yes? no?
yes? no?
At the very least. DC folks should get to vote in Virginia or Maryland U.S. Senate and House races. They are Americans and deserve representation.
Yes. It may come as a surprise, but some low population states like the Dakotas should probably be combined as well.
Yes. The residents and US citizens, and deserve representation. Why is this a question?
fahrenheit452 wrote:
At the very least. DC folks should get to vote in Virginia or Maryland U.S. Senate and House races. They are Americans and deserve representation.
Okay, as long as West Virginia is forced back into Virginia, which they illegally separated from. And, North Dakota is merged back with South Dakota, because ND did not meet the population requirement to be admitted as a state (conservative politicians gave them a pass to win more red senators).
That gets rid of 4 needless senators.
Kvothe wrote:
Yes. It may come as a surprise, but some low population states like the Dakotas should probably be combined as well.
The Dakotas were illegally spilt into two. North Dakota failed to meet the population requirement for admittance. The reason they were split was because of a feud between politicians in Dakota, and conservative senators realizing they could gain a senatorial advantage by splitting Dakota in two states. Never mind that the requirement for statehood was not met.
fahrenheit452 wrote:
At the very least. DC folks should get to vote in Virginia or Maryland U.S. Senate and House races. They are Americans and deserve representation.
As Americans, the people of DC (those legal citizens of the U.S.) are free to move to where they can vote for U.S. Senate and House races if they desire. If D.C. is no longer to be the neutral federal enclave for which it was created out of Virginia and Maryland, then the remaining portion of the original District should be returned to Maryland. Virginia got its portion back years ago and benefits greatly from places like Alexandria and Arlington. Maryland should be demanding a like return so that it can benefit from places like Georgetown, and the tax revenue that it can derive from the land and populace.
Of the two, Puerto Rico has the best argument for statehood if the people of Puerto Rico would only agree on what they want.
0/10.
The original neutral federal enclave was supposed to be 100% government only uses. But, politicians sold much of the land to developers to raise money and that land was no longer a part of the federal enclave.
Another reason the surrounding land was sold off is that politicians realized that trying to put all federal functions into a single area was unworkable. The best way to run a large country was by placing federal functions throughout the states. And that is how it is today. The federal government is a series of tiny islands because politicians decided that a single island was not workable, regardless of how the founding fathers thought they was going to operate the U.S.
They will not receive statehood because most likely they will vote Democrat and Republicans will not stand for that.
Yes. How does it possibly make sense with the amount of taxes I pay that I have zero representation in Congress?
I don't see any possible justification against DC being a state - besides as someone mentioned that Republicans don't want more Democrats in Congress.
Side benefit to being a state, we could upgrade from our terrible mayor.
Totally reasonable when we have states already that are the same size or smaller and when these citizens are dispossessed in part of their citizenship and representation.
Statehood for eastern Oklahoma after the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Actual DC Resident wrote:
Yes. How does it possibly make sense with the amount of taxes I pay that I have zero representation in Congress?
I don't see any possible justification against DC being a state - besides as someone mentioned that Republicans don't want more Democrats in Congress.
Side benefit to being a state, we could upgrade from our terrible mayor.
DC shouldn't become a state. But all the residential areas should be rezoned to no longer part of DC, but part of the adjacent state. Only the actual federally used land should remain in DC. DC should be population zero.
Both. Also Liberia
holterskolter2 wrote:
Actual DC Resident wrote:
Yes. How does it possibly make sense with the amount of taxes I pay that I have zero representation in Congress?
I don't see any possible justification against DC being a state - besides as someone mentioned that Republicans don't want more Democrats in Congress.
Side benefit to being a state, we could upgrade from our terrible mayor.
DC shouldn't become a state. But all the residential areas should be rezoned to no longer part of DC, but part of the adjacent state. Only the actual federally used land should remain in DC. DC should be population zero.
Why? I don't want to live in Maryland or Virginia. I live in DC.
Wow--they've left this thread up three hours already? Mongo impressed.
I agree.