NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering what people's opinions were on D.C. voting rights. Is anyone really against them? Do people know about the controversy behind it? Does anyone care? I just wanted to know because this has always been a big issue in my area. I wondered what other people in other parts of the country and/or world thought of this.

For those who don't know heres a summary of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_Washington%2C_D.C.

(Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, still a good short description)

I was wondering what people's opinions were on D.C. voting rights. Is anyone really against them? Do people know about the controversy behind it? Does anyone care? I just wanted to know because this has always been a big issue in my area. I wondered what other people in other parts of the country and/or world thought of this.

For those who don't know heres a summary of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_Washington%2C_D.C.

(Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, still a good short description)

I'd be more concerned with immigrant activist groups pushing for voting rights for non citizens.. thats just outragous

I'd be more concerned with immigrant activist groups pushing for voting rights for non citizens.. thats just outragous

I have found the lack of voting rights to bemore concerning than an excess of it, but that's just me.

I have found the lack of voting rights to bemore concerning than an excess of it, but that's just me.

If you were to give non citizens voting rights, the whole point of voting and citizenship goes right out the window. The voting base would collapse as there would be no point to of citizenship.

I have found the lack of voting rights to bemore concerning than an excess of it, but that's just me.
If you think rights are bad now, go back to how it was to be originally - limited to white male property-owners, and the fact that the Senate wasn't elected directly

If you were to give non citizens voting rights, the whole point of voting and citizenship goes right out the window. The voting base would collapse as there would be no point to of citizenship.

Yes, yes, I don't disagree with you. I just feel that citizens not having compleate votings rights is a much more worrying.

I was wondering what people's opinions were on D.C. voting rights. Is anyone really against them? Do people know about the controversy behind it? Does anyone care? I just wanted to know because this has always been a big issue in my area. I wondered what other people in other parts of the country and/or world thought of this.

For those who don't know heres a summary of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_Washington%2C_D.C.

(Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, still a good short description)

DC has the right to vote for the President of the United States and allowed to elect a non-voting member to the House of Representatives.

So I have to ask, what is the point of this thread?

DC has the right to vote for the President of the United States and allowed to elect a non-voting member to the House of Representatives.

So I have to ask, what is the point of this thread?

The point would be that people in DC want the ability to elect representatives to congress who will be able to vote on legislation and actually be able to do something there rather then the shadow senator crap they deal with now. You know the whole taxation without representation thing that people got so pissed off about during the revolutionary war.

<-- DC resident, and yes, I think our voting rights should be on the level with states. We pay taxes just like a state, have seperate plates, liscences, etc etc- why not just make it all the way. We're in limbo like a "half-state" or "district" (literally), but seriously, what's that? A district? What the hell does that even mean... ok I'm done now...

:gundge:

Some people believe that D.C. should merge with Maryland to gain representation. Somehow, I don't think it would work.

Some people believe that D.C. should merge with Maryland to gain representation. Somehow, I don't think it would work.

Why should D.C. be merged? In fact, why should it be a state at all? It is the capitol for a reason.

Why should D.C. be merged? In fact, why should it be a state at all? It is the capitol for a reason.

Sorry to sound confused but, what do you mean by that?

If you want to vote, don't live there.

Really, the pernicious gerrymandering in the rest of the country is far more of a problem than a bunch of idle civil servants not getting to vote in DC.

Sorry to sound confused but, what do you mean by that?

Its called the Capitol District. It isn't a state and I do not believe our founders wanted to become a state.

Come again? What do you mean it is the capital for a reason? You mean otherwise it'd be philly or something? I don't require the label of state, but if I'm going to be taxed as if DC were a seperate state, then I'd like the same political rights afforded the other states - simple as that.

If I want to vote don't live there?? Ah yes, if only all of life were so easy. Hmm, my neighbor's dog is barking, perhaps I shall move down the block. Or maybe out to Vienna, where I can still pay an equal amount of rent, but take 3 times as long to get to work in the morning. Or maybe I should by a car with the money I don't have and drive in from Annapolis with gas I can't buy.

Its called the Capitol District. It isn't a state and I do not believe our founders wanted to become a state.

Which leaves DC citizens who are also US citizens without the ability to vote for representation in congress. So basically a group of people are screwed out of the whole reason why the american revolution was started in the first place.

Its called the Capitol District. It isn't a state and I do not believe our founders wanted to become a state.

But, do you think it should have voting rights in congress?

Come again? What do you mean it is the capital for a reason? You mean otherwise it'd be philly or something? I don't require the label of state, but if I'm going to be taxed as if DC were a seperate state, then I'd like the same political rights afforded the other states - simple as that.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the United States Constitution. Don't like it? Go to the Hill and talk to the Congressional Leadership. Force the issue. Take initiative yourself.

Don't wait for them to do it! They won't.

Which leaves DC citizens who are also US citizens without the ability to vote for representation in congress. So basically a group of people are screwed out of the whole reason why the american revolution was started in the first place.

Guam doesn't have representatives in Congress and they are US Citizens
Puerto Rico doesn't have representatives in Congress and they are US Citizens
American Samoa and Northern Marianas also don't have reps in Congress and are considered US Citizens.

However, The islands that I named do not have the right to vote (as far as I know) for President whereas D.C. does. They have voting rights however they do not have the ability to vote in Congress.

All of them, from Guam to D.C. who are not states, do have delegates in Congress but they are non voting.

Go to the Hill? Hahahaha

Won't work. Have to get the media involved, get the kids at Catholic, Howard, and Southeastern to get a dialogue moving. Walk around with signs in the street and let Jose live in our basement just so my inner child can feel like its stickin it to the man.

But, do you think it should have voting rights in congress?

Frankly yes. D.C. should as should Guam, Northern Marianas, and American Somoa should also have voting rights in Congress.

Go to the Hill? Hahahaha

Won't work. Have to get the media involved, get the kids at Catholic, Howard, and Southeastern to get a dialogue moving. Walk around with signs in the street and let Jose live in our basement just so my inner child can feel like its stickin it to the man.

Get the media involved is a good start. A petition would also work. Demand it at City Council as well while your at it. Continue with the pressure. It'll pay off if you bring it into the public and KEEP IT THERE.

If I want to vote don't live there?? Ah yes, if only all of life were so easy. Hmm, my neighbor's dog is barking, perhaps I shall move down the block. Or maybe out to Vienna, where I can still pay an equal amount of rent, but take 3 times as long to get to work in the morning. Or maybe I should by a car with the money I don't have and drive in from Annapolis with gas I can't buy.

Get a job in annapolis.

It really is a self imposed disability.

Excellent point regarding PR, Guam, etc - funny that I've never looked beyond DC (mine eyes have seen the light) - so I say, very well, if their citizens want the vote and pay taxes, then they should have it.

Get the media involved is a good start. A petition would also work. Demand it at City Council as well while your at it. Continue with the pressure. It'll pay off if you bring it into the public and KEEP IT THERE.

You don't think its been tried? There have been numerous campaign's and bills done but for some reason even after all of that people don't seem to give a shit about DC voting rights.

anywhere in this area is expensive to live in - changing geography because something doesn't operate the way you want it to is not a way to live. Advocating a change to get things the way you want them is.

You don't think its been tried? There have been numerous campaign's and bills done but for some reason even after all of that people don't seem to give a shit about DC voting rights.

I do know that the Democrats in Congress support it. Perhaps you should talk to them :)

unfortunately everyone who works in DC doesnt necessarily live here, and just as I had not considered out island friends, I doubt the US outside this immediate area even gives it a second thought regarding DC. To quote my buddy in Sacramento: "you're in DC now? Haha, do you have one of those 'taxation without representation' liscence plates?"

if i had a car i would have said yes

anywhere in this area is expensive to live in - changing geography because something doesn't operate the way you want it to is not a way to live. Advocating a change to get things the way you want them is.

I agree 100%

anywhere in this area is expensive to live in - changing geography because something doesn't operate the way you want it to is not a way to live. Advocating a change to get things the way you want them is.

Hey, I never said I supported it. D.C. used to belong to Maryland. but that was a long time ago.

Why should D.C. be merged? In fact, why should it be a state at all? It is the capitol for a reason.Obviously, you're missing the WHOLE point of this thread or you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge it.

D.C. voters ONLY have the right to vote for the President on a national level. The people they elect to the House of Representatives DO NOT have the right to vote on the bills that effect their daily lives. And on top of that, they're expected to pay federal and city taxes when Congress can dictate to them in a way they can't dictate to a state.

If I were able to propose a Constitutional amendment, it would read as follows:

Section I: The qualified citizens of the district constituting the seat of government for the United States shall have full voting representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate as if it were a state.

Section II: The apportionment of Representatives for the district shall be the same ratio as that of any State.

Section III: Congress shall full authority to enforce this Article by appropriate legislation.

I do know that the Democrats in Congress support it. Perhaps you should talk to them :)

lol. Sadly its the opposite. Lieberman is the one who has been authoring the bills to give DC voting rights and as far as congressmen go I don't think he'll get the job done.

Obviously, you're missing the WHOLE point of this thread or you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge it.

D.C. voters ONLY have the right to vote for the President on a national level. The people they elect to the House of Representatives DO NOT have the right to vote on the bills that effect their daily lives. And on top of that, they're expected to pay federal and city taxes when Congress can dictate to them in a way they can't dictate to a state.

If I were able to propose a Constitutional amendment, it would read as follows:

Section I: The qualified citizens of the district constituting the seat of government for the United States shall have full voting representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate as if it were a state.

Section II: The apportionment of Representatives for the district shall be the same ratio as that of any State.

Section III: Congress shall full authority to enforce this Article by appropriate legislation.

My suggestion is to go look at all of my posts. I want DC to have full voting rights. And if that means an amendment to do it I would support it.

BTW: that amendment that you posted, is almost (not quite) the same as the one that was defeated by the states.

Alas, the same thing has happened that always does when I get on this subject... time to go harass my roommates while I drink myself stupid...

Alas, the same thing has happened that always does when I get on this subject... time to go harass my roommates while I drink myself stupid...

Don't get to drunk my friend. :)

anywhere in this area is expensive to live in - changing geography because something doesn't operate the way you want it to is not a way to live. Advocating a change to get things the way you want them is.

I understand that. But wherever you choose to live there is always trade offs. It's just part of life.

In any case, just because you pay taxes for DC doesn't entitle you to a vote there. What about people who have to pay commuter tax, they don't vote. If you work in another state you get taxed, but no vote. And realistically, pretty much every tax payer in the US in part subsidizes DCs local budget. Should we all get votes there too?

Advocate bitches! Advocate!

and don't worry Corneliu, I'm not removed far enough from college that I forgot where the toilet was... or is... TEQUILA!

I understand that. But wherever you choose to live there is always trade offs. It's just part of life.

In any case, just because you pay taxes for DC doesn't entitle you to a vote there. What about people who have to pay commuter tax, they don't vote. If you work in another state you get taxed, but no vote. And realistically, pretty much every tax payer in the US in part subsidizes DCs local budget. Should we all get votes there too?

But don't you think that they should still have congressmen? Congress does more then pass budgets.

Plus, living in D.C. isn't exactly a bunch of roses. That's why I live outside of it.

I hate to say this, but the fact is that voting rights in DC is a partisan issue, and it has been for a long time. DC votes overwhelmingly Democratic, and when I say overwhelmingly, Kerry got something like 80% of the vote in 2004--that's overwhelmingly. So if DC gets the same voting rights as the states, that means that DC will have a Democratic member of the House and 2 Democratic Senators, at least at first. In order to get a constitutional amendment passed, you need two-thirds of Congress or three-fourths of the states to support it, and with a country as divided along partisan lines as this one, there's no way in hell that happens.

Let me point something out, before I get bashed for saying "ohhh bad republicans." I assume that if the tables were turned, the Democrats would be blocking the move as well--it's the nature of electoral power.

I think it's a shame, because I believe that DC voters ought to be electing their own representatives (and what's more, ought not be beholden to Congress for their city budget), but that, as they say, is the way it is.

But don't you think that they should still have congressmen? Congress does more then pass budgets.


Congressman. There aren't enough people for congressmen.

If it's such a big deal, then I suppose the can join maryland, and maryland can pay for the upkeep.

I hate to say this, but the fact is that voting rights in DC is a partisan issue, and it has been for a long time. DC votes overwhelmingly Democratic, and when I say overwhelmingly, Kerry got something like 80% of the vote in 2004--that's overwhelmingly. So if DC gets the same voting rights as the states, that means that DC will have a Democratic member of the House and 2 Democratic Senators, at least at first. In order to get a constitutional amendment passed, you need two-thirds of Congress or three-fourths of the states to support it, and with a country as divided along partisan lines as this one, there's no way in hell that happens.

Let me point something out, before I get bashed for saying "ohhh bad republicans." I assume that if the tables were turned, the Democrats would be blocking the move as well--it's the nature of electoral power.

I think it's a shame, because I believe that DC voters ought to be electing their own representatives (and what's more, ought not be beholden to Congress for their city budget), but that, as they say, is the way it is.

Nazz? I agree with you 100%

I hate to say this, but the fact is that voting rights in DC is a partisan issue, and it has been for a long time. DC votes overwhelmingly Democratic, and when I say overwhelmingly, Kerry got something like 80% of the vote in 2004--that's overwhelmingly. So if DC gets the same voting rights as the states, that means that DC will have a Democratic member of the House and 2 Democratic Senators, at least at first. In order to get a constitutional amendment passed, you need two-thirds of Congress or three-fourths of the states to support it, and with a country as divided along partisan lines as this one, there's no way in hell that happens.

Let me point something out, before I get bashed for saying "ohhh bad republicans." I assume that if the tables were turned, the Democrats would be blocking the move as well--it's the nature of electoral power.

I think it's a shame, because I believe that DC voters ought to be electing their own representatives (and what's more, ought not be beholden to Congress for their city budget), but that, as they say, is the way it is.


Amen

I hate to say this, but the fact is that voting rights in DC is a partisan issue, and it has been for a long time. DC votes overwhelmingly Democratic, and when I say overwhelmingly, Kerry got something like 80% of the vote in 2004--that's overwhelmingly. So if DC gets the same voting rights as the states, that means that DC will have a Democratic member of the House and 2 Democratic Senators, at least at first. In order to get a constitutional amendment passed, you need two-thirds of Congress or three-fourths of the states to support it, and with a country as divided along partisan lines as this one, there's no way in hell that happens.

Let me point something out, before I get bashed for saying "ohhh bad republicans." I assume that if the tables were turned, the Democrats would be blocking the move as well--it's the nature of electoral power.

I think it's a shame, because I believe that DC voters ought to be electing their own representatives (and what's more, ought not be beholden to Congress for their city budget), but that, as they say, is the way it is.

Agreed. I hate reality.

there are coping mechanisms for this hate :D

Wow--three people in a row agreeing with me? You might think I'd be in the running for the top poster award or something. :D




If you haven't voted yet, I think there's still time. Hint. Hint.

Congressman. There aren't enough people for congressmen.

If it's such a big deal, then I suppose the can join maryland, and maryland can pay for the upkeep.

i think from a logic standpoint that is the cruxt of the problem, making dc effectivly a state is puting to much powere in the hands of two few people. additonaly the reson why it was taken from maryland to become a district was so that the seat of the govenment wouldn't have to much power over the government(the congress men and senetors must spend a fair amount of time there creating a bias tward it from all the other states representatives). i would be behind creating a 'union of territorys and departments' basicaly unite the the none states (guam, dc, filippens, ecet.) make them as far as voting one big state, there own congressman, and seneters, pushing the adgenda for none states. but making dc a state? heack small towns should ceed from there states to gain more power.

If you want to vote, don't live there.

Really, the pernicious gerrymandering in the rest of the country is far more of a problem than a bunch of idle civil servants not getting to vote in DC.

Those "idle civil servants" generally live in Maryland or Virginia, for at least partially that reason - and because they can afford it. Most of the residents of DC are too poor to move out into the suburbs. Most of the disenfranchised of DC are the construction workers, janitors, cashiers, bank tellers, line cooks. Not some lawyers working for the EPA.

Congressman. There aren't enough people for congressmen.

?? DC has more people than Wyoming, and nearly as many as a lot of other "small" states. Should small states not have a vote?

They dont need voting rights. District as in not a State. Its that simple\

and Aberdyfi, maybe all the small states should turn into one state for congressional purposes

i think from a logic standpoint that is the cruxt of the problem, making dc effectivly a state is puting to much powere in the hands of two few people. additonaly the reson why it was taken from maryland to become a district was so that the seat of the govenment wouldn't have to much power over the government(the congress men and senetors must spend a fair amount of time there creating a bias tward it from all the other states representatives). i would be behind creating a 'union of territorys and departments' basicaly unite the the none states (guam, dc, filippens, ecet.) make them as far as voting one big state, there own congressman, and seneters, pushing the adgenda for none states. but making dc a state? heack small towns should ceed from there states to gain more power.

The intrests of those territories are too diffrent. It would be hard for someone to represent them.

?? DC has more people than Wyoming, and nearly as many as a lot of other "small" states. Should small states not have a vote?
I think what Lacadaemon meant was that the population would only be enough for one representative, which is, unfortunately, synonymous with the title "congressman" or "congresswoman." Senators are also members of Congress, but are never referred to as a congressman or woman.

unite the the none states (guam, dc, filippens, ecet.)

1) the bold is spelled Philippines

2) It hasn't belonged to the US since 1945.

?? DC has more people than Wyoming, and nearly as many as a lot of other "small" states. Should small states not have a vote?

Everyone has more people than Wyoming, Alaska has more people than Wyoming. And yeah, I believe the fact that DC's representation in the house would be refered to in the singular was being adressed.

i think from a logic standpoint that is the cruxt of the problem, making dc effectivly a state is puting to much powere in the hands of two few people. additonaly the reson why it was taken from maryland to become a district was so that the seat of the govenment wouldn't have to much power over the government(the congress men and senetors must spend a fair amount of time there creating a bias tward it from all the other states representatives). i would be behind creating a 'union of territorys and departments' basicaly unite the the none states (guam, dc, filippens, ecet.) make them as far as voting one big state, there own congressman, and seneters, pushing the adgenda for none states. but making dc a state? heack small towns should ceed from there states to gain more power.
I have no idea what the hell you just said, but I think it is incorrect.

Time to get my rant rolling. I for one, unlike most of you, am a citizen of the District of Columbia (DC). The ignorance that some of you are showing is astounding. If we pay taxes, we should be able to vote. And by the way, about taxes; people who live in DC tend to pay higher taxes than those who live elsewhere. Taxes in DC are higher than most places for two reasons: 1) 50% of the land in DC is owned by institutions (such as the Federal Government) making them exempt from property tax, 2) As the Federal Capital, we also have to pay for things like police overtime that does not occur as much in other places.

DC has the right to vote for the President of the United States and allowed to elect a non-voting member to the House of Representatives.

So I have to ask, what is the point of this thread?

You can't be serious. All we can do is vote for the president and it doesn't really matter as DC always goes Democratic. The Democrats could put a monkey up for president and DC would still vote for it. As for the non-voting members... well hell, you just said it: They are non-voting members. What good is that? They are practically C-SPAN.

If you want to vote, don't live there.

Really, the pernicious gerrymandering in the rest of the country is far more of a problem than a bunch of idle civil servants not getting to vote in DC.

Well that is a grand idea. I believe New Isabelle already informed you of your ignorance on this matter. What do you think would happen if a place like California was stripped of its congressman and only allowed to vote for President? Do you think everyone would just up and move so that they could vote...? It isn't that simple and it is a matter of principle not just practicality.

Its called the Capitol District. It isn't a state and I do not believe our founders wanted to become a state.

Our founders? What does that have to do with it. The constitution was written 200+ years ago by white, male, slave-owners. Just because they decided it was a good idea, doesn't mean it still is. The constitution is supposed to be an ever-evolving document. It is suppose to serve the people, not the other way around.

snip

Amen.

They dont need voting rights. District as in not a State. Its that simple\

and Aberdyfi, maybe all the small states should turn into one state for congressional purposes

Your ignorance astounds me.

<-- DC resident, and yes, I think our voting rights should be on the level with states. We pay taxes just like a state, have seperate plates, liscences, etc etc- why not just make it all the way. We're in limbo like a "half-state" or "district" (literally), but seriously, what's that? A district?
From the US Constitution:

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States ...."

You can't be serious. All we can do is vote for the president and it doesn't really matter as DC always goes Democratic. The Democrats could put a monkey up for president and DC would still vote for it. As for the non-voting members... well hell, you just said it: They are non-voting members. What good is that? They are practically C-SPAN.

And yet, I don't watch C-span all that often. As I told New Isabelle, its time to really take it to Congress through various means. Unlike how you tried to characterize me, I actually WANT them to have voting rights in Congress.

Our founders? What does that have to do with it?

More than you think apparently.

The constitution was written 200+ years ago by white, male, slave-owners. Just because they decided it was a good idea, doesn't mean it still is. The constitution is supposed to be an ever-evolving document. It is suppose to serve the people, not the other way around.

Did I say anything in regards to the Constitution and our founding fathers? No. I said that I do not believe that our founding fathers would want District of Columbia to be a state.

Did I say anything in regards to the Constitution and our founding fathers? No. I said that I do not believe that our founding fathers would want District of Columbia to be a state.
The point is moot anyway, unless you want to amend the Constitution.

Did I say anything in regards to the Constitution and our founding fathers? No. I said that I do not believe that our founding fathers would want District of Columbia to be a state.

Because you made the comment about what the founding fathers wanted as an argument, it implies that their point is valid in your eyes. If it is to be considered valid, you have to look at the rest of the picture.

Otherwise, if you were just saying it to say it and you didn't believe it at all... I am not sure why you even posted it.

Because you made the comment about what the founding fathers wanted as an argument, it implies that their point is valid in your eyes. If it is to be considered valid, you have to look at the rest of the picture.

Otherwise, if you were just saying it to say it and you didn't believe it at all... I am not sure why you even posted it.

If they wanted to D.C. to be part of the US then why did they add what Eutrusca posted?

If they wanted to D.C. to be part of the US then why did they add what Eutrusca posted?

It is part of the US...

I never said they did want it. All I said was that their opinions and what they wanted are not necessarily valid anymore. Things changes, ideas and perceptions do not stay the same.

The point is moot anyway, unless you want to amend the Constitution.

I think we have already discussed that as an option.

It is part of the US...

I never said they did want it. All I said was that their opinions and what they wanted are not necessarily valid anymore. Things changes, ideas and perceptions do not stay the same.

NOT VALID ANYMORE? If its not valid anymore then let us just scrap the entire Constitution all together.

Well that is a grand idea. I believe New Isabelle already informed you of your ignorance on this matter. What do you think would happen if a place like California was stripped of its congressman and only allowed to vote for President? Do you think everyone would just up and move so that they could vote...? It isn't that simple and it is a matter of principle not just practicality.


People in DC probably already have more access to my senators than I do. (And pay less in taxes).

Anyway, no-one's talking about stripping anyone of anything. DC never had any voting rights. It was set up that way. So the cases are hardly similar.

NOT VALID ANYMORE? If its not valid anymore then let us just scrap the entire Constitution all together.
Calm down before you hurt yourself. On many occasions, we as a nation have decided that parts of the Constitution were not valid anymore. Remember the whole "slaves are 3/5 of a person" bit? All DMG is suggesting is that while the Founding Fathers may have had their reasons to put that bit about DC in the Constitution, there's no reason we can't argue it now and potentially change it.

Calm down before you hurt yourself. On many occasions, we as a nation have decided that parts of the Constitution were not valid anymore. Remember the whole "slaves are 3/5 of a person" bit?

Settled by the 13th Amendment yes I know. Just like we gave our consent for DC to vote for the president and to have their 3 electoral votes (votes they should have)

However, I do not believe that D.C. should be a state but I do believe they should be allowed to vote in Congress.

All DMG is suggesting is that while the Founding Fathers may have had their reasons to put that bit about DC in the Constitution, there's no reason we can't argue it now and potentially change it.

Its been argued and has been tried to be changed before. I do not think there is enough support for it though.

Calm down before you hurt yourself. On many occasions, we as a nation have decided that parts of the Constitution were not valid anymore. Remember the whole "slaves are 3/5 of a person" bit? All DMG is suggesting is that while the Founding Fathers may have had their reasons to put that bit about DC in the Constitution, there's no reason we can't argue it now and potentially change it.

Which is fair enough. But the whole DC thing is so minor as to not be worth the effort. There are significant problems with the way congress provides representation in this country, and I don't think that adding three more permanent incumbent seats is going really provide any meaningful change when balanced against the cost and hassle.

I view it as the same kind of thing as the whole make NYC a state movement.

Settled by the 13th Amendment yes I know. Just like we gave our consent for DC to vote for the president and to have their 3 electoral votes (votes they should have)

However, I do not believe that D.C. should be a state but I do believe they should be allowed to vote in Congress.



Its been argued and has been tried to be changed before. I do not think there is enough support for it though.
Yes, I know--we actually agreed on that a couple of pages back, shockingly enough. What I'm saying is that your reaction to DMG's suggestion that times have changed enough for us to reconsider the idea put forth in the original Constitution was a bit overboard. That's one of the reasons I find Scalia's and Thomas's reasoning from the Supreme Court so ludicrous--they're supposedly concerned about what the Founding Fathers thought when issues the Court is dealing with today are beyond the wildest imaginations of Hamilton and Madison and all the others.

NOT VALID ANYMORE? If its not valid anymore then let us just scrap the entire Constitution all together.

How about you read my comment more carefully. I said their opinions are not necessarily valid anymore. I didn't say none of them were... Perhaps I could give you a couple of easy examples of opinions that they held then that we no longer do: SLAVERY. NO WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

The Constitution is supposed to evolve... not stay stagnant in a world that no longer exists.

People in DC probably already have more access to my senators than I do. (And pay less in taxes).

Anyway, no-one's talking about stripping anyone of anything. DC never had any voting rights. It was set up that way. So the cases are hardly similar.

I may have "more access" to your senators, but that does not mean they are willing to (or should) listen to me. Frankly they shouldn't give a damn about what I say because their duty is to their state and none to the entire nation.

You certainly don't pay less taxes than me...

The only reason I said stripping California of their rights was because they currently have them to make an analogous statement I needed to do some handiwork on how the nation works.

Settled by the 13th Amendment yes I know. Just like we gave our consent for DC to vote for the president and to have their 3 electoral votes (votes they should have)

However, I do not believe that D.C. should be a state but I do believe they should be allowed to vote in Congress.

Neither do I... I would actually rather that it didn't become a state, only that we had equal representation.

Which is fair enough. But the whole DC thing is so minor as to not be worth the effort. There are significant problems with the way congress provides representation in this country, and I don't think that adding three more permanent incumbent seats is going really provide any meaningful change when balanced against the cost and hassle.

I view it as the same kind of thing as the whole make NYC a state movement.

It is not a matter of practicality. It is a matter of principle. Why should the rest of the country be represented in the congress while the capital and all of its citizens are not.

It is not the same at all... citizens of NYC have representation in Congress in the form of New York Senators and Congressmen. They have the ability to vote for them while people in DC... DONT.

Which is fair enough. But the whole DC thing is so minor as to not be worth the effort. There are significant problems with the way congress provides representation in this country, and I don't think that adding three more permanent incumbent seats is going really provide any meaningful change when balanced against the cost and hassle.

I view it as the same kind of thing as the whole make NYC a state movement.
Well, I'm personally of the mind that we ought to triple the size of the House of Representatives. The way we're set up right now, there are too many people disenfranchised, because some of our representatives are supposedly representing over 600K people. I also look at it as a way for third parties to get in the door and perhaps shake up the current power structure. For instance, a Libertarian might have a shot if New Hampshire had three seats. A Green could have a chance if San Francisco was more than one district. Hell, a Republican could have a shot there if the district was drawn just right. And who knows what we might get out of Vermont if they had multiple seats. So I say expand the shit out of it, and if it makes the House more unwieldy and they don't get as much done, great--most of the shit they do is detrimental in the first place.

Well, I'm personally of the mind that we ought to triple the size of the House of Representatives. The way we're set up right now, there are too many people disenfranchised, because some of our representatives are supposedly representing over 600K people. I also look at it as a way for third parties to get in the door and perhaps shake up the current power structure. For instance, a Libertarian might have a shot if New Hampshire had three seats. A Green could have a chance if San Francisco was more than one district. Hell, a Republican could have a shot there if the district was drawn just right. And who knows what we might get out of Vermont if they had multiple seats. So I say expand the shit out of it, and if it makes the House more unwieldy and they don't get as much done, great--most of the shit they do is detrimental in the first place.

Yeah, your thoughts parallel mine pretty much. (Though I think tripling is a little conservative, figure Canada has 308 ridings with approx. 30,000,000 people: not that I am saying we should just copy canada of course).

Where I live, a lot of the congressional districts aren't even contested, or not seriously. Then these same fools complain about voter apathy.

I'd love to see many more reps. I think it would not only allow for third parties, it would also decrease some of the money scandal problems, as power would be better shared and more dilute.

I think we'd also get better party leaders. At the moment, there are only ever about thirty seats in play. It divorces the reps. (who vote for the party leadership) from the public, and promotes what I consider unhealthy choices. Most republicans I meet - if they are candid - never liked Delay that much, I'm sure the same holds for Pelosi.

I may have "more access" to your senators, but that does not mean they are willing to (or should) listen to me. Frankly they shouldn't give a damn about what I say because their duty is to their state and none to the entire nation.

Well remind them of that, because by and large they don't give a shit about their home state.



You certainly don't pay less taxes than me...

NYC has a higher tax burden that DC.