5 ms·

Tangential, but instead of making DC into a new state, why not just absorb it into Maryland? Virginia already absorbed the part of DC rhombus west of the Potoma

by umvi 5y ago

Tangential, but instead of making DC into a new state, why not just absorb it into Maryland? Virginia already absorbed the part of DC rhombus west of the Potomac.

dbcurtis 5y ago
Because one party wants two more uncompetitive senate seats.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  And the other party doesn't want people having representation at all. For the record, the popular vote percentages for the Democrats in the past 3 senate elections were: 53.0%, 58.2%, and 47.0%. That averages 52.7%, so gaining an extra two senate seats would still mean the Democrats were under-represented. (I know that the purpose of the senate is not to represent each citizen equally, I just thought it was worth pointing out which parts of the country have the most grounds for complaint).
  - knubie 5y ago
    Most of the people living in DC work for the federal government either directly or indirectly. That represents a huge conflict of interest, and was the reason DC was created in the first place. No one lived in DC before it was created, so the people that have put down roots there did so knowing they wouldn't have representation in the federal government.
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      I don't think there is much of an ethical point to "Yeah you're disenfranchised but it was your great great great granddaddies choice!"
    - belltaco 5y ago
      Not true, most of the federal workers living in the VA and MD suburbs. >Only about 1 in 6 of the 1.87 million civilian full-time federal employees live in the Washington, D.C. metro area, which includes Northern VA
  - dbcurtis 5y ago
    The purpose of the senate is to make sure that low population regions have a voice, and that majority interests don’t trample minority interests. To say that one party doesn’t want people to be represented at all is a ridiculous straw-man.
    - belltaco 5y ago
      >The purpose of the senate is to make sure that low population regions have a voice, and that majority interests don’t trample minority interests. Isn't DC a low population region? Then why does one party not want them to be represented at all?
      - rplst8 5y ago
        DC has about 700,000 residents and a population density on par with Chicago.
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        Small state != rural state. Rhode Island is a small state, it isn’t rural. Hawaii is a small state, above average population density. Small and large on an electoral basis refer to population size.
    - pmyteh 5y ago
      I mean, it isn't? If DC voted Republican then they'd be totally in favour of making it a state. It's not a secret that is the reason why DC statehood has no traction in Congress. You can make a case for retrocession, but the other arguments are understood by everyone to be a fig leaf. The same was true in the past: Alaska and Hawaii were admitted essentially as a two-for-one deal because Alaska was reliably Republican and Hawaii reliably Democrat. If both had been one or the other they might have had to wait a long time. And the arguments would have been facially plausible (but not real) here too: the importance of territorial contiguity, the low population of Alaska, the difficulties of establishing effective transportation links, whatever. The number of people who are for (small-d) democratic advances regardless of whether they benefit their own party is (in my view depressingly) low.
naravara 5y ago
Because Maryland doesn't want DC and DC doesn't want Maryland.
pmyteh 5y ago
DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state). National Democrats would also like two more Senate seats (and both DC and Maryland are predominantly Democratic, DC absurdly so) while national Republicans are happy enough with the status quo, giving DC no voting representation in Congress at all. So there's no strong momentum for movement on any side except DC's (who don't have the power to do anything about it by themselves).
- rscoots 5y ago
  By these arguments nearly every sizable city in the country should be its own state. >DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state).
  - Kalium 5y ago
    A lot of people in those areas would agree with you.
  - mlinksva 5y ago
    Which strikes me as a good idea. Particularly since DC retrocession and merging low population states (also elegant) have no legs. Every metro with population above median or average of existing US states should have the option of forming a new state. Seems to work for Berlin/Bremen/Hamburg in Germany, and various metros in other countries.
  - space_fountain 5y ago
    I think honestly when the 3 largest cities in the us each have more people than the entire United States did at independence it is worth asking what sort of political reforms are possible
  - 5y ago
MattGaiser 5y ago
Do either of them want to be together?
snicker7 5y ago
DC statehood is all about tipping the scale to the Democrats in the Senate. Retrocession of DC doesn’t allow that.

by umvi 5y ago

Tangential, but instead of making DC into a new state, why not just absorb it into Maryland? Virginia already absorbed the part of DC rhombus west of the Potomac.

dbcurtis 5y ago

Because one party wants two more uncompetitive senate seats.

dane-pgp 5y ago
And the other party doesn't want people having representation at all. For the record, the popular vote percentages for the Democrats in the past 3 senate elections were: 53.0%, 58.2%, and 47.0%. That averages 52.7%, so gaining an extra two senate seats would still mean the Democrats were under-represented. (I know that the purpose of the senate is not to represent each citizen equally, I just thought it was worth pointing out which parts of the country have the most grounds for complaint).
- knubie 5y ago
  Most of the people living in DC work for the federal government either directly or indirectly. That represents a huge conflict of interest, and was the reason DC was created in the first place. No one lived in DC before it was created, so the people that have put down roots there did so knowing they wouldn't have representation in the federal government.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    I don't think there is much of an ethical point to "Yeah you're disenfranchised but it was your great great great granddaddies choice!"
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Not true, most of the federal workers living in the VA and MD suburbs. >Only about 1 in 6 of the 1.87 million civilian full-time federal employees live in the Washington, D.C. metro area, which includes Northern VA
- dbcurtis 5y ago
  The purpose of the senate is to make sure that low population regions have a voice, and that majority interests don’t trample minority interests. To say that one party doesn’t want people to be represented at all is a ridiculous straw-man.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    >The purpose of the senate is to make sure that low population regions have a voice, and that majority interests don’t trample minority interests. Isn't DC a low population region? Then why does one party not want them to be represented at all?
    - rplst8 5y ago
      DC has about 700,000 residents and a population density on par with Chicago.
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        Small state != rural state. Rhode Island is a small state, it isn’t rural. Hawaii is a small state, above average population density. Small and large on an electoral basis refer to population size.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    I mean, it isn't? If DC voted Republican then they'd be totally in favour of making it a state. It's not a secret that is the reason why DC statehood has no traction in Congress. You can make a case for retrocession, but the other arguments are understood by everyone to be a fig leaf. The same was true in the past: Alaska and Hawaii were admitted essentially as a two-for-one deal because Alaska was reliably Republican and Hawaii reliably Democrat. If both had been one or the other they might have had to wait a long time. And the arguments would have been facially plausible (but not real) here too: the importance of territorial contiguity, the low population of Alaska, the difficulties of establishing effective transportation links, whatever. The number of people who are for (small-d) democratic advances regardless of whether they benefit their own party is (in my view depressingly) low.

naravara 5y ago

Because Maryland doesn't want DC and DC doesn't want Maryland.

pmyteh 5y ago

DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state). National Democrats would also like two more Senate seats (and both DC and Maryland are predominantly Democratic, DC absurdly so) while national Republicans are happy enough with the status quo, giving DC no voting representation in Congress at all. So there's no strong momentum for movement on any side except DC's (who don't have the power to do anything about it by themselves).

rscoots 5y ago
By these arguments nearly every sizable city in the country should be its own state. >DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state).
- Kalium 5y ago
  A lot of people in those areas would agree with you.
- mlinksva 5y ago
  Which strikes me as a good idea. Particularly since DC retrocession and merging low population states (also elegant) have no legs. Every metro with population above median or average of existing US states should have the option of forming a new state. Seems to work for Berlin/Bremen/Hamburg in Germany, and various metros in other countries.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  I think honestly when the 3 largest cities in the us each have more people than the entire United States did at independence it is worth asking what sort of political reforms are possible
- 5y ago

MattGaiser 5y ago

Do either of them want to be together?

snicker7 5y ago

DC statehood is all about tipping the scale to the Democrats in the Senate. Retrocession of DC doesn’t allow that.