Why DC doesn't have the vote

The BBQ Pit
1

It may come as a surprise to some of you but DC residents do not get congressional representation. We have what are called shadow representatives and shadow senators who get to sit on committees (I think they may even be able to vote in committee) but do not get to vote.

Does it strike anyone else as somewhat absurd that the residents of the nation’s capitol do not get a vote in congress? The biggest problem is that DC is such a staunch Democratic bastion (I understand that in the 2000 election George Bush ran third after Ralph Nader) that we would need a supermajority of Democrats in congress to give DC the vote. Of course when we have a supermajority of Dems in power, they don’t want to dilute that power by letting anyone else in the club. We have about as much congressional representation as Peurto Rico or Guam without the benefit of not paying US taxes.

2

Well, D.C. is not a state and since only the states can have representation in Congress…

The introduction and Section 6.2 of this wikipedia article have more information.

It has nothing to do with the politics of D.C. citizens; it has to do with how the Constitution was written.

3

Even if DC was excluded from the Senate (where’d they’d carry more weight) it’s still only get a singe seat in the House. Can Congress even give the DC Delegate full voting rights without amending the constitution?

4

Short of an amendment, no representation for DC. Why not give it to Maryland and eliminate DC altogether? It would take a while to get used to Washington, MD but why not? Virginia got their part of DC back ages ago.

5

Hulk… disenfranchise!

Personally, I think you should turn all the residential and commercial outlying neighborhoods over to Virginia and/or Maryland and redefine the District to include only the existing government buildings and a few blocks around them, perhaps limiting it to L’Enfant’s original layout.

6

Go a couple more decades without electing a crackhead mayor, and we’ll think about giving you the vote.

7

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Personally, I think you should turn all the residential and commercial outlying neighborhoods over to Virginia and/or Maryland and redefine the District to include only the existing government buildings and a few blocks around them, perhaps limiting it to L’Enfant’s original layout.
[/QUOTE]

As a former resident of DC, I always thought this would be the best idea, and the one most likely to fly with the rest of the country. DC politicians won’t hear of it, of course, which means that DC residents are unlikely ever to get Congressional representation. (Note that DC is now entirely on the Maryland side of the Potomac; the Virginia part of DC was returned to that state long ago.)

8

[QUOTE=Revtim]
Go a couple more decades without electing a crackhead mayor, and we’ll think about giving you the vote.
[/QUOTE]

If the basis for voting was not electing a criminal incompetent, the entire country would be disenfranchised.

9

Another vote for making DC part of Maryland, maybe with a small federal enclave. We get our own representative and votes in Maryland Senatorial elections. Even this sensible solution won’t happen unless the Dems get a majority in Congress–and maybe not even then.

10

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Short of an amendment, no representation for DC. Why not give it to Maryland and eliminate DC altogether? It would take a while to get used to Washington, MD but why not? Virginia got their part of DC back ages ago.
[/QUOTE]

The existence of Washington D.C., although not the location, is mandated by the Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

Were it not located in land ceded by Maryland it would be somewhere else, by law. It could be amended otherwise, but I think you know that such a possibility is somewhere between zero and never.

11

It is kind of funny that the people flogging this disenfranchisement issue have only one solution acceptable to them: statehood for DC.

Offer to give the residential areas of DC back to Maryland and they’ll just mumble. Which tells me that DC statehood isn’t about enfranchising people in the nation’s capitol, it’s about getting more Democrats into congress. Or about empowering local DC politicos.

Might as well merge Delaware into Maryland while we’re at it, plus merge Conneticut and Rhode Island. And we can barely find a use for one Dakota, let alone two.

12

[QUOTE=Revtim]
Go a couple more decades without electing a crackhead mayor, and we’ll think about giving you the vote.
[/QUOTE]

Barry hasn’t been Mayor for years, and there are shitty politicians all over. Many of them are far worse than Barry. Besides someone’s personal habits aren’t necessarily an indication that they can’t govern well. Bill Clinton’s appetites are notorious, but he was a decent President. (Not that I’m a Barry fan, But his popularity is no more a reason to deny DC the franchise than the far worse Tom Delay’s is to deny Texas the franchise..)

13

No state is going to take DC: it has a high rate of urban poverty and would add a large new burden on the state taxes without adding much in the way of tax revenue.

14

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
It is kind of funny that the people flogging this disenfranchisement issue have only one solution acceptable to them: statehood for DC.

Offer to give the residential areas of DC back to Maryland and they’ll just mumble. Which tells me that DC statehood isn’t about enfranchising people in the nation’s capitol, it’s about getting more Democrats into congress. Or about empowering local DC politicos.
[/quote]

Many people in DC would be happy to be part of MD, though as Apos points out, MD might not want us. Since pretty much every DC politico supports statehood this issue can’t empower any of them. And is the fact that poor black urbanites tend to vote Democratic really a reason to disenfrachise them?

Are Delaware, Rhode Island, and the Dakotas currently disenfranchised?

15

Also, some of you are going to think that this is a dick thing to say, but I’m no stranger to controversy so what the hell.

If you move to D.C. you have no right to complain, any more than I have the right to demand that a train be rerouted because it makes too much noise even though I made the conscious decision to move to a home next to a railroad right-of-way. This is a law that dates back to 1789, and as such should not be much of a surprise to people. I understand that there is a right to bitch, because if I moved to, say, Maryland, I would certainly bitch about their gun laws with comparison to Pennsylvania, but I would also be cognizant of the fact that I did it to myself and I will not be able to change the law or the culture of Maryland so I should suck it up.

This law will not change, and without the approval of at least 37 other states can not change. None of them have any vested interest in doing so, so you can pretty much put it out of your mind. If this is a problem I would suggest moving somewhere else.

Some of you will, of course, raise the objection that some people are unable to move. I find it very unlikely that with the absurdly high cost of living in D.C. and the surrounding area that moving to a more rural area would be too terrible a blow, not to mention the drop in the crime rate and the desired representation being major benefits. Find an apartment in rural Virginia or Pennsylvania, rent a U-Haul, and get the hell out of Dodge.

16

[QUOTE=Apos]
No state is going to take DC: it has a high rate of urban poverty and would add a large new burden on the state taxes without adding much in the way of tax revenue.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, DC has a higher per-capita income than any of the states.

17

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Also, some of you are going to think that this is a dick thing to say, but I’m no stranger to controversy so what the hell.

If you move to D.C. you have no right to complain, any more than I have the right to demand that a train be rerouted because it makes too much noise even though I made the conscious decision to move to a home next to a railroad right-of-way. This is a law that dates back to 1789, and as such should not be much of a surprise to people. I understand that there is a right to bitch, because if I moved to, say, Maryland, I would certainly bitch about their gun laws with comparison to Pennsylvania, but I would also be cognizant of the fact that I did it to myself and I will not be able to change the law or the culture of Maryland so I should suck it up.

This law will not change, and without the approval of at least 37 other states can not change. None of them have any vested interest in doing so, so you can pretty much put it out of your mind. If this is a problem I would suggest moving somewhere else.

Some of you will, of course, raise the objection that some people are unable to move. I find it very unlikely that with the absurdly high cost of living in D.C. and the surrounding area that moving to a more rural area would be too terrible a blow, not to mention the drop in the crime rate and the desired representation being major benefits. Find an apartment in rural Virginia or Pennsylvania, rent a U-Haul, and get the hell out of Dodge.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not just a dick thing to say, it’s a stupid thing to say. Unless you’re an anarchist you believe we have to have a federal government. That Government requires people to support it, people to drive buses, wait tables, cut hair, maintain the roads, do the plumbing etc. It’s not that people are unable to move, it’s that the government needs them to function; The same government that turns around and disenfranchises those same people it depends on.

The train analogy doesn’t work, for fairly obvious reasons.

18

I would say that it was unwise to zone any part of DC for residential purposes. If everything in the 10-mile square official region were re-zoned for administrative, commercial, and recreational areas only, you wouldn’t have the problem of disenfranchised residents.

19

[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
It’s not just a dick thing to say, it’s a stupid thing to say. Unless you’re an anarchist you believe we have to have a federal government. That Government requires people to support it, people to drive buses, wait tables, cut hair, maintain the roads, do the plumbing etc. It’s not that people are unable to move, it’s that the government needs them to function; The same government that turns around and disenfranchises those same people it depends on.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, but there are a plethora of people willing to do such things that are willing to surrender representation to do so. If one is unwilling to do so they can get the same job elsewhere and have their representation. Someone who doesn’t care (comprising approximately 50% of the eligible voting public at any given time) will step right in and fill that spot.

20

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
I would say that it was unwise to zone any part of DC for residential purposes. If everything in the 10-mile square official region were re-zoned for administrative, commercial, and recreational areas only, you wouldn’t have the problem of disenfranchised residents.
[/QUOTE]

Certainly the most idiotic suggestion made so far. First of all, there aren’t enough administrative or commericial establishments to occupy all the built up areas in DC. (Are you are proposing the massive razing of existing residential infrastructure of a major American city, or just leaving it vacant?) Then of course you would have to build an enormous number of residential units in Maryland and Virginia to house all the people who work for government agencies, plus those who would transport them to work, serve them lunch, etc. Where, pray tell, are the many billions of dollars to undertake this massive rebuilding to come from?