DC statehood—which industry should they choose?
With the matter of statehood for DC on the agenda in a big way, one Very Smart Fascist raises an important question: what vital industry would the new state choose to represent, to earn the right to political representation?
Twitter Link
It's an important question, because, as you are all no doubt aware, representing industries is democracy's greatest—nay, sole—purpose.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That guy's an idiot, of course, but what equal idiots have "statehood for DC" on the agenda? The whole point of DC is to be a sui generis federal district not controlled by any state. If its statelessness is a problem, there are three adjacent states each of which can be granted back the territory they ceded for the District's creation. Or if the result of that is too messy it can just be placed whole in one of them.
The issue of statehood for Puerto Rico is a sensible topic. Statehood for DC, not so much.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Afaict they're proposing that the core federal district retains its current status while the remainder of DC is admitted as a new state. I haven't read the details yet.Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So the idea is that instead of four jurisdictions in the city (the Feds, and then the three states in which outlying neighborhoods and suburbs lie) there'd be FIVE? Or do just want to take the suburbs and outlying neighborhoods out their respective states? Presumably as a continuously growing state which accretes and consumes more of Penn, Maryland, and Virginia as its population expands, since otherwise the issues caused just keep coming back. Yeah, they're also idiots.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I suspect all of these questions can be answered most effectively by the full text of the proposal, wherever that may be.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You don't think the lack of representation of the residents of DC is a problem? I'm under impression by the way, that many people who work for the federal government don't live in DC but in one of the surrounding states.
There is a number of federal states that don't have a special status for their capital.
Congratulations America
Great in theory, but in reality people, voters, live in DC and they deserve representation. They deserve Statehood.
The rationale for DC doesn't exist any longer. I think that giving the district back is a more sensible solution
Congratulations America
Nah they can join an existing state if they really want to make it a big deal. Not going to mess up such an even number like 50.
I do agree that we should strive to see citizens represented. It's an imperfect world however, and it won't always happen. By and large, you're making a choice to forgo it in favor of some degree of convenience by living in the District itself rather than any of the parts of the metropolitan area that ARE under representation via being part of Maryland, Pennsylvania, or Virginia. If the lack of representation is that important an issue, then the solution is most certainly not making the city a state entirely in and of itself. They most certainly don't deserve Statehood. They've got three perfectly acceptable existing states to be part of already.
I don't think it's a big one. And to the extent that it those living in federal territories are unrepresented, again, Puerto Rico presents a much higher priority. Six times higher a priority at a minimum, going by population. With DC in particular, if it IS an issue, statehood for the city is not the solution.
Respectfully, Hazir, the first point is something I brought up myself, and the second is implied by my saying to just put the territory back into one or all of the original owning states.I'm under impression by the way, that many people who work for the federal government don't live in DC but in one of the surrounding states.
There is a number of federal states that don't have a special status for their capital.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Can do a double of DC and Puerto Rico and keep it an even number.
Can a simple majority in Congress approve new States or does it require 60+ Senators or similar?
Fuzzy if DC gets admitted it wouldn't even be the least populated State by a long shot! It's got about 40% more population than Wyoming.
Your argument seems to be like suggesting why doesn't (the less populated) North Dakota not unify with South Dakota?
By population, no it would not. So? It's a single city, not even a metropolitan area (most of which is already part of the the surrounding states). The next smallest state (currently the smallest) covers 15 times that area. DC doesn't need the additional layers of government. Why not make NYC five states, one for each borough, while we're at it? Though really, those would still be far too large. DC's population is ~ the size of the average congressional district. Let's just make every district its own state. That makes sense, right? Stop being one of the idiots. If its non-representation is such an issue, get rid of it as a unique structure and hand it back to the original three states. Problem solved without altering any structures whatsoever.
New states just require a joint resolution from Congress. DC becoming a state could be more complex though because the Constitution has a section explicitly addressing its creation and how it is to be under direct Congressional jurisdiction.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
So if the Dems take Congress and the Oval Office they could make Puerto Rico a State but not DC?
I think if the Dems take Congress they should approve both and if the GOP wish to fight it let it work its way to SCOTUS. Both deserve representation.
There are traditionally other steps involved. Like the people in the area drafting and voting out a state constitution and holding a referendum on joining as a state. They haven't always been followed but it's the tradition. There are at present no active such measures and the political fighting about them is liable to be nasty.
Rand, why are you so deadset on a city being a state all by itself and not going back to the state which it was in originally? (Apparently I was wrong about ceded territories presently composing DC, btw. The only state which still has contributed territory is Maryland. Virginia reclaimed the territory it ceded back in 1847. Not something that gets mentioned in the history books) So we're talking about something which has literally been done before as well.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I'm not dead set against going back to Maryland, it is a valid option. I see no desire for it from either DC residents or Maryland residents though and I do see demands for DC statehood from DC residents.
There has already been a referendum on joining as a state - 86% of voters voted Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_W...ood_referendum
PS the proposal seems to be valid with the US Constitution as the Federal Government would keep a (much smaller) District.
As for it being a City State I have no qualms with that. There are many City States around the globe.
Puerto Rico has on multiple occasions voted-down opportunities to pursue (no guarantees) statehood. The consequences of consistently voting against statehood efforts have yielded economic destruction via high minimum wages and borrowing binges.
I think PR should be a state, but it is also a total basketcase of Louisiana proportions and the discussion is transparently an effort to create a Democratic majority in the Senate.
I'm equally ok with dissolving the relationship entirely, Dread. I don't call for PR statehood for partisan reasons but because it is decades past time to either fish or cut bait. Federal territories were not intended to last forever, they were intended to provide for the administration of land where there was as yet too few people or insufficiently organized people to properly self-govern. The issue is complicated by the fact that Puerto Rico can't muster a majority behind any of the three major options. They're so divided, in fact, that models show that of the three main options (pursue statehood, maintain the status quo, dissolve/lessen the ties to the US and become more truly autonomous), one each will win the day depending on whether the vote is done as a simple plurality, a run-off, or ranked-choice.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
They voted by 97% in favour of Statehood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_P...tus_referendum
86% in DC, 97% in PR, they've both had referenda already.
In 2012 they voted for Statehood too.
I thought I was going crazy for having not heard of the 2017 referendum but considering the redonc low turnout on an issued voted on just five years before...the 2012 is probably more representative.
To be clear I think PR statehood is worth pursuing. But Puerto Ricans are not unified on this. Not that this is a sample and they are US-based, but the two Puerto Rican friends I know either want independence or status quo which I think are the worst options.
Fuzzy, I think the main principle DC statehood advocates are fighting for is based on No Taxation without Representation. There are no senators or congressmen within the federal government to represent the DC *residents* (who pay a larger tax per capita than other small states like NH or RI). Instead, they have to rely on the DC Mayor, who has limited power in the grand scheme of things. That was made clear during the Lafayette Park protests....as well as federal funding for *states* during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Glad that wasn't the metric when Hawaii and Alaska got their statehood.
I'm perfectly ok with them rejoining Maryland. Or Virginia if they prefer, I'm not picky (though Maryland might reasonably object) I'm not ok with a state that's substantially less than 10x10miles and is composed solely of parts of a single metro area, one which substantial parts are already in two existing states to boot.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Explain that to DC *residents* who don't want to vote for MD or VA politicians.It just doesn't make sense to exclude peoples' rights based on square mileage or locality. If the original intent was having a nation's capitol without political influence or prejudice, maybe we're doing it wrong, and need to re-evaluate just about everything, including DC statehood.
Considering the proposed State hasn't been in Maryland for centuries and by population is a larger State than Wyoming and othres then what is the concern?
Is it just one of geographical size?
I think there are a lot of issues at play, but why not throw a size into it? It is a tiny strip of land. Awarding statehood based on having a concentration of population will undermine a lot of the way our government is structured. We would see a great deal of urban domination of national politics.
This country is a confederation of states, and even the smallest states are not so small that you could bike across them in less than an hour.
I've already raised a number of reasons, (far from exhaustive). The fact that you chose to ignore them then and now doesn't mean your question has not already been answered. For what possible reason would or should we or anyone else want DC to be a state in and of itself when the ONLY issue raised so far is one that is more easily redressed by other means?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Weren't you lauding the pros of moving federal agencies "closer" to the regions they regulate? Was that because you didn't like to see teh federal government concentrated into a tiny strip of land, or something else?
But we can bike across state lines in less than an hour, or walk them in a matter of minutes. Size doesn't matter -- that's why even tiny states have 2 US Senators = large states. We're also a Republic where representation is supposed to mean something. That's why DC residents are asking for statehood. IMO it's a reasonable and logical demand, and we're smart enough to figure out the details if only we had the political will.This country is a confederation of states, and even the smallest states are not so small that you could bike across them in less than an hour.
It is equally reasonable and logical that they could be represented by the senators and house members for the state of Maryland.Weren't you lauding the pros of moving federal agencies "closer" to the regions they regulate? Was that because you didn't like to see teh federal government concentrated into a tiny strip of land, or something else?
But we can bike across state lines in less than an hour, or walk them in a matter of minutes. Size doesn't matter -- that's why even tiny states have 2 US Senators = large states. We're also a Republic where representation is supposed to mean something. That's why DC residents are asking for statehood. IMO it's a reasonable and logical demand, and we're smart enough to figure out the details if only we had the political will.
Congratulations America
Do the people of Maryland want to give the people of DC influence over their political representation?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote