Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

DC as 51st state


stlrams

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

At least they're honest about it 

Although I'm sure some in here will still insist it's not a move to help the Dem party.

It is a move to do the right thing for democracy. It should have been done years ago no matter which party it helps.

  • Laughing 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, squistion said:

It is a move to do the right thing for democracy. It should have been done years ago no matter which party it helps.

Why does it have to be an extra state, though?  Why not follow the established precedent and cede most of the land to a neighboring state?  That accomplishes the goal of representation for this population without the partisan grab for power.

Puerto Rico, on the other hand, should probably be voted in as a state if the population of PR votes for it.  You don't hear near the amount of press for this as, *gasp*, the population is much more split in political affiliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sand said:

Why does it have to be an extra state, though?  Why not follow the established precedent and cede most of the land to a neighboring state?  That accomplishes the goal of representation for this population without the partisan grab for power.

Puerto Rico, on the other hand, should probably be voted in as a state if the population of PR votes for it.  You don't hear near the amount of press for this as, *gasp*, the population is much more split in political affiliation.

Because the residents of DC have never wanted that - they want equal representation and self-governance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sand said:

Why does it have to be an extra state, though?  Why not follow the established precedent and cede most of the land to a neighboring state?  That accomplishes the goal of representation for this population without the partisan grab for power.

Puerto Rico, on the other hand, should probably be voted in as a state if the population of PR votes for it.  You don't hear near the amount of press for this as, *gasp*, the population is much more split in political affiliation.

That's all it is.  Not exactly "normal" government everyone said they wanted with Biden.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, squistion said:

Because the residents of DC have never wanted that - they want equal representation and self-governance

Merging with a state does exactly the same thing.  What you're talking about is wanting outsized representation.  Just return the land to Maryland and be done. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sand said:

Merging with a state does exactly the same thing.  What you're talking about is wanting outsized representation.  Just return the land to Maryland and be done. 

Does Maryland want DC to be merged into the state?  Do people in DC want to join Maryland?

If DC becomes a state they won't have more outsized influence than any of the other 3 EC vote states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Do those of you pointing out the partisan reasons to support statehood also recognize the partisan reasons to oppose statehood?  Or do you feel like the anti-statehood folks have entirely nonpartisan reasons for their position?

So, if we don't give Democrats more power then WE'RE the partisan ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Do those of you pointing out the partisan reasons to support statehood also recognize the partisan reasons to oppose statehood? 

Of course.

There are secondary reasons on both sides, but they are absolutely secondary imo.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If your reason for opposing statehood is because it would give Democrats more power, yes, that is partisan.

That doesn't make sense.  It's not partisan - it's the right thing to do and oppose.   Why should ANYONE have unlimited power?

Good grief!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

Does Maryland want DC to be merged into the state?  Do people in DC want to join Maryland?

If DC becomes a state they won't have more outsized influence than any of the other 3 EC vote states.

As the seat of Federal power they already have a huge amount of influence on the rest of the country's population.

I have no idea if Maryland wants this land or population.  But we have the precedent of the 1847 movement of land back to Virginia that was previously ceded to DC.  It's disingenuous to not reach for that solution and instead reach for the solution that gives one political party a huge advantage.

Edited by Sand
My spelling sucks
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NorvilleBarnes said:

Of course.

There are secondary reasons on both sides, but they are absolutely secondary imo.

OK thank you.  There are clearly partisan motivations in both directions.  We should discuss the merits of the proposal without accusing each other of only holding our position for partisan reasons.

Here are some reasons I think D.C. should get statehood:

1) There are a lot of people that live there and it seems really undemocratic for them not to have representation in the House and Senate.

2) The population of DC is larger than two existing states so it’s hard to argue that it is too small to be a state.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Here are some reasons I think D.C. should get statehood:

1) There are a lot of people that live there and it seems really undemocratic for them not to have representation in the House and Senate.

2) The population of DC is larger than two existing states so it’s hard to argue that it is too small to be a state.

Here are some reasons I think D.C. should not get statehood:

1) We have an established procedure from 1847 to redistribute the land and population back to the states that ceded land to DC.  This solution satisfies the desire for self-governance.

2) The population of DC already has a huge influence over the rest of the population as it stands.  Also giving them statehood establishes a super-state.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sand said:

As the seat of Federal power they already have a huge amount of influence on the rest of the country's population.

I have not idea if Maryland wants this land or population.  But we have the precedent of the 1847 movement of land back to Virginia that was previously ceded to DC.  It's disingenuous to not reach for that solution and instead reach for the solution that gives one political party a huge advantage.

I don't see how the people that live there have much influence. They will have 2 Senators and 1 Rep and there's no reason they would be more powerful than other members.

If you had a vote in both Md and DC I think both would opt for DC to be a separate state.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

1) There are a lot of people that live there and it seems really undemocratic for them not to have representation in the House and Senate.

2) The population of DC is larger than two existing states so it’s hard to argue that it is too small to be a state.

Completely agree. But we don't need statehood to remedy those.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

I don't see how the people that live there have much influence. They will have 2 Senators and 1 Rep and there's no reason they would be more powerful than other members.

If you had a vote in both Md and DC I think both would opt for DC to be a separate state.

This population runs the machinery of the federal government.  They have huge influence as it is.

And of course neither would vote for it.  They both see the opportunity for a new blue state.

Edited by Sand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sand said:

 

2) The population of DC already has a huge influence over the rest of the population as it stands.  Also giving them statehood establishes a super-state.

What exactly is a super-state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, the moops said:

What exactly is a super-state?

A state that has huge influence on both federal power (the population of DC is largely the machinery of govt.) and power as a state.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sand said:

A state that has huge influence on both federal power (the population of DC is largely the machinery of govt.) and power as a state.  

Don't most Congress folks own residences in VA or MD and not DC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, the moops said:

Don't most Congress folks own residences in VA or MD and not DC?

I'm talking not about Congressional reps, but about the civil servants who run the machinery of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Sand said:

This population runs the machinery of the federal government.  They have huge influence as it is.

And of course neither would vote for it.  They both see the opportunity for a new blue state.

When I lived in the DC metro area ~25 years ago I was under the impression that most of the people who worked for the federal government lived in Maryland and Virginia not in DC itself. I'd guess the same was / is true for the elected Reps and Senators. I can't recall either Virginia or Maryland having any additional power due to proximity.

There's been discussion on this board about how the divide in the country is divide between rural and urban area.The rural areas of the country have more than their share of power - at least if it's based on population and economic impact.  Making DC a state, IMO, would reduce that disparity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sand said:

2) The population of DC already has a huge influence over the rest of the population as it stands.  Also giving them statehood establishes a super-state.

Can you expand on both of these ideas please.  I understand some of the population works in the federal government but it certainly isn’t the majority, see link below, (and a lot of those federal workers are R’s too) so I’m not really understanding where the huge influence is.  What’s a “super-state”, isn’t that the same thing as your other point is trying to make?  TIA. 
 

https://wtop.com/business-finance/2018/02/exactly-many-washingtonians-work-federal-government/

Edited by dkp993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

This is nothing more than a naked partisan power grab.  That's all.  It has nothing to do with "representation".  It's to get votes to ensure that the Democrat Party never loses power.

Much like McConnell holding garlands nomination and ramming ACB through, it’s a legal partisan power grab, so not much you can do about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2021 at 12:17 PM, MTskibum said:

 

I do not want either the republicans or the democrats to gain too much of an advantage in congress or in future presidential elections. I think the logical solution is for them to join an existing state.

 

I would also oppose North Dakota splitting into 2 states to increase the republican count.

 

In the next 24 years I want 12 years of republicans presidents and 12 years of democrats and this seems like a it could have a major impact on that.

Maybe we should combine North and South Dakota and just make one state. And they would still only have 1.6 million people....less than 25% of DC. When California and it’s 40 million residents get 2 Senators and Wyoming with under 600,000 residents get two Senators there seems to be an incredible injustice of equal representation when you consider the power the Senate has. I realize it was never about population but I don’t think the founders ever thought the Senate would have this lopsided type of representation

Edited by lazyike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Insomniac said:

When I lived in the DC metro area ~25 years ago I was under the impression that most of the people who worked for the federal government lived in Maryland and Virginia not in DC itself. I'd guess the same was / is true for the elected Reps and Senators. I can't recall either Virginia or Maryland having any additional power due to proximity.

There's been discussion on this board about how the divide in the country is divide between rural and urban area.The rural areas of the country have more than their share of power - at least if it's based on population and economic impact.  Making DC a state, IMO, would reduce that disparity.

 

I think without the 'disparity', the power in each state swings so far to the most populous areas, aka the cities, which will basically negate any power non-urban areas would have.  Further down the road, I believe making a CITY a state sets a bad precedent, because then Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, etc. will want to follow suit, and this will be the justification.

Not that I'm unique here, but as someone who grew up in one of the counties in MD that borders DC, I know that DC residents use the addresses of friends/family that live in MD (and probably VA) to enable their kids to go to schools outside of DC. I'm not judging here, only pointing out that this practice (it's doubtful any concrete numbers can ever be produced that would show how prevalent it is), and probably other similar practices to take advantage of the benefits provided by neighboring states are causing a drain on the bordering counties and states economies. To me, making DC a state probably wouldn't change this issue, as I doubt the DC school systems and local programs (welfare, social services, etc) will magically change into something more desirable, so from a more politically neutral perspective, I think while it would be complicated, making DC residents fall under MD and VA for voting and administrative purposes makes more sense.  On the MD side, the two counties that would be most affected, Prince George's (the richest per capita African-American county in the country) and Montgomery (one of the overall richest counties in the country) pretty much dictate the politics for the entire state already, so this wouldn't really tip state politics much either, and the DC citizens would get their beloved representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Charlie Steiner said:

I think without the 'disparity', the power in each state swings so far to the most populous areas, aka the cities, which will basically negate any power non-urban areas would have.  Further down the road, I believe making a CITY a state sets a bad precedent, because then Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, etc. will want to follow suit, and this will be the justification.

The justification wouldn't come from pointing to DC though. Completely different situations. The reasons people are putting forth for DC to become a state do not apply to other large cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2021 at 1:01 PM, BladeRunner said:

Listen, you might be able to fool the choir into thinking it's "giving people a voice", but smart people know exactly why it's being done and what's going on here.  And it's not because they want to give people a voice.  It's because they want to solidify power, plain and simple cut and dried.

You better believe that if DC was 95% Conservative this wouldn't even come up by the Democrats.

I’m usually not as cynical as you but this time I agree. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I’m usually not as cynical as you but this time I agree. 

If you think this is a naked power grab, wait until I tell you about when we started letting women and black people vote!  Republicans would control everything if it weren’t for those power grabs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If you think this is a naked power grab, wait until I tell you about when we started letting women and black people vote!  Republicans would control everything if it weren’t for those power grabs.

That's an interesting, and ludicrous, equivalence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sand said:

That's an interesting, and ludicrous, equivalence.

I don’t mean to say the situations are identical.  But it seems to me like the big anti-statehood talking point from many (not you*) is that because statehood would help the left and because The left wants it at least in part for that reason, that it should therefore be opposed.  It seems to me identical arguments could have been made about suffrage for minorities or women. 

 

*I’m still planning to look into what you said about the procedure for admitting states 200 years ago but haven’t yet.

Edited by fatguyinalittlecoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2021 at 4:01 PM, BladeRunner said:

Listen, you might be able to fool the choir into thinking it's "giving people a voice", but smart people know exactly why it's being done and what's going on here.  And it's not because they want to give people a voice.  It's because they want to solidify power, plain and simple cut and dried.

You better believe that if DC was 95% Conservative this wouldn't even come up by the Democrats.

I’m not sure I’m in favor of it but either way I think the Democrats should just give the same response as the Republicans did to the Supreme Court seat - its in the rules and fair game.  I’m not sure why they should be interested in what Republicans think on the issue - I know Republicans didn’t care what Democrats that on the SC issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, timschochet said:
On 1/27/2021 at 1:01 PM, BladeRunner said:

Listen, you might be able to fool the choir into thinking it's "giving people a voice", but smart people know exactly why it's being done and what's going on here.  And it's not because they want to give people a voice.  It's because they want to solidify power, plain and simple cut and dried.

You better believe that if DC was 95% Conservative this wouldn't even come up by the Democrats.

Expand  

I’m usually not as cynical as you but this time I agree. 

Does anyone really doubt that if DC was considered a conservative population that the GOP wouldn’t have pushed them through the first opportunity they had?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Charlie Steiner said:

I think without the 'disparity', the power in each state swings so far to the most populous areas, aka the cities, which will basically negate any power non-urban areas would have.  Further down the road, I believe making a CITY a state sets a bad precedent, because then Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, etc. will want to follow suit, and this will be the justification.

Not that I'm unique here, but as someone who grew up in one of the counties in MD that borders DC, I know that DC residents use the addresses of friends/family that live in MD (and probably VA) to enable their kids to go to schools outside of DC. I'm not judging here, only pointing out that this practice (it's doubtful any concrete numbers can ever be produced that would show how prevalent it is), and probably other similar practices to take advantage of the benefits provided by neighboring states are causing a drain on the bordering counties and states economies. To me, making DC a state probably wouldn't change this issue, as I doubt the DC school systems and local programs (welfare, social services, etc) will magically change into something more desirable, so from a more politically neutral perspective, I think while it would be complicated, making DC residents fall under MD and VA for voting and administrative purposes makes more sense.  On the MD side, the two counties that would be most affected, Prince George's (the richest per capita African-American county in the country) and Montgomery (one of the overall richest counties in the country) pretty much dictate the politics for the entire state already, so this wouldn't really tip state politics much either, and the DC citizens would get their beloved representation.

I think Md doesn't want DC and DC would rather be on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2021 at 2:16 PM, Sand said:

Here are some reasons I think D.C. should not get statehood:

1) We have an established procedure from 1847 to redistribute the land and population back to the states that ceded land to DC.  This solution satisfies the desire for self-governance.

OK so I finally looked this up, here’s a helpful Wikipedia entry:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession
 

Thanks for mentioning this, it does seem to be a potential solution.  But as others have noted, neither the citizens of DC nor Maryland seem to want it.  I don’t think there are any historical examples of territories or states being forced to merge against their will.  So that’s a big hurdle to making it happen.
 

We also have plenty of examples from our history of territories becoming states, most recently Alaska and Hawaii.  That’s what both DC and Maryland seem to prefer.  Do you think that procedure isn’t constitutionally available here or do you just think it shouldn’t be done for prudential reasons? (e.g. your super-state argument)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Does anyone really doubt that if DC was considered a conservative population that the GOP wouldn’t have pushed them through the first opportunity they had?

Of course they would have. Both sides are hungry for power. I think we know that. 
 

But as it happens, DC is largely Democrat so the Democrats are pushing for it. Which makes @BladeRunnerabsolutely correct when he points out that, rather than agree to make DC part of Maryland or Virginia, the Democrats are demanding statehood, and that makes the whole thing a power grab and not really about representation. Would BladeRunner argue differently if DC was a a Republican stronghold? He might. I would not, however. 
 

It’s a cynical power grab. But I’ll go further. The Democrats in Congress don’t care about this issue. They know that it’s extremely unlikely that it will ever pass. So why do they talk about it? Because the way you please your base in this country is talk about stuff that will never happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Of course they would have. Both sides are hungry for power. I think we know that. 
 

But as it happens, DC is largely Democrat so the Democrats are pushing for it. Which makes @BladeRunnerabsolutely correct when he points out that, rather than agree to make DC part of Maryland or Virginia, the Democrats are demanding statehood, and that makes the whole thing a power grab and not really about representation. Would BladeRunner argue differently if DC was a a Republican stronghold? He might. I would not, however. 
 

It’s a cynical power grab. But I’ll go further. The Democrats in Congress don’t care about this issue. They know that it’s extremely unlikely that it will ever pass. So why do they talk about it? Because the way you please your base in this country is talk about stuff that will never happen. 

Re the bolded: In today’s hyper partisan environment I’m not sure we do.  Which is why I pointed it out.  It’s much more indicative of pure politics then blue=bad and red=good or vise versa.  (Which is the point your making too, I’m just not sure everyone is making that same point). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

What if the citizens of DC don't want to be part of MD because they feel their interests don't align sufficiently with MD?  "Too bad, so sad?"

The citizens of the majority of VA don't agree with Northern VA.  Should they just split into 2 states or is it too bad so sad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

We also have plenty of examples from our history of territories becoming states, most recently Alaska and Hawaii.  That’s what both DC and Maryland seem to prefer.  Do you think that procedure isn’t constitutionally available here or do you just think it shouldn’t be done for prudential reasons? (e.g. your super-state argument)

DC isn't a territory.  I'm sure a state can be crafted in such a way that it doesn't contradict the Constitution, but it certainly goes against the spirit of the Constitution.  

Puerto Rico IS a territory and that should be the one we're talking about.  Of course, we could also talk about making Guam and the Northern Marianas a state.  The red team would love that.

BTW - thanks for my word of the day.  Never heard "retrocession" before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...