Why do you suppose that this is not a concern in any other capital of any other democratic nation? The people of London, Paris, Brussels, Mexico City, Tokyo, and Canberra aren’t subject to similar restrictions. Heck, even people in Baghdad get to have parliamentary representation. Does it not strike you as odd that in this respect Iraqis in Baghdad have better protected democratic rights than the people in Washington, DC? Are you saying that the people of Baghdad run their city well enough to have representation, but DC hasn’t quite passed the bar set by that war-torn city?
Furthermore, I would really like this idea of undue influence to be critically examined. Under the status quo, someone who works at the dry cleaner down the street from me isn’t allowed voting representation in Congress because that one representative could exert “undue influence” on the Federal government. Meanwhile, a GS-15 or SES-2 living in Arlington and working at the Department of Whatever is entrusted with the representation of two senators and a congressmen, and nobody is concerned that this government worker is unduly influencing the course of government, simply because he lives across the Potomac. Am I understanding the “undue influence” argument correctly?
Let me back up. Aside from what the Constitution says, speaking only in philosophical or ethical terms, do you think that law abiding Americans should be entitled to representation in his government?
I think bottom line, DC will never have representation as long as it is a majority black city. The way people talk about the residents as ‘those people’ (including in this thread) suggests that it is more than just which side of the Potomac people live on.
I’m aware that, in the past, Puerto Rico has voted on referenda, and each time has endorsed the status quo. Is anyone aware of any popular effort in the other territories to gain representation?
In DC, of course, there are disagreements over the form of representation, but there is virtually nobody who opposes representation.
Granted I’ve never lived in DC and haven’t visited in years, but how can Capitol Hill be considered a dangerous place? You’d think, in this post 9/11 world, the area would be crawling with security.
There’s a movement in Guam to change it to a commonwealth, like PR, but it’s not going very far. Basically, only PR is big enough to even consider statehood.
You’re starting to sound a little whiny there - might be time to strip TN of a senator or two.
Of course! This goes double for all the stupid children, disabled, and elderly folk who have chosen to live in New Orleans and DC. Let them all burn (or drown)!
I’ve never really felt unsafe in DC. Then again, that is because of the places I chose to go in DC - I work near Metro Center, and only really go out in Chinatown, Georgetown, Adam’s Morgan, U Street Corridor, Dupont Circle, Woodley Park etc.
Obviously DC has its bad areas, I just don’t have a need to go to them. The ‘tourist’ areas seem very safe to me.
Now, that said, I chose not to live in the city for various reasons, but most of my colleagues at my level do, and it seems to work pretty fine for them. I’m just a cranky old guy who likes DelRay.
The foundations of our democracy established that the District of Columbia was not to have direct participation in the federal government. So the assertion that D.C. needs representatives would require repudiation of those foundations.
And it should be noted that no one who moved to D.C. did so expecting to be able to vote for a representative in Congress. Now, obviously, those who have been born there to people who moved in didn’t get a say in that, but that’s true of anyone born into something that their ancestors chose for them. They have the same choice everyone always has: stay and accept what you were given by birth, or leave and make a new life for yourself.
Which isn’t to say that D.C. shouldn’t have representation. But the assertions that denying it representation is un-American, or that the people of D.C. are somehow being treated unfairly simply don’t hold any water.
Funny, not so long ago Del Ray was one of those neighborhoods decent folk avoided like the plague. When I arrived in Arlington in the late 90s you could see that the gentrification was a very recent phenomenon.
Indeed. I have been here about 30 months now. There are still run down bits, but nowhere I don’t feel safe, and it is just such a nice neighborhood to live in, and really convenient for work.
OK, name an issue that a resident of DC might care about. Crime rate? Politicians can get mugged just like anyone else, and I don’t imagine that they like it any better. Electricity, sewer, and other utilities? Politicians are just as inconvenienced by power outages as the rest of us, and contrary to what some might like us to think, their shit do stink just like ours. The school system? Politicians have kids, too. What issue is there that’s important to a resident of DC that isn’t important to the politicians in DC?
Chronos: I propose a test. I have an issue with Social Security payments that were supposed to be paid to a family member who passed away. I’ll write letters to ten members of Congress asking for their help, plus my delegate. Let us see how many offer their assistance to me. How many do you think that will be?
I’ll let you choose the members I should write to. I would suggest making the list diverse in terms of political affiliation and the location of their constituency. I’ll let you know the results, and then we can see how much representation I get from those members of Congress.
Exactly. Now what is the high and mighty principle you are talking about here? How would participation of the people of DC in Congress threaten the very foundation of our government?
There are two issues here that throughout this thread are being erroneously melded together, and your last paragraph shows this quite nicely.
Assertion: Residents in DC should have voting representation in Congress.
Assertion: Living in DC has its disadvantages, including lack of voting representation in Congress, so if you don’t like it, move somewhere else.
Support for Assertion #2 has no bearing on the validity of Assertion #1. My intent on starting the thread was to discuss Assertion #1. Discussion of Assertion #2 may be interesting per se but is a non sequitur in this context.
What makes you think that the politicians would send their kids to a DC public school? I would be shocked if it turns out that one of them did. Lets look at the DC gun laws. Do you think that a congressman from Montana will vote to put as many limits as possible on gun possession as most of the DC residents want? Gay marriage. How does Senator Tester feel about that? The council voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions and is considered a bill to legalize gay marriage in the District. Do you think that the Senator Tester supports that? Does the national consensus for drug laws mirror what the District might want to do? Can DC tax commuters the way other jurisdictions do? No, because that pisses off the Congressmen from Southern Maryland and Northern Virginia.
Sounds like an interesting experiment, but I would not describe a willingness to help individual citizens on problems specific to their situation “representation.” Representation as I see it is simply a voting member of Congress, not an ombudsman.
