I won’t pretend that gaining 2 Dem Senators isn’t a big party of my support for DC statehood. But it also aligns with decency and morality – that’s what the residents of DC want, and it’s an entirely reasonable, historically speaking, request. The Democrats should do it as soon as they have a path to it. I haven’t heard an argument why this would be a bad thing, aside from the pro-GOP anti-Dem arguments. The Democratic party should do things that align “good policy for Americans” with “good policy for helping the Democratic party politically”. Just like a higher minimum wage, better health care, and similar, this is one of those policies.
I think this is a straw man. The argument Sam_Stone strives to make is perhaps better presented by smilingbandit:
The core argument is that “DC is essentially nonviable as an entity on its own”. Having a defense force is only one component of viability - we can disagree on the necessity of a national guard unit because the issue is moot in this case. I’m not entirely convinced that statehood is out of the question, and I have previously said I would not object to statehood with a shrunken district set aside for the national mall, provided that D.C. residents want it and Maryland consents.
Nevertheless the argument that D.C. is nonviable on its own is, in my opinion, a valid concern. At this point, the only reason I’m not arguing against statehood is because I am not a resident there: I believe in self-determination and I trust the residents of D.C. to decide for themselves whether they can make it as a state.
~Max
Nonsense. Sam has no argument beyond “Maryland doesn’t want DC and DC doesn’t want Maryland so we should shove a merger down their throats. Democracy!”
The viability of DC as a state is the straw man here. How viable is Rhode Island or Delaware or Wyoming as an economic unit? Washington is a prosperous city, full of high-paying jobs, the majority of which are not related to the federal government, no matter how many times the right makes that claim.
Not to mention that he keeps ignoring that every single plan mentioned here keeps the core bodies of the government in a separate federal district, which makes his repeated claims that the federal government would be in a state nonsense equal to the above.
In an ideal world, I would fully agree. The District of Columbia would be fine as a state (assuming we separated out the immediate area of the national offices) and it seems to be what the residents want. But I don’t feel it’s possible given the current politics.
So I would consider retrocession an acceptable compromise. It’s better than the status quo as it would give the people in the city full representation.
Is retrocession a compromise? From the point of view of Maryland, whose assent is critical, statehood is the compromise (DC gets representation in a way that doesn’t upset the balance of power or cause any administrative headaches in Maryland).
(In any case, the whole issue has been likely made academic for the next decade or two by the election results.)
There isn’t anything inherently more ridiculous about it than the fact Wyoming or Vermont are states.
Merging all of DC with Maryland makes sense too, as long as either the Constitution is altered to allow it or it’s only mostly merged. Hoenstly, it wouldn’t make a damn but of difference if all those people lived in Maryland; it’s not like Maryland would suddenly get all the federal goodies. As it stands, many people who work in government - most, actually - don’t live in DC, they live in the suburbs.
Not reading through the thread to see if this was suggested but …
What about representation (not statehood) for ALL citizens that are not residents of a state? That would include all residents of DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI, Marianas Islands, expatriates, etc.
That’s the kind of broad principle where you really need to go into the details. Are you suggesting collective representation or individual representation for each territory? American Samoa, for example, has the population of a small city. (Its population is about the same as Coral Gables, Fla; Edina, Minn; Niagara Falls, NY; Poway, Cal; or Wilson, NC.) I don’t think it would be reasonable to give Samoans two Senators, a Congressman, and three Electors.
A problem swiftly solved if one goes to popular vote for Presidential election. Representation in Congress is a trickier issue though. None of the territories outside Puerto Rico remotely approaches even enough representation for one seat in the House and giving them senators would be absurd.
It would be all of the non-states as one collective for Representation/Electoral Votes.
I’d probably exclude Puerto Rico from a “DC and Territories” arrangement - on its own its population is greater than 21 states. If they want statehood they can get it in their own right.
PR is definitely deserving of its own statehood. It’s not just filled with enough people, it’s a geographically, historically and culturally cohesive thing. It is far more logically designated a state than a few of the states that ARE states; it makes way more sense than having two Dakotas.
As someone born and raised in South Dakota… Please stop suggesting merging the Dakotas. We don’t want to be associated with North Dakotans 
Just merge and re-name the new state “Lower Saskatchewan”. No Dakotas - problem solved.
I smell a repeat of the Macedonian name controversy coming on. We’re the Real Saskatchewan! No we are!
Really – As of last estimate we alone make up up around 75-80% or so of the population of the insular unincorporated territories. The small island polities would face utter electoral futility.
I just had an idle thought this morning. I have don’t know how workable this would be in practice, and it still would require a constitutional amendment which probably makes it dead in the water no matter how appealing. What if everyone in D.C. or any other territory who desires full representation was allowed to register to vote in some other state of their choice and have that be their legal residence for voting in statewide and federal elections? States should be allowed to collect their taxes from those legally declared citizen ‘residents’ who never actually lived in their state which might make them happy.
As I understand it, it might actually be possible right now for any territory resident to swing this in some states if they can afford to take a lengthy-enough vacation there. I propose making it possible for all of them to do it in any state they want by just filling out forms and mailing them in.
This is probably not a novel idea. I never have those. 
Has anybody ever seriously proposed this and how far did it get?
Isn’t the entire point of statehood to have some real say in representation over both local and national issues? This proposal reduces their votes to essential nothingness. It would be like saying to someone in Texas, sure we’ll let you vote but you can’t vote for a Democrat or Republican. Now get out of here and stop complaining we never do anything for you.
The point of DC statehood is statehood. True representative government at all levels, with votes that are meaningful and politicians that are responsive to local needs.
Wait. I thought it was Representation. Or was it packing in 2 more Dem Senators?
If everyone said, “You get 1 Rep and 2 Senators but you do not get statehood.” would that suffice?
What if that Rep and Senator were shared with ALL unrepresented Americans (except Puerto Rico for reasons)? Would that suffice? Oh, here’s one - what if DC’s 3 electoral votes were shared with unrepresented Americans? Because everyone needs to be represented and vote for President right?
Yeah, I’m going to keep calling out thought games that provide “representation” without giving any power as just another form of racism. Voting is power. That’s why Republicans want to suppress it as much as possible for people they think aren’t going to vote for them. This whole thread keeps providing additional examples. Nobody should be fooled by this odiousness, but I’ll keep pointing it out just in case.