That is a valid question. I don't think I can or should answer it.
What I do see though is that there was a problem (an insecure Federal administration) for which a solution was created (DC) which was taken up partially, and now, after roughly 200 is no longer needed.
Today there is a new problem (the people of DC not being represented). It's a different problem. Is it logical to solve it by pouring the no longer needed solution for a no longer existing problem into concrete?
Simply accepting that DC isn't necessary any longer makes the problem go away all by itself.
Congratulations America
While we're at it, maybe we can merge North and South Dakota.
Hope is the denial of reality
That's to counter that a big part of Washington is in Maryland regardless?
Congratulations America
Metro areas are less important than how the residents of D.C. view themselves. Somehow, I doubt a majority view themselves as Marylanders. The historical arguments are silly. It doesn't matter which state gave up what two centuries ago. Current boundaries matter.
Hope is the denial of reality
Perhaps you can reread what Loki wrote and then reconsider what you wrote.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The only thing they're looking for is representation. They can get that from retrocession. They have no need of any of the other trappings of statehood because they're a single city on a tiny piece of land. The only self-governance they need is municipal (which they already have) Adding an independent state government on top of that will only add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. It needlessly complicates their lives and those of everyone else in the metro area by adding yet another jurisdiction to the space already crowded by federal authorities, along with those from Virginia and Maryland. Joining Maryland (or Virginia) would actually marginally reduce the conflicts and complexities. It would also be cheaper for the DC residents than paying for the state solely out of their own pockets, though not as cheap as staying a federal territory.
So what if they don't view themselves as Marylanders? They don't view themselves as members of a state at all (or for many, they view themselves as being from the state of their birth, just like many others who have moved elsewhere as adults, or as being from a specific city like so many New Yorkers do) That's a moot point. The only purpose served by DC statehood that isn't better met by some other means is a naked ploy for more urban Congress-critters. And that's no reason to support statehood.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Maybe the DC voters should be asked what they think themselves then? Whether they want Statehood, want to stay municipal or want to join Maryland.
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.
That DC voters have voted for statehood seems a purpose for them getting it, yet you think the only purpose is Congress.
The area encompassing government buildings (which has virtually no residents) can remain D.C. The rest of the area can be turned over to a new state. It wouldn't be the first state created from the area of another.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
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.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.
And where do i typically stand with public-initiated referendums and similar direct democracy?That DC voters have voted for statehood seems a purpose for them getting it, yet you think the only purpose is Congress.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Or it can be returned to the state that ceded the territory for the specific reason of the fulfillment of the desire in the constitution of a district under the jurisdiction of congress.
The reason for ceding was not the creation of a city-state between Maryland and the Capital.
Congratulations America
Most of us are in agreement that voters living in DC lack adequate representation in Congress, and that they should have the ability to elect legislators. One way to accomplish that is through retrocession of most of DC to Maryland. Let's say voters in DC were to consider that to be an acceptable compromise despite issues with legitimacy that may arise from suddenly being governed by another state. If the voters of Maryland remain opposed, should they nevertheless be forced to accept DC, in order to grant DC voters the representation to which they're entitled based on fundamental democratic principles? If it isn't legally possible to force such a change, should the voters of DC be forced to accept that they—despite being citizens of a modern democratic nation—are simply not entitled to democratic representation?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Can you give any comparable examples of non-State territories voting for Statehood and being ignored besides PR and DC?
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_referendumHere 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.
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.And where do i typically stand with public-initiated referendums and similar direct democracy?
Strangely enough there used to be a work around for the problem of representation that was abolished; residents of Washington DC were treated for the purpose of voting as citizens of Maryland.
One could also reason that not being able to vote comes quite literally with the territory; long before the agglomeration around the National Mall existed, it was clear that living there came with this particular disadvantage.
Congratulations America
Congratulations America
Nearly 500k voters listed as registered by the DC board of elections, ie. a greater number of registered voters than Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota or Delaware.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Which matters to what I said how?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
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.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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"