However virtually if not truly all of those nations with a special capital districts provide for voting representation in the national legislature to the residents of the capital district.
It was already proposed in the 70s. Congress actually passed it by the necessary margin in 1978, but it didn’t come close to ratification. There’s no way it would even get out of Congress today.
I’m not sure this question was addressed to me, but I’ll answer it anyway. I think if DC had an overwhelmingly white population with a consistently pro-Democratic voting pattern, Republicans would still oppose DC statehood. I also think if DC had an overwhelmingly black population with a consistently pro-Republican voting pattern, they would support it.
(And if someone thinks that it’s inconceivable that an overwhelmingly black population could possibly have a pro-Republican voting pattern, then I believe that person would be racist, not me. Why should it not be possible for African Americans to vote Republican?)
It’s two different issues. Californians are not disenfranchised.
The residents of the District of Columbia deserve representation as a matter of principle. The Republicans do not deserve a payoff so they agree to it.
What a ridiculous claim. If a party holds positions that are strongly against the interests of some racial group, it’s not “racist” to suggest that it’s inconceivable that this racial group would ever support such a party. Is it antisemitic to suggest that the Nazi Party would never do too well among Jews? What’s at issue is the policies of the political party, not the characteristics of the racial group.
If the Republicans changed their policies, then certainly more black people might vote for them.
It’s possible for African Americans to vote for Republicans. The reason they don’t do so is because the Republicans are generally hostile towards African Americans. There’s no racism in seeing why African Americans have rational reasons for not voting for Republicans.
They’ve already done that. The Democrats consistently get more votes than the Republicans. The reason this isn’t reflected in the membership of Congress and the Presidency is because our political system gives some people greater voting weight. Some people have votes that are effectively three times as large as other people’s when it comes to putting people into office.
It’s not a ridiculous claim at all. Your argument rests on reducing a particular voter who happens to be African American to that particular characteristic, ignoring everything else. There are many other factors that shape and influence a voter’s electoral decision, and, more importantly, they’re none of your business. If we take the idea seriously that people should be looked at as individuals rather than members of some demographic, however defined, then they can, of course, vote for a party or candidate despite you thinking that this party or candidate supports policies that are not in that demographic’s interest.
Good grief, you have moved the goalposts so far that I think you’re now playing Australian Rules. Your claim was nothing to do with whether individual people have the right to vote however they choose, or the capability to think for themselves.
Your claim was this:
Your claim was that it would be racist against black people for me to make a claim about the their plausible voting patterns as a population. That’s not something that rests on any belief about a black person’s intellect or capabilities being any different from anyone else, it’s about knowledge of the totality of the social circumstances of the average black person in America today, and the policies of the Republican Party.
Again, to reduce your claim to the absurdity that it is - would I be an antisemite if I observed that Jews have sound reasons to not vote for the Nazi Party?
If Republicans supported policies that would win over a majority black electorate, they would be Democrats.
Since you claim that I’m moving goalposts, let’s look again at the context in which I made that claim. I made it in response to an (anticipated) argument against my views that Republican opposition to DC statehood is based on partisan tactics, not on race. I believe that this view is no more racist than the claim that a predominantly black population could not conceivably have a consistently pro-Democratic voting pattern.
I agree with your view that Republican tactics here are based primarily on partisan tactics. They can be simultaneously racist, and willing to take any black votes they can get.
The problem is with the hypothetical that you’re trying to use to prove your case. It’s just too counterfactual to be worth anything. Some Republicans have come out explicitly against democracy. They think that the wrong people should not have any voice. Who do you think they mean? I really don’t know how such people would resolve the cognitive dissonance created by your hypothetical of a “predominantly black safe Republican Senate seat” - but since (under current Republican policies) that would require some utterly different alternative universe, the hypothetical is just not a useful thought experiment.
I absolutely concede that my view is counterfactual; I have no way of proving that I’m right with my speculation of what the Republican party position on DC statehood would be if DC voting patterns and demographics were not what they are. It’s simply based on a view of Republican politicians that is both cynical and optimistic at the same time. It’s cynical in the sense that I believe they’re selfish hypocrites who take a position for one particular reason (that DC statehood would not be in their own interest) while pretending that their real reason for that position is a different one (the will and wisdom of the founding fathers, or something to that effect). At the same time, it’s optimistic in the sense that I don’t believe their true motivation for that position is that they’re simply inherently evil people who begrudge African Americans their suffrage for the sole reason that they’re African American. Maybe I’m naive in thinking so, but that’s what I am getting at.
I think the mistake you’re making is in treating Republican/Democrat as though it’s a preference between one economic theory and another, and not something that’s fundamentally about race. The Republican Party in its current manifestation is essentially the party of white supremacism.
Of course not all people who consider themselves Republicans think that way. But so long as the MAGA populist lunatics are running the asylum, that’s the reality, that’s what determines policy.
Do you understand the difference between how a black individual votes and how a black population votes?
Yes, I do.
The argument I’m seeing appears to be that Republicans don’t oppose fair representation for DC residents because they’re majority black, they oppose fair representation for DC residents because they’re overwhelmingly Democrats.
This is not an argument that paints Republicans in a particularly good light. For the hundredth time, have Republicans ever considered the possibility that supporting democracy and good representation would be good policy for themselves as well as the nation?
This is akin to saying that the city of Boston should have no representation in the Massachusetts state house because, hey, they “run” the state.
It’s not accurate either. The country is run by Congress and every member of Congress is a resident in the state they represent. The President could theoretically be a DC resident but it’s never happened in practice. (Donald Trump is a Florida resident, for example.)
Bit late, but I’ll give you a straightforward answer. None. If you want to get into a discussion of the most idealistic solution for having a modern US federal district, then it might be turning that federal district into a state, or it might be declaring that the federal district is the US government buildings around the mall, and the federal district has no residents - they’re all citizens of Maryland. But that’s not what the Republican Party argument is about. It’s purely about stopping an additional three Democratic seats in Congress. But here’s the thing. The Democratic Party argument is purely about gaining three additional seats in Congress. All this talk about happy coincidences and the goal of equal representation is misguiding fluff. The primary goal for Democrats of achieving DC statehood is gaining three additional seats in Congress. Republicans are opposed to that goal because it’s a partisan goal. Implying that the partisanship is one-sided is intentionally obscuring the issue.