Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

DC as 51st state


stlrams

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I lived in D.C. for a while and, while I know this isn't a huge sample size, I personally didn't have any special power over the federal government. Neither did any of my friends.

I think "people who live in D.C. already have enough power" is a poor argument against allowing them congressional representation. If you want to bar Senators from voting in general elections, I'm okay with that -- though most probably don't live in D.C. anyway.

I wouldn't say that career civil servants have a lot of policy-making power such that they should be barred from having representation.

 

Perhaps the average D.C. resident has no special power, but they certainly benefit from power being more centralized in D.C. Which is really what the Senate is about--the constant battle between power being centered in D.C. versus power left to disparate states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the moops said:

Imagine a world where MD or VA were not blue, but were swing states. Do you think that those arguing this outcome would still be arguing this if it swung one of those states blue?

They are swing states.  The GOP won 10 presidential elections in a row prior to Obama in VA.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Battersbox said:

Perhaps the average D.C. resident has no special power, but they certainly benefit from power being more centralized in D.C. Which is really what the Senate is about--the constant battle between power being centered in D.C. versus power left to disparate states.

How do they benefit?  They don't even have the right to pass laws of their choosing without Congressional approval.  They are second class citizens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

They are swing states.  The GOP won 10 presidential elections in a row prior to Obama in VA.  

Now do MD.

And looking at trends, VA looks to be solid blue for the foreseeable future

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

How do they benefit?  They don't even have the right to pass laws of their choosing without Congressional approval.  They are second class citizens.

Power, money, countless ways. Hundreds of millions of people are compelled to send money to the Federal government. Much of that money finds its way into the local economy there. 

And if they're second-class citizens (I don't think they are), they have the ability to move a few miles away and leave the district. That's one of the benefits of Federalism...people are free to reside in a state more in tune with their belief system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, the moops said:

Now do MD.

And looking at trends, VA looks to be solid blue for the foreseeable future

It is all candidate dependent.  If the GOP has a Trump-like candidate, it is solid blue.  But put a more traditional GOP candidate and it becomes a swing state.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

How do they benefit?  They don't even have the right to pass laws of their choosing without Congressional approval.  They are second class citizens.

They get free access to many local high-quality museums. I'm not sure that means they shouldn't get to vote, but it is a pretty sweet benefit that people in other areas don't have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

They get free access to many local high-quality museums. I'm not sure that means they shouldn't get to vote, but it is a pretty sweet benefit that people in other areas don't have.

That’s true.  Also free pandas, that’s pretty cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Battersbox said:

And if they're second-class citizens (I don't think they are), they have the ability to move a few miles away and leave the district. That's one of the benefits of Federalism...people are free to reside in a state more in tune with their belief system.

This argument could work for denying New Jersey congressional representation well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

Would you be OK with a million people who don't live in your state deciding who your Senators are?

If they lived within just a few miles of the state line? Yes, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

This argument could work for denying New Jersey congressional representation well.

New Jersey doesn't directly benefit from centralized national power like D.C. does. Not to mention, that would be removing representation, rather than granting representation.

But yeah, anyone living in N.J. has the ability to live in other states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Battersbox said:

If they lived within just a few miles of the state line? Yes, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

The proximity to the border is irrelevant. They have their own interests. I see no difference between letting them vote in Maryland than voting in Wyoming 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

The proximity to the border is irrelevant. They have their own interests. I see no difference between letting them vote in Maryland than voting in Wyoming 

You think voters in D.C. are unlikely to have more shared interests with people than Va or Md than Wyoming? I don't believe you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

I think they have their own interests 

Sure. But they are likely similar to the interests of Virginians or Marylanders rather than Wyoming(ers).

I agree different regions and states have their own interests. All the more reason the Senate should retain the power of safeguarding the interests of those who live thousands of miles from the national center of power. 

I feel like D.C. having two senators is akin to allowing the dealer at a poker table the chance to win the pot. He's already getting his 10% of the rake. His job is to referee the interests of the other players at the table. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

It is all candidate dependent.  If the GOP has a Trump-like candidate, it is solid blue.  But put a more traditional GOP candidate and it becomes a swing state.  

Obama won by 6 and 4 points. While not a a ridiculous blue outcome, it is more blue than you are making it out to be.

And you still are ignoring Maryland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, the moops said:

Obama won by 6 and 4 points. While not a a ridiculous blue outcome, it is more blue than you are making it out to be.

And you still are ignoring Maryland

And Obama won by 7 and 4 percent overall.  So right in line with nation wide results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Isn't that what the House is for?

Presidential elections favor Republicans because of the electoral college.

Senate elections favor Republicans because of the two-Senators-per-state thing.

The judiciary favors Republicans because it is selected exclusively by the above two groups.

So even if the House were in some sort of state of equipoise, it is just half of one branch, and the federal government as a whole would still very imbalanced.  And due to gerrymandering, the House actually favors Republicans right now too, so the imbalance stretches to every part of our federal system. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Presidential elections favor Republicans because of the electoral college.

Senate elections favor Republicans because of the two-Senators-per-state thing.

The judiciary favors Republicans because it is selected exclusively by the above two groups.

So even if the House were in some sort of state of equipoise, it is just half of one branch, and the federal government as a whole would still very imbalanced.  And due to gerrymandering, the House actually favors Republicans right now too, so the imbalance stretches to every part of our federal system. 

Gerrymandering = You'd rather the left draw the districts than the right?

Why are more states Republican than Democrat?  Maybe the Dems should look into that since they have so many more voters as you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jon_mx said:
35 minutes ago, the moops said:

Obama won by 6 and 4 points. While not a a ridiculous blue outcome, it is more blue than you are making it out to be.

And you still are ignoring Maryland

And Obama won by 7 and 4 percent overall.  So right in line with nation wide results.

Yes, I wrote that exact thing in my post :confused:

And you are still ignoring Maryland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ramblin Wreck said:

Gerrymandering = You'd rather the left draw the districts than the right?

Why are more states Republican than Democrat?  Maybe the Dems should look into that since they have so many more voters as you said.

 

Gerrymandering is done on both sides, but the republicans have taken it to a whole new level. I can't speak for fatguy, but I don't want either side creating districts to give themselves such a ridiculous advantage. I want an impartial committee or a computer program to create districts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, the moops said:

 

Gerrymandering is done on both sides, but the republicans have taken it to a whole new level. I can't speak for fatguy, but I don't want either side creating districts to give themselves such a ridiculous advantage. I want an impartial committee or a computer program to create districts

Seriously, looks at the gerrymander maps.  How hard is it just create normal non-partisan districts.  It would be super easy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Gerrymandering = You'd rather the left draw the districts than the right?

My preference would be independent commissions with transparent computer algorithms.  But my point is only that the status quo unfairly benefits Republicans.  There are lots of different ways to make things more even.

16 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Why are more states Republican than Democrat?  Maybe the Dems should look into that since they have so many more voters as you said.

Yeah I've been trying to get a mass exodus of California liberals to move to places like Wyoming and the Dakotas to turn those states blue but so far it's been tough going.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Why are more states Republican than Democrat?  Maybe the Dems should look into that since they have so many more voters as you said.

Blue states just don't have their voter suppression act together i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Blue states just don't have their voter suppression act together i guess.

This is true. I don't think I have ever seen a democrat introduce a bill that would make it more difficult for rural folks to vote, for instance

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, the moops said:

This is true. I don't think I have ever seen a democrat introduce a bill that would make it more difficult for rural folks to vote, for instance

I assume you mean recently right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, the moops said:

This is true. I don't think I have ever seen a democrat introduce a bill that would make it more difficult for rural folks to vote, for instance

This is a good point.  

A swing state with democrats in power should put voting stations only downtown in their major cities and then not allow parking anywhere near it.  Only transit can get you there.  Then they should say the only time you can vote is sundays between 9-11am

 

Edited by killface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, killface said:

This is a good point.  

A swing state with democrats in power should put voting stations only downtown in their major cities and then not allow parking anywhere near it.  Only transit can get you there.  Then they should say the only time you can vote is sundays between 9-11am

 

No we need at least one party that believes in democracy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, killface said:

Seriously, looks at the gerrymander maps.  How hard is it just create normal non-partisan districts.  It would be super easy

That will never happen.  Dave Wasserman on Twitter is a great follow if you're interested in congressional districts and how the remapping may go in each state.  Each side is interested in creating safe districts for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

That will never happen.  Dave Wasserman on Twitter is a great follow if you're interested in congressional districts and how the remapping may go in each state.  Each side is interested in creating safe districts for themselves.

of course they are but it seems like it would be reasonable to have a computer just generate them based on population and proximity.  It's not a hard thing to do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Yeah that’s a big part of it at least for me.  

To me this is a huge part of our federalism.  The states bestow the power to the central government.  It is true we have concentrated numbers in a few states for the Democrats right now, specifically California.  But this is a modern development, where we've become polarized in many ways as urban vs rural.  For all the arguments people can make about gerrymandering, this result in the Senate isn't by some Republican design. 

Voting trends developing this way does help Republicans but I don't see that as a valid reason for altering our system to try and change the outcome.  I get your position though, for me the whole gerrymandering of districts and now potentially adding states to fix outcomes is very dangerous to our system.  I'd be all for some equitable way to fairly divide districts through some algorithm.  But therein lies our problem, what one side would deem fair the other would deem biased, because of the results of one program versus another.  

In my view all these safe districts lead to only the primaries being relevant where only the most extreme politicians who can pass the litmus test can win.  There are a dwindling number of truly competitive districts and that's truly a shame and I think a contributing factor to our divisiveness.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, killface said:

of course they are but it seems like it would be reasonable to have a computer just generate them based on population and proximity.  It's not a hard thing to do

It's totally reasonable but hard for one reason.... the sides would never agree on which program would be "fair".  Each side will find what they deem fair, and surprise, surprise, it would net them more seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

It's totally reasonable but hard for one reason.... the sides would never agree on which program would be "fair".  Each side will find what they deem fair, and surprise, surprise, it would net them more seats.

The country is broken.  There is no doubt

but it should be easy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, killface said:

The country is broken.  There is no doubt

but it should be easy

Maybe some day, but something would have to stop the polarization for it to ever occur and for the life of me I'm not sure what that would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Maybe some day, but something would have to stop the polarization for it to ever occur and for the life of me I'm not sure what that would be.

Honest question, when as a Country did we become this unreasonable?  We are in deep trouble

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, the moops said:

 

Gerrymandering is done on both sides, but the republicans have taken it to a whole new level. I can't speak for fatguy, but I don't want either side creating districts to give themselves such a ridiculous advantage. I want an impartial committee or a computer program to create districts

Jim Jordan’s district is an absolute disgrace.  Outrageous.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, the moops said:

Now do MD.

And looking at trends, VA looks to be solid blue for the foreseeable future

Yeah, VA isn't voting Republican for President any time soon.  Republicans won 13/14, but have now lost four straight and the blue part of the state is growing much faster than the rest of it.

It went for Biden +10 this year. 

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...