Note that in 2016, the Republican Party had more 1.4 million voters for the House of Representatives than the Democrats - and that was a downward swing.
It’s true that was reversed in the 2018 HOR elections, but viewing the vote for the Presidency as an expression of party preference, especially when Trump is the Presidential candidate, is flawed.
Have the Democrats ever offered any compromises that would increase DC representation without gaining Congressional seats? The three big gains for DC were the 23rd amendment, which was endorsed by Eisenhower, and proposed by Congress during his administration, the District of Columbia Delegate Act from 1970 under Nixon, and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act from 1973, also under Nixon. That’s all a half-century ago, but were all moves to give DC residents more voting rights. Are there any current proposals to give DC voters any more voting rights, and do they involve any political trade-offs, besides DC statehood?
Both partisan, but only one side is pushing to get these Americans full representation in Congress. That’s a pretty significant difference.
How do you define full representation in Congress? The bills for retrocession have been sponsored by Republicans. These bills, if enacted, would give the people living in Washington full representation as residents of the state of Maryland.
That’s not what they’re asking for, and it doesn’t appear that MD wants that either.
True, but it undercuts the argument that only one side is fighting for principles.
Both sides are willing to enact a law that would give the residents of Washington full representation and voting rights. So the difference between their positions is how this should be done.
A Republican argument would be “We’re willing to give them representation. We’re in agreement on that. The hold up is that the Democrats want to also get two more Democratic Senators as a bonus. They’re the ones holding representation hostage to their own partisan agenda.”
I don’t actually accept that the Republicans are arguing this. Maybe one or two. But the party doesn’t seem interested in helping DC residents gain representation in any way at all.
Shouldn’t the phrase “a half-century ago” be a huge whacking clue that those events might not be relevant to today’s Republican party?
One Republican, it appears. It’s not part of the party platform, it’s not a consistent goal or something Republicans talk about – it appears to be only something a few Republicans (at most) have offered as a token in response to efforts for DC statehood. I don’t buy it.
He couldn’t even find a co-sponsor for the bill.
This is fucking stupid. Really really fucking stupid.
No, it’s a thought experiment. How committed are Democrats to the principal of Congressional representation for the citizens of DC versus the benefit of the three Congressional seats DC statehood would bring them? This thread is a very small poll, but no-one has prioritised DC representation over the Congressional seats.
But then, analysing your brief but vulgar response, I’m guessing you’re not into thought experiments; possibly not into detailed thoughts at all on this subject.
Looking at the numbers, suppose all residents of DC were given the right to vote for Maryland’s Representatives and Senators and correspondingly counted with Maryland for apportionment. Would this raise the number of Maryland’s representatives?
Huh?
.
Mea Culpa. I suppose meant to state that no one who is ardently advocating DC statehood is showing signs of being willing to accept a bipartisan compromise. But yes, you absolutely are offering an alternate solution that provides DC with Congressional representation - and it’s a better solution than my thought experiment.
I’d do it if that was the only possibility. But it’s not – giving them full representation as a state, as the residents wish, would be the best option, and since it’s a possible option, why shouldn’t we pursue it?
As for whether Republicans are more motivated by race or party, have we already forgotten North Carolina’s unconstitutional voting restrictions? The governor commissioned a study of how black people vote, and then based on the results of that study, implemented measures designed to decrease black turnout. He didn’t target Democratic voters (of whatever color); he targeted black voters (of whatever party). It would certainly have been more effective to target by party, and it probably even would have been legal… but that’s not what he did.
Oppressing blacks isn’t something that Republicans do to further their goals; it is their goal.
The GOP: Official Party of White Supremacy since Nixon.
If you don’t make that your fundamental premise, no argument can be taken seriously.
Moderating
And this is pretty fucking aggressive for this forum. Dial it back.