DC statehood—which industry should they choose?

[LittleFuzzy]

Maybe the DC voters should be asked what they think themselves then?

They've voted for statehood. So? A number of existing states have regional populations that would vote or have voted to create a new state out of just themselves as well. They're ignored as well and with good reason. You've made a fetish out of what you call devolution. In some contexts it makes sense. In others it actually does the exact opposite of what you claim to virtue the principle for in the first place, this being one such. When your logic and reality don't match, the problem isn't with reality, it's with overly simplistic or just inaccurate premises or arguments in your logic.

But there's already been a referendum and they voted for Statehood. Which you keep ignoring despite saying that should happen first - once it was pointed out its already happened you seem to just gloss over that fact.

Here you are engaged in just such a faulty logic chain. In this case a faulty premise. I'm not ignoring that it happened. I acknowledge that. But when I addressed that it wasn't a question of "should," it was a question of process and procedure. And that procedure is most certainly not an inevitable progression. The next step in that process lies with Congress which rejected the motion then, thirty years ago. It has been taken up again though I don't think what was voted on in '87 itself was approved but a fresh motion passed by the House in a bit of grandstanding that will be going down in flames in the Senate.

That DC voters have voted for statehood seems a purpose for them getting it, yet you think the only purpose is Congress.

And where do i typically stand with public-initiated referendums and similar direct democracy?

[RandBlade]

They've voted for statehood. So? A number of existing states have regional populations that would vote or have voted to create a new state out of just themselves as well. They're ignored as well and with good reason. You've made a fetish out of what you call devolution. In some contexts it makes sense. In others it actually does the exact opposite of what you claim to virtue the principle for in the first place, this being one such. When your logic and reality don't match, the problem isn't with reality, it's with overly simplistic or just inaccurate premises or arguments in your logic.

Can you give any comparable examples of non-State territories voting for Statehood and being ignored besides PR and DC?

Here you are engaged in just such a faulty logic chain. In this case a faulty premise. I'm not ignoring that it happened. I acknowledge that. But when I addressed that it wasn't a question of "should," it was a question of process and procedure. And that procedure is most certainly not an inevitable progression. The next step in that process lies with Congress which rejected the motion then, thirty years ago. It has been taken up again though I don't think what was voted on in '87 itself was approved but a fresh motion passed by the House in a bit of grandstanding that will be going down in flames in the Senate.

Except that DC's most recent Statehood referendum didn't occur in 1987 - it took place in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_W...ood_referendum

And where do i typically stand with public-initiated referendums and similar direct democracy?

Reasonable to say that you disagree with them. Not reasonable to say there's no reason to respect that people have a genuine interest even if you disagree with them.

[LittleFuzzy]

Can you give any comparable examples of non-State territories voting for Statehood and being ignored besides PR and DC?

I know at least one attempt by Native Americans to organize into a state was turned down by Congress. Texas' request wasn't followed for ~ a decade, until they managed to instigate the Mexican-American War. I know those aren't the only ones but I'd have to go looking for others.

Except that DC's most recent Statehood referendum didn't occur in 1987 - it took place in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_W...ood_referendum

Which matters to what I said how?

Reasonable to say that you disagree with them. Not reasonable to say there's no reason to respect that people have a genuine interest even if you disagree with them.

It is indeed reasonable. "I want/"we want" has absolutely no persuasive power. It is no reason at all for changing political structures. Function (or dysfunction) certainly may be. The whim of some set of an electorate is not.