Washington DC Statehood Poll and other polls

[vcczar 1,224]

New poll

[admin_270 834]

Just read up on the reasoning behind D.C. not being a state.

https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/

Madison argued 

“The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it… Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

Sounds right to me. The issue of how Senators are allocated is a broader problem. If it got 2 Senators, it would go from having under-representation in the Senate to have over-representation, on a per capita basis. Either is in some sense unfair. Basically, if someone decides to live in D.C., I think having an exceptional arrangement in terms of the polity is part of the bargain, and the lack of Senators is a minor issue. Want to have Senators? Move to VA.

[vcczar 1,224]

7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Just read up on the reasoning behind D.C. not being a state.

https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/

Madison argued 

“The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it… Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

Sounds right to me. The issue of how Senators are allocated is a broader problem. If it got 2 Senators, it would go from having under-representation in the Senate to have over-representation, on a per capita basis. Either is in some sense unfair. Basically, if someone decides to live in D.C., I think having an exceptional arrangement in terms of the polity is part of the bargain, and the lack of Senators is a minor issue. Want to have Senators? Move to VA.

I can see this argument. I think Senators should be proportional to population like the US House, but probably on a different scale. Perhaps the state's population as a % of the national population with the guarantee of 1 Senator (to be subtracted from the most populated states if it causes more than 100 Senators). DC, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming would get like 1 US Senator. California would have 12 US Senators, but because of the previous rule that I meantion, it would be far less. 11 states would have to be granted 1 US Senator out of pity. So the top 5 states or something would have to lose like 2 US Senators or something to allow them to have 1. California would have 10 US Senators, Texas would have 6 US Senators. Florida 4, NY, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI with 3. THe rest with 2 or 1. This would prevent overrepresentation by DC and other overrepresented states like Wyoming and Vermont that have fewer people than DC. Land shouldn't vote, people should. The Senate (for small state representation) was a compromise for 1787 just to get a Federal government going. I'm sure some people would be kicking and screaming, but we wouldn't see secession or violence if it were replaced. In a couple of decades it would be normalized and few people would complain, I think. 

[Actinguy 862]

22 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Just read up on the reasoning behind D.C. not being a state.

https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/

Madison argued 

“The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it… Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

Sounds right to me. The issue of how Senators are allocated is a broader problem. If it got 2 Senators, it would go from having under-representation in the Senate to have over-representation, on a per capita basis. Either is in some sense unfair. Basically, if someone decides to live in D.C., I think having an exceptional arrangement in terms of the polity is part of the bargain, and the lack of Senators is a minor issue. Want to have Senators? Move to VA.

I used to work in DC and lived to Maryland.

In my mind, despite considering myself to be a Democrat in this Trump world, there is no logical justification to making Washington DC it's own state.  It's just a blue power grab.

I could see giving them a House Representative with full Rep powers, but not the Senators.

[Actinguy 862]

I enjoyed the Patine options.  

For ideology, I went with Moderate Democrat because even though I still hold certain Republican ideals, I can't find any actual Republican politicians who share them anymore.  The party has completely sold their soul and I can't see myself ever backing a Republican again.

Even if I find an individual Republican that I like again, it's still safer to vote for a Democrat I don't agree with, because I can be assured that the Democrat will fight against Trump and Trump's successors.

[Patine 468]

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Just read up on the reasoning behind D.C. not being a state.

https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/

Madison argued 

“The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it… Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

Sounds right to me. The issue of how Senators are allocated is a broader problem. If it got 2 Senators, it would go from having under-representation in the Senate to have over-representation, on a per capita basis. Either is in some sense unfair. Basically, if someone decides to live in D.C., I think having an exceptional arrangement in terms of the polity is part of the bargain, and the lack of Senators is a minor issue. Want to have Senators? Move to VA.

Madison argued a lot of things that seemed to make sense in his day, when the U.S. Constitution was novel and revolutionary document globally, but are now anachronistic impediments on the United States and it's governance in a modern world and are leading to areas of it lagging behind other First World Nations, with one of the five electoral and partisan systems in the First World with least real electoral choice and, thus, accountability and transparency, and one of the highest rates of corruption, abuse of government power, and de facto lack of respect for human rights and judicial and labour equality in the First World, and the greatest wealth disparity in the First World - so bad, in fact, that even the total GDP of the nation is the highest in the world, and the mathematically divided GDP per capita is one of the 10 highest, the vast majority of Americans live, by income, living standards, realistic opportunities in life, etc, as though they effectively lived in a country where the GDP and GDP per capita were significantly lower (note, before I'm attacked, I qualified all of these low standings as being among FIRST WORLD NATIONS - I didn't even once attempt to compare the U.S. in any of these ways to THIRD WORLD NATIONS - just so we're clear).

And, I didn't choose the "Other, *for Patine*" option on numbers 1 and 3, actually, and my answer on 2 would be one of the standard choices with a simple qualifier - that is, becoming a State would be fine, as long as full, national independence be offered as a full and clear option for the Puerto Rican people first.

[Reagan04 658]

The city portions of DC should be put in MD. The only parts that should remain in what is considered "DC" is the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court building. Essentially, carve out a portion of Ward 2 to keep it an independent district but give the people that reside in the city representation in Maryland. Similar to when Virginia annexed back Alexandria and Arlington from DC, we can just shrink the district again.

Also I really couldn't tick any of those ideology boxes, I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian and I'm Anti-Trump.

[admin_270 834]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think Senators should be proportional to population like the US House, but probably on a different scale.

I don't understand what the point of the Senate is if that's the case. It's just another House. Better to just get rid of the Senate altogether, IMHO.

[vcczar 1,224]

9 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I don't understand what the point of the Senate is if that's the case. It's just another House. Better to just get rid of the Senate altogether, IMHO.

Yeah, that would be better.

[Patine 468]

1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

The city portions of DC should be put in MD. The only parts that should remain in what is considered "DC" is the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court building. Essentially, carve out a portion of Ward 2 to keep it an independent district but give the people that reside in the city representation in Maryland. Similar to when Virginia annexed back Alexandria and Arlington from DC, we can just shrink the district again.

Also I really couldn't tick any of those ideology boxes, I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian and I'm Anti-Trump.

I will admit that, while the capital of a nation with a Federal style of national-regional government Constitutional system as an integral part of one member Federal subdivision has always worked well in Canada (Ottawa is legally a city and municipality of Ontario for all administrative purposes), it seems to be unique here among nations with a Federal system, and I'm not sure it would really work as well in the political environment of the U.S.

[SilentLiberty 219]

52 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, that would be better.

How? Sounds like a way to eliminate a whole part of the government, when it seems to have worked just fine thus far.

[Patine 468]

2 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

How? Sounds like a way to eliminate a whole part of the government, when it seems to have worked just fine thus far.

Yes, because one of gridlock's biggest tools - filibusters - really help legislation that's needed to get the country moving and taking care of necessary affairs being constantly blocked up and foiled by being used at every single damned vote now.

[vcczar 1,224]

1 minute ago, SilentLiberty said:

How? Sounds like a way to eliminate a whole part of the government, when it seems to have worked just fine thus far.

People from sparsely populated states wouldn't overinfluence legislation. A person in Wyoming has like 30x the influence of someone from California in the Senate. Abolish the Senate and make every American equal. Equality is the key to American. People vote; land does not vote. I also wouldn't say it's worked out fine. Our history has a lot of darkness, mostly caused by social theocratic-nationalistic conservatives and pro-war/pro-CIA intervention foreign policy conservatives.

[Actinguy 862]

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

pro-war/pro-CIA intervention foreign policy conservatives.

;c)

[Patine 468]

3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

;c)

You made the mistake of publicly and proudly putting yourself in this photo - so to speak - when you introduced yourself on this forum.

[Actinguy 862]

Just now, Patine said:

You made the mistake of publicly putting yourself in this photo - so to speak - when you introduced yourself on this forum.

Oh, I was here with this username at least as far back as 2007.  We just didn’t actually talk about politics here back then.

[admin_270 834]

9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

People vote; land does not vote

Well, the idea is that States have interests, no? States have land, but they're not the same thing. The people of a State appoint the Senators, not land.

[Actinguy 862]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

You made the mistake of publicly and proudly putting yourself in this photo - so to speak - when you introduced yourself on this forum.

Ha, I just looked it up — you and I joined this forum exactly one week apart from each other.  Awww, practically twinsies!

[Patine 468]

4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Oh, I was here with this username at least as far back as 2007.  We just didn’t actually talk about politics here back then.

You also said to next to nothing about yourself then. Then there was the "Who Are You People," by @SilentLiberty or @TheMiddlePolitical or - I can't remember the thread starter, but it was started -  thread for RL introductions, and the an older iteration of greatest U.S. Presidents by @vcczar , and that was the "introduction," I refer to.

[vcczar 1,224]

3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Well, the idea is that States have interests, no? States have land, but they're not the same thing. The people of a State appoint the Senators, not land.

States interests can be done in the US House; No US Senate is necessary. No reason why Wyoming's interests should get tens of times more influence than California's when more Americans like in California. That's inequality. 

Wyoming's land--or borders rather---determines their two senators, and not their people since Senators aren't bound by population. This is what I mean by land votes in the US Senate. It leads to overrepresentation, just as with DC, if they got statehood. 

[admin_270 834]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This is what I mean by land votes in the US Senate.

Ya, but it's not the *land*. It's the State. States with very little land have just as many Senators as States with lots of land.

[admin_270 834]

Basically, it seems you're arguing that States in themselves ought not to matter very much in influencing Federal policy. Totally coherent view, but it's not *land*.

[Patine 468]

Just now, admin_270 said:

Basically, it seems you're arguing that States in themselves ought not to matter very much in influencing Federal policy. Totally coherent view, but it's not *land*.

I think you're arguing for the political status quo because if it did get seriously reformed, you'd have to completely remake your American game engines.

[admin_270 834]

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

I think you're arguing for the political status quo because if it did get seriously reformed, you'd have to completely remake your American game engines.

Busted. 

[Actinguy 862]

26 minutes ago, Patine said:

You also said to next to nothing about yourself then. Then there was the "Who Are You People," by @SilentLiberty or @TheMiddlePolitical or - I can't remember the thread starter, but it was started -  thread for RL introductions, and the an older iteration of greatest U.S. Presidents by @vcczar , and that was the "introduction," I refer to.

Ha.  Now I wonder what I said.