should really look up the history of when and how states were added, btw. Arguing that there was ever a principle at play is not supported by history. I've already gone over antebellum compromises, but even post Civil War additions were all ad hoc agreements based in the politics of their time.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/when-adding-new-states-helped-republicans/598243/
Article is by a Boston College history professor: "In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming—the largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later."
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Democrats doing the same today, and there is much, much greater justification based on non-partisan norms about having truly representative legislatures. And they'd be doing it on a much, much smaller scale.
Moreover, it's not the Democrats fault that the GOP feels it cannot win these voters over. It's not the Democrats fault that the current GOP strategy for winning power relies heavily on the disproportionate representation in the Senate and Electoral College. Upholding that status quo is just as much of a "partisan win" as making these reforms would be.
No one can possibly support local government over federal and excuse this, which is, without question, the most blatant interference in local control currently in existence. Nothing even comes close:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-washingtondc-congress-idUSKBN15T2XD