Sure, but that Legislative Assembly is only twenty years old - before this the ACT was directly administered by the federal government. In a similar fashion Washington achieved a degree of home rule in 1973.
So let’s not pretend this is a simple issue - both Australia and America seem to be feeling their way toward solutions. The same could be said of Brazil, which similarly changed their constitution in the 1980s to accommodate Brasilia - prior to this the governor was appointed and all laws came from the federal Senate. Now they too elect a governor and an assembly.
However, the ACT has had representation in the House of Representatives since 1949, when it was allocated one seat. Until 1966, the ACT member of the House of Representatives could vote only on matters directly concerning the Territory. Thereafter, the ACT member had equal voting rights with all other MHRs. From 1974 the ACT’s number of seats in the House of Representatives was increased to two. At the same time it was also allocated two Senators.
Clarifying myself and with thanks to those who have attempted it so far; my wondering was about representation of the inhabitants in the*** national*** legislature, not about equal-standing sovereignty for the district as a political entity in the federation. Sometimes the one need not go with the other.
Without retrocession, or changing the status of DC to a state, I think it’s politically unlikely for DC ever to be represented in the Senate. However, it should get representation in the House proportionate to its population, which would mean one member of Congress. That might require a constitutional amendment, and it might be hard to get that approved in Republican states, but it would be the fair thing to do.
(It would be nice if Puerto Rico got proportionate representation in the House as well, given that it’s part of the United States but not a state too).
Screw that. Puerto Rico has had numerous chances to change their status, and they’ve elected to remain with the status quo. So they can just deal with it.
If you can come up with some realistic alternatives I’d like to hear them. We can bitch and moan that it isn’t fair until we’re blue in the face but do you know what that with accomplish? Not a damned thing. Make them a state? Probably won’t happen. Give them seats in the House and the Senate without making them a state? Won’t happen. Make them part of Maryland? Again, not going to happen. So, regardless of right or wrong; tell me how you’re going to fix it.
I agree in theory that everyone in a republic needs representation, but there’s a number of complicating matters as already point out. But I don’t like any of the solutions presented thus far. Obviously, giving it back to Maryland isn’t going to work because they don’t want any part of it, so that option is off the table. I also don’t like the idea of statehood because then one state has, if not actually, at least the appearance of one state being in control of the others because the capitol is there.
So here’s a couple ideas from me:
STFU and deal with it. Most of the people there either live there by choice or are there temporarily. If it’s a choice, then it’s their responsibility to weigh up if not having representation in congress is a deal breaker for you. Besides, just like our forefathers knew when they claimed to want representation but would refuse almost any off of such in parliament, would having that one vote in congress have any noticeable impact? Is that impact sufficient enough to spend all the time and political capital it would take to get it done? I don’t think many people can honestly say yes to that.
Find a way to give DC representation/residency in another state. Obviously this would take a lot of figuring out, but maybe you can find a way to allow residents to somehow choose a state to be affiliated with and vote with them for national elections. Maybe the state could charge a fee for allowing that like charging them some sort of income tax or whatever. I’m not sure how the particulars would work, and it would probably also end up being way too complicated to be worth it either. It would, of course, result in them losing their electoral votes since their votes would now be spread out over various states, so I imagine it would get squashed just for that.
If the Constitution had a provision that said that people in the capital city were not allowed to petition their government for redress of grievances, I’m not sure how much of a difference that would make in the everyday lives of people in DC.
In this hypothetical universe, one could say, STFU, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to you because you already live so close to power and you’re a danger the the Republic, so if you want your civil rights, you should move somewhere else.
However, I would say there’s a principle at stake. Americans who live in DC should not be disenfranchised from a fundamental civil right just because it is “too difficult” to fix. We’ve already once amended the Constitution to give DC residents a vote for President. It took an awful long time for people to recognize that Americans living in DC having their votes counted for electing a president wasn’t a threat to mom, baseball, and apple pie, but everything seemed to turn out ok.
I don’t agree with you. Congressional representation isn’t a fundamental civil right. It’s a civil right the people of the states enjoy. People living in DC don’t have it, people living in US territories don’t have it, Americans living abroad don’t have it.
There is a principle at stake, and that principle is that the United States is a federation of states.
If DC gets a vote, than so does Marvel. If you do that, then Disney will now own a vote, and we wouldn’t want even MORE Mickey Mouse nonsense in politics.
Random Proposal: DC residents are allowed to declare residency in their choice of bordering states upon moving in, and can change with the Census every 10 years. Not sure how to play with the taxes though.
Why not make DC a tax haven? Repeal federal taxation altogether for DC. It would certainly give businesses an incentive to set up in the District and would spur development in the City.
Maybe instead of giving DC to Maryland, we could give it to Wyoming. Liberal tendencies in DC are counterbalanced by Conservative tendencies, Wyoming has a larger population and tax base and hilarity ensues for all!
If DC were a county, it would be second-most Democrat-leaning county in the country. (The Bronx is the first). The Democrat votes in DC would overwhelm the Republican votes in Wyoming, and the new senators from Wyoming would both be Democrats. In addition, the new Democrat majority in the Wyoming legislature would probably move the capital of Wyoming to Washington: the new state capitol would look very nice on the National Mall!
Let’s see, last year I paid taxes in ten U.S. states and two foreign countries, yet only had representation in one state and in Washington.
That’s some tyranny!
In short, this argument while catchy is a bit trite, and while it has some redeeming historical value it doesn’t apply well to the various civic and legal responsibilities people face today.
Hey, hey… you came across sounding a little more cross than I think you intended …we voted down a proposal as to whether to do something about it and are dealing with it, thanyouverymuch, we’re not the ones demanding a change in constitutional organization. The sentiment is appreciated all the same, Giles.
(And BTW again, no, we have not “had numerous chances to change our status” ; we have had failed local initiatives as to whether to ask to change status. Congress has never put us up to a legally binding vote on statehood, or on independence, just “Commonwealth: Yes/Shut Up?” back in 1950)
[/demi-hijack]
