Make DC a state?

[Luxenermy]

There's a technical problem: to give them House representation they have to be part of a District. Maryland (or any state) can't extend a district or make a new district that isn't in Maryland.

Also the Statehood advocates here will not accept House representation without Senate representation. I'd take it if I were them, but I live rather far away so

Ah, I think you misunderstood me a bit. DC would still get to vote on Senators, just, Maryland's Senators, or whichever state they've been citizen of for 5 years of more (of their choosing if their are several).

Although, you are right there isn't any previous basis for this, DC is in a pretty unique position. Maybe some special ruling could be in made in case? I understand that's highly unlikely, but it feels like it might be a decent middleground.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I think they should at the very least get a full voting representative in the House. Permanently increase the size of the house by one

I think they have one or two non-voting reps? No-one will take their rep seriously if they don't have votes though.

[Australian rePublic]

It's telling that you seem to not know the difference between the ACT and DC, one of which has voting representation in the federal government while the other does not. It's more telling that you don't seem to know that DC and the new state would become separate things. DC, the US capital, would stay a federal territory while the rest of the distract would become a new state.

The idea that the capital can't be actually in and part of a state seems a bit antiquated to me. Like Maryland is going to lay seige to DC when Maryland has the state militia and DC has the US Armed Forces?

It's not antiquated. Can you imagine the unfair advantage that New York state would have New York City was the federal capital of the USA? Or the unfair advantage that Texas would have if Dallas was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Illinois would have if Chicargo was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Alabama would have if Mobile was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Florida would have if Miami was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Georgia would have if Athens was the federal capital? Moving over to our side of the Pacific, can you imagine the unfair advantage that Victoria would have if Geelomg was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that NSW would have if Newcastle was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that WA would have if Broome was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that SA would have if Port Lincoln was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that TAS would have if Launceston was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that QLD would have if Townsville was the federal capital? All of those would be conflicts of interest. That's especially the case in the USA where state identity has a greater importance than national identity compared to Australia. Locating a federal capital in a state is a terrible idea

[Kannap]

Honestly, we should've just given all the territories statehood ages ago. That or independence, let them decide.

The Senate seems to be doing what it was intended to: represent the collective interest of all States. All current States.

Some states might take a generous attitude, but some will certainly resent having their Senate power diluted by adding a State.

And it will continue to represent the collective interest of all States, all current states, when you add more states. Or did Senate stop representing the collective interest of all the states all those times we added states in the past?

The Senate must've stopped representing the collective interest of all the states when it added North Carolina's and Rhode Island's Senators in 1789 and 1790, bumping the original number of Senators (22) to its new number (26)

[San Lumen]

I think they should at the very least get a full voting representative in the House. Permanently increase the size of the house by one

I think they have one or two non-voting reps? No-one will take their rep seriously if they don't have votes though.

That’s what i said. They currently have a delegate but they cannot vote.

[San Lumen]

The idea that the capital can't be actually in and part of a state seems a bit antiquated to me. Like Maryland is going to lay seige to DC when Maryland has the state militia and DC has the US Armed Forces?

It's not antiquated. Can you imagine the unfair advantage that New York state would have New York City was the federal capital of the USA? Or the unfair advantage that Texas would have if Dallas was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Illinois would have if Chicargo was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Alabama would have if Mobile was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Florida would have if Miami was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Georgia would have if Athens was the federal capital? Moving over to our side of the Pacific, can you imagine the unfair advantage that Victoria would have if Geelomg was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that NSW would have if Newcastle was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that WA would have if Broome was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that SA would have if Port Lincoln was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that TAS would have if Launceston was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that QLD would have if Townsville was the federal capital? All of those would be conflicts of interest. That's especially the case in the USA where state identity has a greater importance than national identity compared to Australia. Locating a federal capital in a state is a terrible idea

Where does this notion of a unfair advantage come from?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

There's a technical problem: to give them House representation they have to be part of a District. Maryland (or any state) can't extend a district or make a new district that isn't in Maryland.

Also the Statehood advocates here will not accept House representation without Senate representation. I'd take it if I were them, but I live rather far away so

Ah, I think you misunderstood me a bit. DC would still get to vote on Senators, just, Maryland's Senators, or whichever state they've been citizen of for 5 years of more (of their choosing if their are several).

Although, you are right there isn't any previous basis for this, DC is in a pretty unique position. Maybe some special ruling could be in made in case? I understand that's highly unlikely, but it feels like it might be a decent middleground.

Ah. It would be good for those who have lived in a State for (the qualifying time for that state) tho some DC people probably haven't lived anywhere else ever.

What's interesting is that other states could recognize "living in DC" as different from "living in another State or overseas" and thus could leave the person on their voter roll indefinitely, at least until that voter informs them the voter is now resident in an actual state. This would be a matter of state law, and rather easy I imagine.

It would give at least some DC voters full voting rights. And I can't see any downsides not covered by "if a state doesn't want more voters, they don't need to take them".

[Thermodolia]

I think they should at the very least get a full voting representative in the House. Permanently increase the size of the house by one

That’s what I’m saying. Increase the House of Representatives by one for all populated territories. That way they’ll get some representation

[San Lumen]

I think they should at the very least get a full voting representative in the House. Permanently increase the size of the house by one

That’s what I’m saying. Increase the House of Representatives by one for all populated territories. That way they’ll get some representation

I think that is an excellent idea

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The idea that the capital can't be actually in and part of a state seems a bit antiquated to me. Like Maryland is going to lay seige to DC when Maryland has the state militia and DC has the US Armed Forces?

It's not antiquated. Can you imagine the unfair advantage that New York state would have New York City was the federal capital of the USA? Or the unfair advantage that Texas would have if Dallas was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Illinois would have if Chicargo was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Alabama would have if Mobile was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Florida would have if Miami was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Georgia would have if Athens was the federal capital? Moving over to our side of the Pacific, can you imagine the unfair advantage that Victoria would have if Geelomg was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that NSW would have if Newcastle was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that WA would have if Broome was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that SA would have if Port Lincoln was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that TAS would have if Launceston was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that QLD would have if Townsville was the federal capital? All of those would be conflicts of interest. That's especially the case in the USA where state identity has a greater importance than national identity compared to Australia. Locating a federal capital in a state is a terrible idea

I'd be OK with giving an "unfair" advantage to DC. Anything outside the Federal precinct is a bit crap I've heard. It could use some sprucing up.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I think they should at the very least get a full voting representative in the House. Permanently increase the size of the house by one

That’s what I’m saying. Increase the House of Representatives by one for all populated territories. That way they’ll get some representation

Why not do what Australia does, and let them vote as part of the nearest State? (In our case, nearest Territory)

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Also, there's no need to permanently increase the size of the House. You do what they did when Hawaii was admitted: temporarily increase the size of the House by however many districts will be there. Then after the next Census you go back to the old number before apportioning them.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

That’s what I’m saying. Increase the House of Representatives by one for all populated territories. That way they’ll get some representation

I think that is an excellent idea

Um, have you checked the population of the territories? I think some are quite small, you might be creating Wyoming on steroids in the House.

[Thermodolia]

I think that is an excellent idea

Um, have you checked the population of the territories? I think some are quite small, you might be creating Wyoming on steroids in the House.

And? No taxation without representation isn’t just some catchy phrase

[Thermodolia]

Also, there's no need to permanently increase the size of the House. You do what they did when Hawaii was admitted: temporarily increase the size of the House by however many districts will be there. Then after the next Census you go back to the old number before apportioning them.

Or you just repeal that stupid bill

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The Senate seems to be doing what it was intended to: represent the collective interest of all States. All current States.

Some states might take a generous attitude, but some will certainly resent having their Senate power diluted by adding a State.

And it will continue to represent the collective interest of all States, all current states, when you add more states. Or did Senate stop representing the collective interest of all the states all those times we added states in the past?

The Senate must've stopped representing the collective interest of all the states when it added North Carolina's and Rhode Island's Senators in 1789 and 1790, bumping the original number of Senators (22) to its new number (26)

It's possible. I'm pointing out a factor against Senators agreeing to admit, and even with a Democrat majority in House and Senate it will likely only need to sway one or two of the Democrat Senators. Because you can count on every Republican opposing.

DC is very blue, while a lot of the states admitted before weren't so involved in US politics that their allegiance to one party or the other could be assured. It's been 60 years since Hawaii was admitted, and it was under Eisenhower. The political mood has changed. EVERYTHING is political now. And the "state" you want to admit means two new DEMOCRAT senators for a long time to come.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Also, there's no need to permanently increase the size of the House. You do what they did when Hawaii was admitted: temporarily increase the size of the House by however many districts will be there. Then after the next Census you go back to the old number before apportioning them.

Or you just repeal that stupid bill

I don't have any problem with increasing the size of the House. I just don't see a good reason to add that burden to this one.

"Two birds with one stone" tends to result in no birds, in politics.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Um, have you checked the population of the territories? I think some are quite small, you might be creating Wyoming on steroids in the House.

And? No taxation without representation isn’t just some catchy phrase

I said they could vote. All that's necessary is for the nearest state to put them on the roll. Well if they're US citizens of course.

Guam 168,485
U.S. Virgin Islands 106,235
Northern Mariana Islands 51,433
American Samoa 49,437

US average district size: 710,767

An American Samoan's vote would be worth 14 times as much as yours.

You can have this, if you promise never to mention the gerrymander again!

[Heloin]

And? No taxation without representation isn’t just some catchy phrase

I said they could vote. All that's necessary is for the nearest state to put them on the roll. Well if they're US citizens of course.

Guam 168,485
U.S. Virgin Islands 106,235
Northern Mariana Islands 51,433
American Samoa 49,437

US average district size: 710,767

An American Samoan's vote would be worth 14 times as much as yours.

You can have this, if you promise never to mention the gerrymander again!

Give them representation and increase the number of Representatives to roughly equalise this across the rest of the country.

[Brinckerhoff]

I'm OK with it. Not a high priority. American citizens in Puerto Rico have "some barriers to voting" also!

--Bingo; the territories are the more pressing issue. Back in the 1900's, PR was subject to Federal regulations, including the minimum wage. As it's smack next to and kinda interchangeable with Dominica economically, this depressed the formal economy. This was balanced by not having to pay federal income taxes.

--Then came the anti-Vieques movement. Without Vieques, half the USMC has to travel from the East Coast to the Pacific to train for contested amphibious landings, its primary mission (and one which they both lack recent experience doing (70 years since the last one) but is an increasing important need in the face of PRC imperialism). This costs a lot of money, so the tax-free privilege was traded away for NIMBY. There, the troubles began.

--Semiterritory doesn't work for PR, and therefore the nation as a whole. Statehood is the best next step; however, the balance issue is paramount. States are admitted in pairs naturally (see 48->50), and in divisive times, simultaneously. Fortunately, PR is not the USA's only territory. There are also many smaller Caribbean islands, and extensive archipelagos in Oceania. The combined populations in each area are sufficient to lodge each of them into the existing range of population-per-state. PR is veering Democrat, thanks mainly to King Snowflake's incompetence, but the rest of the American islands incline Republican, thanks mainly to that party's Rural-Opportunity-via-Resource-Exploitation plank.

--So, I propose every island takes a plebiscite: 'Caribbean State & Pacific State are going to happen. First chance, last chance: is your island in the new State, or down for permanent territorial status unless said new State is so kind as to let you in later?'

--There is one new and therefore wholly unconsidered obstacle, though: the Marianas have special status as to immigration. Basically, because of the fishing industry, there's a whole different and rather more liberal temporary work visa system. This has insulated them from DJ T's wild swings on immigration.* However, the Supreme Court has recently issued a ruling overturning discriminatory Federal laws which target some states but not others.** This may make territories dependent on exceptions hesitate to risk shooting themselves in the foot.

*The Ignoramus-in-Chief can't remember that they both exist and are the epicenter of PRC birth tourism -- fly to the USA in the last week of pregnancy (or other citizenship-by-territory-of-birth country) and pop out a kid, get the paperwork and fly back. This is self-evidently problematic ten ways to Sunday.

**As in sports-betting-only-in-Nevada and Civil-Rights-Only-In-Dixie. Anything Yankees do to marginalize minorities was somehow seen unproblematic in '65. I'm an otherwise-proud life-long New Yorker, ashamed that my state "celebrates diversity" by having the most skin-color-apartheid schools in the Union.

[Kannap]

Also, there's no need to permanently increase the size of the House. You do what they did when Hawaii was admitted: temporarily increase the size of the House by however many districts will be there. Then after the next Census you go back to the old number before apportioning them.

It would be nice to see the house enlarged though

[Thermodolia]

And? No taxation without representation isn’t just some catchy phrase

I said they could vote. All that's necessary is for the nearest state to put them on the roll. Well if they're US citizens of course.

Guam 168,485
U.S. Virgin Islands 106,235
Northern Mariana Islands 51,433
American Samoa 49,437

US average district size: 710,767

An American Samoan's vote would be worth 14 times as much as yours.

You can have this, if you promise never to mention the gerrymander again!

And? I really don’t give a shit if someone else’s vote is worth more or not. And I don’t really mention anything about gerrymandering because I’m for systems where it doesn’t even exist

[Chan Island]

And? No taxation without representation isn’t just some catchy phrase

I said they could vote. All that's necessary is for the nearest state to put them on the roll. Well if they're US citizens of course.

Guam 168,485
U.S. Virgin Islands 106,235
Northern Mariana Islands 51,433
American Samoa 49,437

US average district size: 710,767

An American Samoan's vote would be worth 14 times as much as yours.

You can have this, if you promise never to mention the gerrymander again!

Personally I'd roll up Guam, the Mariana islands and American Samoa as either a combined Pacific state or join them up with Hawaii. Meanwhile the Virgin Islands join up with Puerto Rico and then then have them combined join as a state.

Also, what does this have to do with gerrymander? Except as a cheap shot to distract from the fact that hundreds of thousands of American citizens, living in American land, under American law, have no say in how those laws are made?

The idea that the capital can't be actually in and part of a state seems a bit antiquated to me. Like Maryland is going to lay seige to DC when Maryland has the state militia and DC has the US Armed Forces?

It's not antiquated. Can you imagine the unfair advantage that New York state would have New York City was the federal capital of the USA? Or the unfair advantage that Texas would have if Dallas was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Illinois would have if Chicargo was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Alabama would have if Mobile was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Florida would have if Miami was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that Georgia would have if Athens was the federal capital? Moving over to our side of the Pacific, can you imagine the unfair advantage that Victoria would have if Geelomg was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that NSW would have if Newcastle was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that WA would have if Broome was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that SA would have if Port Lincoln was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that TAS would have if Launceston was the federal capital? Or the unfair advantage that QLD would have if Townsville was the federal capital? All of those would be conflicts of interest. That's especially the case in the USA where state identity has a greater importance than national identity compared to Australia. Locating a federal capital in a state is a terrible idea

Oh geez, somebody should tell the Germans that Berlin is getting an unfair advantage for being the federal capital and a state. The horror.

In the US that'd be Statehood.


Retrocession is not an option that's possible. DC don't want it, Maryland would refuse, and Virginia won't take them either. Trying to give the US territories powers Similar to US states would be giving them statehood, and would turn several places a population of zero Senators. The process in place for the representation DC wants is statehood. Because they're not of a similar situation to other US territories that exist now the only options available are statehood or status quo.


I hate people who vote differently from me isn't a good enough reason to keep people from being their own state.

But I that is not my argument. My argument DC as a state distorts congress more than it already is. Further historical precedent is on returning DC land to the state that donated it and not giving it statehood.

The idea of giving the territory back to Maryland has been pretty thoroughly shot down in this thread, and the over 500k American citizens living in the area overwhelmingly back their district becoming a state.

Just a curiosity though, what precedent are you exactly talking about?

[Thermodolia]

I said they could vote. All that's necessary is for the nearest state to put them on the roll. Well if they're US citizens of course.

Guam 168,485
U.S. Virgin Islands 106,235
Northern Mariana Islands 51,433
American Samoa 49,437

US average district size: 710,767

An American Samoan's vote would be worth 14 times as much as yours.

You can have this, if you promise never to mention the gerrymander again!

Give them representation and increase the number of Representatives to roughly equalise this across the rest of the country.

Increase the House to 600 representatives. Expand the Senate to 300 and add 10 more states.

5 senators per state elected by STV, the House is elected by MMP with 300 list seats and 300 districts seats. Each state and territory gets one representative each so the remaining district seats are divided among the states.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I said they could vote. All that's necessary is for the nearest state to put them on the roll. Well if they're US citizens of course.

Guam 168,485
U.S. Virgin Islands 106,235
Northern Mariana Islands 51,433
American Samoa 49,437

US average district size: 710,767

An American Samoan's vote would be worth 14 times as much as yours.

You can have this, if you promise never to mention the gerrymander again!

Give them representation and increase the number of Representatives to roughly equalise this across the rest of the country.

I'm for increasing the size of the House, but not by 14 times.

Let's make them all one district. All being islands in the Pacific, they have a lot in common. We'll have to make them all citizens too.

That's 350,000 or so. I can live with that being the new district size and apportion accordingly. The US House doubles in size, everyone in the Pacific has representation (at least in the House) and we have ---

Wait. Puerto Rico wants a word. Full statehood, 6 districts or so and 2 Senators, that's 8 Electoral College votes.

I give you the Pacific District, you give me Puerto Rico State ... and we have a deal.