I might have misunderstood things, but I’m under the impression that the right to vote in Presidential elections, which was only fairly recently granted to DC residents by the Constitution, is a sore point for political conservatives. Ditto any proposal to give DC voting rights in either House. Why don’t conservatives want these people to vote, or be represented in Congress?
Cynical answer: They’re almost all Democrats.
Non-cynical answer: The District was never supposed to have the same rights as a state as it was designed in the Consititution. Also, the District is too small and doesn’t have the diversity in its economy (industrial, rural, merchants, etc.) to be considered a state.
Mostly because DC residents are 90+% Democratic.
So, they have very little interest in franchising their enemies.
Because it’s the law. Only people who live in states have representation in Congress. People in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Somoa, etc. do not have representation because they are not states. The same thing applies to the District of Columbia.
Zev Steinhardt
But are Guamanians, Puerto Ricans, and Samoans understood to be citizens in the same sense as District residents? Residents of overseas possessions are exempt from some taxes, are they not? While DC residents presumably pay the same as anyone else in the established States. They seem to
be fully burdened with the obligations of citizenship without enjoying all the rights.
Good thing noone told me that before I voted in the “Commonwealth” of Pennsylvania 4 years ago and in the “Commonwealth” of Virginia several weeks ago. The not a state argument is just an excuse.
DC did get approval for their new license plates to say taxation without representation. I approve.
The Framers undoubtedly feared political domination by the capital, as happened in the Roman Republic, to its detriment and eventual demise (although it is to be noted that Rome did not have a representative system; citizens actually had to be present in Rome to vote). Therefore, a “federal district” was created, which was specifically not part of any state, and the residents of which therefore did not have the right to vote.
Since the U.S. is not dominated by the Washingtonian mob, but by leftist interest groups :rolleyes:, there is no reason why D.C. ought not to be represented – save the one noted by BobT and Montfort, that the great majority of the residents of D.C. are Democrats. A compromise has been suggested that most of D.C. be given back to Maryland (the Virginia portion of D.C., unused and unneeded, was given back to Virginia in 1846; the boundaries of Arlington county are almost identical). Of course, there is the question of whether Maryland would want it…
That’s a nonsense argument, ASD. The four states that call themselves "commonwealth"s are, in fact, states, unlike, PR, GU, AS, etc.
Zev Steinhardt
Umm, legally “Commonwealths” are states … as Cecil discusses here.
Arjuna34
I agree with the cynics that conservatives are already ticked that we’ve spotted three electoral points for the home team. There’s no way they’re going to give the Dems a couple of voting senators and a representative as well, as the DC statehood activists wish.
It gets to be a really complicated issue once you start to consider that the city isn’t really profitable; most of the good parts are Federal or even foreign territory. Much of DC’s funding comes directly from Congressional appropriation, and with appropriations bills, you get the inevitable meddlesome riders. The meddling includes messing with airline schedules (and I won’t go into the airport’s now demoralizing and retarded name) and regulating the traffic code. That’s your elected representatives messing with their town.
But on the other hand, DC is also the town that re-elected a crackhead mayor, for which the DC government was effectively rendered powerless by Congress. I shudder to think what might happen should the city be forced to fend for itself. I envision toll booths at the bridges, attempts to weasel in on my paycheck, and parking meters that accept sawbucks (no, forget that–someone would just start stealing the meters again). The place could wind up with Marion Barry as Governor for Life, appointing his own representatives to Congress, and Cool “Disco” Dan as Minister of Information. And of course, no right turns on red.
And you may think I’m kidding, but really, Washington is a pretty strange place.
DC was intended (as mentioned else-where) to be non-partisan (in the post-Revolutionary meaning), to prevent any State from holding undue influence over the Federal Gov’t. This still holds true today (cynics not withstanding), as the District doesn’t meet the definitions requirements for statehood, and in the state that would gain control over the district if it were to be ceded back, is Maryland. Don’t get me wrong: I grew up in MD, but it’s not a state I want to have running our Capital’s infrastructure. As for the various territories and protectorates, they get the same Congressional representation as DC does: A non-voting Delegate.
Aside from which: Can you imagine the international incidents when diplomats start mixing with MD-type officials?
Yes, I realize that Commonwealths are states–I’m not a complete moron. However, disenfranchising people who are in all other respects obligated to/bounded by/entitled to the laws of the United States because they live in a “district” and not a state is a feeble excuse in my book. My apologies for poking a little fun at what I considered to be cop-out reasoning. I understand the intent in originally creating the district, and were the residents of DC solely politicians who are otherwise represented I would support the continuation of it. I just don’t think it’s the real reason that the lack of representation continues today.
I had a choice between living in DC and VA–why should my decision to live in VA entitle me to a congressional rep more so than my decision to live in DC would have? Did living in VA make me more important, more intelligent, in any way more entitled to have my political voice heard? (Granted one could make that argument for people who live in American territories and/or posession, but whether or not those places should become states is not part of the OP and would probably be more suited to Great Debates anyway)
…And before we relocate to The Great Debates, it hasn’t a thing to do with your (or anyone else’s) civil rights. It has to do with protecting the autonymity of the Federal Gov’t.
What it boils down to is this: Congress is unwilling to be subject to the political winds that blow through any state. While the direct control of DC may be inefficient, it’s run by ALL of Congress, (thoeretically) preventing partisan shenanigans from interfering with the orderly conduct of running the country.
If the people in DC want Congressional Representation, they gotta move. This is that old bit about ‘the needs of the many…’
Territories and Protectorates are, of course, somewhat different: Territories aren’t states, so /can’t/ be represented. Protectorates are soveriegn nations in their own right, and so can’t be allowed to interfere with our internal government(silly, isn’t it?).
One wag suggested that, since most Congressmen live in or near DC, that DC is, in fact, the most heavily represented ‘state’ in America.