Making Washington DC a State

[Milchshake]

Sen. Tom Carper has reintroduced S. 51, The Washington D.C. Admission Act, to make D.C. the 51st state.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...e-bill/51/text

This bill has been endorsed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and Rep. Eleanor Norton. Stacy Abrams reminds us, it's about equal representation.

• Wyoming has 578,000 people, is and has 2 senators.
• DC has 705,000 people, and has 0 senators.

US Senate deeply undemocratic and deeply unrepresentative:

• Split 50-50, those 50 Dems represent 41 million more people
• 15 states with 38 million people elect 30 GOP senators
• California with 40 million people elects 2 senators

By 2040:

• 30% of US will elect 70 senators
• 70% of US will elect 30 senators

[Kryctos]

Sen. Tom Carper has reintroduced S. 51, The Washington D.C. Admission Act, to make D.C. the 51st state.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...e-bill/51/text

This bill has been endorsed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and Rep. Eleanor Norton. Stacy Abrams reminds us, it's about equal representation.

• Wyoming has 578,000 people, is and has 2 senators.
• DC has 705,000 people, and has 0 senators.

US Senate deeply undemocratic and deeply unrepresentative:

• Split 50-50, those 50 Dems represent 41 million more people
• 15 states with 38 million people elect 30 GOP senators
• California with 40 million people elects 2 senators

By 2040:

• 30% of US will elect 70 senators
• 70% of US will elect 30 senators

Its the democrats fault for not moving to rural red states and gentrifying the republicans out. /s

[Edge-]

Its the democrats fault for not moving to rural red states and gentrifying the republicans out. /s

No joke, I've long been toying with a functional population redistribution method that would keep majorities in the populous blue states while shifting enough folks out of them to flip a bunch of red states.

The numbers are there, it's just never going to happen.

On topic: Yes, they are taxed without representation and we literally went to war over that shit.

Though I disagree with the analysis of Senators based on how many people they rep. That's not the point of the Senate, and it never has been. That's for the House, which desperately needs to uncap the number of members so that populous states are proportionally represented and smaller states aren't grossly overrepresented.

[Machismo]

There is no good reason keep DC from being a state. They have enough people, they pay their taxes, and they are simply not being properly represented at the federal level.

Anyone who doesn't want this, is just trying to suppress voters so their side can win... or they don't like black people.

I'll let them decide.

[Jonnusthegreat]

As mentioned, the Senate is not supposed to represent the population, it's meant to represent the states. The Senate is fine in its original goal.

However, I firmly believe that if a US territory wants to become a state, it should be allowed to become a state. The issue is that DC was specifically made to NOT be a state - it could have been a state and it was decided that it shouldn't be. Not sure what the initial reasoning for that was.

[bladeXcrasher]

Don't know why you would talk about DC and not talk about Puerto Rico. Like mentioned above, DC was specifically not included nor ever intended to be represented in the Senate. I'm sure it would be much harder to get DC congressional representation than it would to get representation for PR.

[cubby]

Sen. Tom Carper has reintroduced S. 51, The Washington D.C. Admission Act, to make D.C. the 51st state.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...e-bill/51/text

This bill has been endorsed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and Rep. Eleanor Norton. Stacy Abrams reminds us, it's about equal representation.

• Wyoming has 578,000 people, is and has 2 senators.
• DC has 705,000 people, and has 0 senators.

US Senate deeply undemocratic and deeply unrepresentative:

• Split 50-50, those 50 Dems represent 41 million more people
• 15 states with 38 million people elect 30 GOP senators
• California with 40 million people elects 2 senators

By 2040:

• 30% of US will elect 70 senators
• 70% of US will elect 30 senators

We should do it if only for the taxation without representation reason. McConnell and the GOP will be forever against it because both D.C. Senators will be Dems, which will make the whole proposition difficult. Every part of doing it, however, sides with the Democrats - so "selling it" should be simple. We'll see how Manchin goes with this.

Have we seen any arguments against this yet?

- - - Updated - - -

Don't know why you would talk about DC and not talk about Puerto Rico. Like mentioned above, DC was specifically not included nor ever intended to be represented in the Senate. I'm sure it would be much harder to get DC congressional representation than it would to get representation for PR.

Are you talking historically? Like from 200 years ago? I agree about Puerto Rico though - they should also be on the statehood block.

[Machismo]

Don't know why you would talk about DC and not talk about Puerto Rico. Like mentioned above, DC was specifically not included nor ever intended to be represented in the Senate. I'm sure it would be much harder to get DC congressional representation than it would to get representation for PR.

DC is an easier sell, because it's contiguous land. It's also something people have more ties with, than Puerto Rico. I'm all for PR becoming a state, as well, but I think there's a larger contingent of people who simply don't consider them "American" enough.

We just call them racists.

[bladeXcrasher]

DC is an easier sell, because it's contiguous land. It's also something people have more ties with, than Puerto Rico. I'm all for PR becoming a state, as well, but I think there's a larger contingent of people who simply don't consider them "American" enough.

We just call them racists.

Same taxation without representation arguement can be made for both, but as you said, there is ~30% of the US that doesn't think they are "American" enough.

- - - Updated - - -

We should do it if only for the taxation without representation reason. McConnell and the GOP will be forever against it because both D.C. Senators will be Dems, which will make the whole proposition difficult. Every part of doing it, however, sides with the Democrats - so "selling it" should be simple. We'll see how Manchin goes with this.

Have we seen any arguments against this yet?

- - - Updated - - -



Are you talking historically? Like from 200 years ago? I agree about Puerto Rico though - they should also be on the statehood block.

Yes, the historical argument, because we all know that's going to be the GOP talking point.

[Edge-]

Same taxation without representation arguement can be made for both, but as you said, there is ~30% of the US that doesn't think they are "American" enough.

Until recently, there wasn't much support domestically for that in PR. And IIRC one of the more recent votes (not the most recent) in support of it was pretty sketchy/bad.

If they vote for it, they should get it. But only if they actually want it. The same should be extended to all US territories including the American Samoa etc.

[cubby]

Yes, the historical argument, because we all know that's going to be the GOP talking point.

Lol, good point.

What are the arguments against D.C. statehood?

- - - Updated - - -

Until recently, there wasn't much support domestically for that in PR. And IIRC one of the more recent votes (not the most recent) in support of it was pretty sketchy/bad.

If they vote for it, they should get it. But only if they actually want it. The same should be extended to all US territories including the American Samoa etc.

They did just vote for it and it passed (2020). But historically they have been back and forth. There was one vote (in 2017 IIRC) where the turnout was ludicrously small, but it passed with a very high "yes". Recently though, the "yes" has been trending solidly.

[Edge-]

They did just vote for it and it passed (2020). But historically they have been back and forth. There was one vote (in 2017 IIRC) where the turnout was ludicrously small, but it passed with a very high "yes". Recently though, the "yes" has been trending solidly.

The 2017 one (if that's when it was) is the one I was thinking of.

But real, they voted for it, it should be taken seriously. They deserve actual representation.

[cubby]

The 2017 one (if that's when it was) is the one I was thinking of.

But real, they voted for it, it should be taken seriously. They deserve actual representation.

Agreed. And a nice ancillary benefit would be two more (D)'s in the Senate. D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood might have a fighting chance this Congress.

[Gestopft]

Where are are local conservat...er...reactionaries to tell why hundreds of thousands of American don't deserve representation?

[Machismo]

I’d rather we eliminate the Electoral College than add new states.

Let's do both!!!

[Edge-]

I’d rather we eliminate the Electoral College than add new states.

Why not both?!

Though this isn't just about voting for president and the EC, it's about representation period.

[cubby]

I’d rather we eliminate the Electoral College than add new states.

Since that will be at the best very difficult, adding states would be a nice move forward. Also, and ironically, it would help to remove the EC.

[TigTone]

Where are are local conservat...er...reactionaries to tell why hundreds of thousands of American don't deserve representation?

I’ll do it in there place, ahem.

You see something something *random conspiracy theory* second amendment.

Done.

[Ripster42]

Lol, good point.

What are the arguments against D.C. statehood?

As far as I can tell, the constitution. Article 1 section 8:

The Congress shall have Power... [clause 17] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States,

So it needs a constitutional amendment. Key phrase being "...exercise exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District..." That's not going to happen. That's the best argument for it not becoming a state. It's not going to happen with the current political system, so it's not worth pursuing as it distracts from efforts elsewhere that could be productive.

[TigTone]

As far as I can tell, the constitution. Article 1 section 8:

So it needs a constitutional amendment. Key phrase being "...exercise exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District..." That's not going to happen. That's the best argument for it not becoming a state. It's not going to happen with the current political system, so it's not worth pursuing as it distracts from efforts elsewhere that could be productive.

If it won’t happen then some states should allow residents of DC to vote at their states. During the Presidential election at least.