This article missed some important factors that the CNN article included. It's not often I agree with Republicans, but ceding the land to Maryland seems to me both more logical and practical. DC...
This article missed some important factors that the CNN article included.
During House floor debate on the bill, Republican Rep. Gregory Murphy of North Carolina argued for Congress to cede the land back to Maryland instead of making DC its own state.
"The move is simply unnecessary when ceding DC back to Maryland is a viable, cost-effective and common sense option," Murphy said.
It's not often I agree with Republicans, but ceding the land to Maryland seems to me both more logical and practical. DC as a state would be kinda silly; sure it would have just the 3rd smallest population of US states, but it would be the smallest in land area by a factor of 22!
Of course; Demcorats oppose this solution in favour of statehood, since it would give them no new senators and at most one new house member.
(As a side note, it would be hilarious if this comes to pass (after Democrats take control of both the Senate and the presidency in January), and it starts a trend of adding new states and splitting existing ones into smaller states to cement a party's position in the Senate every time the political pendulum swings, until the US consists of hundreds of tiny states.)
To be fair this isn't unprecedented, the dakotas exist because the GOP of 1890 led the Senate and those Northern States would favor them. They also did the same thing with Nevada, as noted in the...
To be fair this isn't unprecedented, the dakotas exist because the GOP of 1890 led the Senate and those Northern States would favor them. They also did the same thing with Nevada, as noted in the article monkeypants posted. Also, the Senate is pretty inflexible, so if several of these states were added, the advantage would be practically permanent and basically force/require the GOP to moderate to win more states or to begin taking about dumping this absurd system.
It's not exactly what you're asking, but this was a really interesting article from the beginning of the year published in the Harvard Law Review that proposes admitting 127 neighborhoods in DC as...
It's interesting reading regardless and discusses a lot of related topics, and you could probably get deeper into it by following some of the relevant references/footnotes.
One of the most obvious effects is the electoral college would look more like the UK elections with a few dozen swing states each worth 3 or 4 electoral votes and with one or 2 house seats, which...
One of the most obvious effects is the electoral college would look more like the UK elections with a few dozen swing states each worth 3 or 4 electoral votes and with one or 2 house seats, which are now roughly equivalent compared to now. The seats may be less gerrymandered since there wouldn't be enough seats and political diversity within the states to do anything.
The senate would be more like the house, but more slow moving as intended, since there are so many more members.
I was thinking today this exact point, equal representation. I would like to see that applied to political parties. Your representation in any government body would be limited proportionally to...
I was thinking today this exact point, equal representation. I would like to see that applied to political parties. Your representation in any government body would be limited proportionally to the percentage of the population that are active members in the party as most people have no such membership and are therefore not being represented at all.
Why didn't they try Puerto Rico first? There are historical reasons for why DC was not a state, while there are none for Puerto Rico. I might not have enough context, but Puerto Rico seems like a...
Why didn't they try Puerto Rico first?
There are historical reasons for why DC was not a state, while there are none for Puerto Rico. I might not have enough context, but Puerto Rico seems like a relatively easy case for statehood, and even more people there don't have proper representation. It seems like posturing to me since Democrat's knew this would happen, so they decided to go for a lost cause instead of something with a chance.
From the CNN article: I assume the (non-voting) representative from DC introduces bills like this now and then. The (non-voting) representative from Puerto Rico filed a similar bill for her...
The bill, introduced by DC's nonvoting House member, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, would shrink the federal capital to a small area encompassing the White House, Capitol building, Supreme Court, and other federal buildings along the National Mall. The rest of the city would become the 51st state, named the Washington, Douglass Commonwealth after abolitionist Frederick Douglass.
I assume the (non-voting) representative from DC introduces bills like this now and then. The (non-voting) representative from Puerto Rico filed a similar bill for her territory in 2018.
The situation is a bit more unclear in Puerto Rico though. They held a referendum in 2017 where only 23% of the population showed up to vote, due to a boycott led by the pro-status-quo party. That's probably why the Democrat-controlled House didn't pick up the bill.
It is dead in the senate like all the dem bills the past 8? years. of course they wouldn't want a majority democrat new state that would get 2 more senators
It is dead in the senate like all the dem bills the past 8? years.
of course they wouldn't want a majority democrat new state that would get 2 more senators
State rights... as long as it's Republican run, which D.C. would not be.
This article missed some important factors that the CNN article included.
It's not often I agree with Republicans, but ceding the land to Maryland seems to me both more logical and practical. DC as a state would be kinda silly; sure it would have just the 3rd smallest population of US states, but it would be the smallest in land area by a factor of 22!
Of course; Demcorats oppose this solution in favour of statehood, since it would give them no new senators and at most one new house member.
(As a side note, it would be hilarious if this comes to pass (after Democrats take control of both the Senate and the presidency in January), and it starts a trend of adding new states and splitting existing ones into smaller states to cement a party's position in the Senate every time the political pendulum swings, until the US consists of hundreds of tiny states.)
To be fair this isn't unprecedented, the dakotas exist because the GOP of 1890 led the Senate and those Northern States would favor them. They also did the same thing with Nevada, as noted in the article monkeypants posted. Also, the Senate is pretty inflexible, so if several of these states were added, the advantage would be practically permanent and basically force/require the GOP to moderate to win more states or to begin taking about dumping this absurd system.
It's not exactly what you're asking, but this was a really interesting article from the beginning of the year published in the Harvard Law Review that proposes admitting 127 neighborhoods in DC as tiny new states: Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation
It's interesting reading regardless and discusses a lot of related topics, and you could probably get deeper into it by following some of the relevant references/footnotes.
One of the most obvious effects is the electoral college would look more like the UK elections with a few dozen swing states each worth 3 or 4 electoral votes and with one or 2 house seats, which are now roughly equivalent compared to now. The seats may be less gerrymandered since there wouldn't be enough seats and political diversity within the states to do anything.
The senate would be more like the house, but more slow moving as intended, since there are so many more members.
I was thinking today this exact point, equal representation. I would like to see that applied to political parties. Your representation in any government body would be limited proportionally to the percentage of the population that are active members in the party as most people have no such membership and are therefore not being represented at all.
See also The 53-State Solution - The Case for New States
Why didn't they try Puerto Rico first?
There are historical reasons for why DC was not a state, while there are none for Puerto Rico. I might not have enough context, but Puerto Rico seems like a relatively easy case for statehood, and even more people there don't have proper representation. It seems like posturing to me since Democrat's knew this would happen, so they decided to go for a lost cause instead of something with a chance.
From the CNN article:
I assume the (non-voting) representative from DC introduces bills like this now and then. The (non-voting) representative from Puerto Rico filed a similar bill for her territory in 2018.
The situation is a bit more unclear in Puerto Rico though. They held a referendum in 2017 where only 23% of the population showed up to vote, due to a boycott led by the pro-status-quo party. That's probably why the Democrat-controlled House didn't pick up the bill.
It is dead in the senate like all the dem bills the past 8? years.
of course they wouldn't want a majority democrat new state that would get 2 more senators