You rather cavalierly would strip over three million Americans of their citizenship.The whole reason for creating the District of Colunbia was to eliminate the seat of Government being beholden to or favoring any one state in the union.
Puerto Rico should be given its independence and cut loose as a territory, eliminate the US citizenship for any/all PR natives...let those who live here apply for citizenship that would be automatically granted barring any felony convictions...deport those with convictions or refuse to apply.
Oh...btw, SHOULD both be granted statehood, odds are, each would get two Democratic senators...and no Republicans.
No way will Mitch allow a vote to create two new (Democrat) senators.
In case you didn't get his hint he doesn't want us jigaboos to get statehoodPsssttttt, maybe somebody should tell him that Wyoming is already a state.
The solution is pretty simple. Let the people of DC be able to register and vote in federal elections in a state of their choice. Seems the least hassle of all the options.
In case you didn't get his hint he doesn't want us jigaboos to get statehood
People of DC can vote for local government with local elections as they currently do.That doesn't make any sense. The purpose of voting as a citizen of a state is to have representation that, one hopes, reflects the needs of you and your neighbors. Allowing them to pick "wherever" would effectively dilute all of those votes, wherever they are being sent, and someone in DC voting, for say Georgia, is never going to be represented by any legislator in Georgia.
If you mean either VA or MD, that could maybe work. ....would certainly piss off a lot of southern, western, and eastern VA, that's for sure.
DC pretty much commands a heavy influence over those two states, anyway, much to the consternation of the more rural, highly conservative boonies of those states. MD is pretty much unrecoverable for the GOP, even as rural and agrarian as it is. sending DC votes to VA would do the same for that state. and it's not like this is a unique model in a lot of states: Chicago's commanding influence over all IL politics; NY city in NY
People of DC can vote for local government with local elections as they currently do.
For federal representation which is what statehood really grants, they can pick candidates from other states that reflect their interests. It actually would make DC extremely powerful as a voting bloc and not weak at all. They could for example all decide to vote in swing states like iowa or north carolina and really have a major impact on an election. Essentially allowing the people of DC to pick where-ever they want to vote would allow them to decide which states their vote would have the maximum impact. It would also force everyone running for congressional positions to have at least a little bit of a DC platform to sell to voters in case DC people are focusing on your state that year to vote in.
VA has effectively gone blue at this point.That doesn't make any sense. The purpose of voting as a citizen of a state is to have representation that, one hopes, reflects the needs of you and your neighbors. Allowing them to pick "wherever" would effectively dilute all of those votes, wherever they are being sent, and someone in DC voting, for say Georgia, is never going to be represented by any legislator in Georgia.
If you mean either VA or MD, that could maybe work. ....would certainly piss off a lot of southern, western, and eastern VA, that's for sure.
DC pretty much commands a heavy influence over those two states, anyway, much to the consternation of the more rural, highly conservative boonies of those states. MD is pretty much unrecoverable for the GOP, even as rural and agrarian as it is. sending DC votes to VA would do the same for that state. and it's not like this is a unique model in a lot of states: Chicago's commanding influence over all IL politics; NY city in NY
Just one way to start educating yourself about the complex relationship with PR. "support what would otherwise be a 3rd world shit hole" isn't quite the whole truth of it.PR gains independence and self rule. The union gains the loss of having to support what would otherwise be a 3rd world shithole.
Not to mention, to the rest of the civilized world currently blocking travel from the US...3rd World Shithole is a very subjective term.Just one way to start educating yourself about the complex relationship with PR. "support what would otherwise be a 3rd world shit hole" isn't quite the whole truth of it.
People of DC can vote for local government with local elections as they currently do.
For federal representation which is what statehood really grants, they can pick candidates from other states that reflect their interests. It actually would make DC extremely powerful as a voting bloc and not weak at all. They could for example all decide to vote in swing states like iowa or north carolina and really have a major impact on an election. Essentially allowing the people of DC to pick where-ever they want to vote would allow them to decide which states their vote would have the maximum impact. It would also force everyone running for congressional positions to have at least a little bit of a DC platform to sell to voters in case DC people are focusing on your state that year to vote in.
But hey, taxation without representation.
Don't leave us hanging.They don't want to face the truth...
The reasoning from the same men who kept slavery and decided blacks were 3/5 of a person? I think we are allowed to decide some things for ourselves after over 200 years.I wonder what the reasoning was behind not making Washington DC a State to begin with, Hmmmm.
/s
In the House of Representatives, the District is represented by a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the House floor but can vote on procedural matters and in congressional committees. D.C. residents have no representation in the Senate. The Twenty-third Amendment, adopted in 1961, entitles the District to the same number of electoral votes as that of the least populous state in the election of the President and Vice President.
The reality is this could be dealt with by theoretically keeping, the White House, the US Capital building, the National Mall, and the Supreme Court as part of a remaining D.C. while essentially everything else could be made its own state. The reality is today the US federal government is vastly larger than it was during that period and the US government has plenty of resources which simply did not exist as of the 18th century US in terms of law enforcement personnel who can be called in for assistance if necessary. (Not to mention a peacetime standing army with many of the founding fathers assuming that such a thing would not truly exist.) In fact, essentially all these considerations still apply even if D.C. becomes a state since the state would still not be able to actually truly order these federal employees around.the founders worried that if the capital were to be a state, the members of the government would be unduly beholden to it. Madison envisioned that voting members of a D.C. state would be able to ‘insult’ or ‘interrupt’ the proceedings of government to get their way, simply by virtue of physical proximity to the halls of power.
Congress, and the federal government maintains jurisdiction over the city.
regardless Democrat or Republican elected officials if made a state, there are valid reasons why our nation's capitol is not a state.
This wouldn't be an issue at all if it looked like DC would go republican. Why not just go ahead and say it's all about getting another couple democrat senators and a congresscritter?