7 ms·

Sounds like DC needs to be made a state.

SllX 5y ago
Better: retroceded back into Maryland.
flavius29663 5y ago
The whole point of DC was that it won't be in any state. That was the sole reasoning for creating those 100 square miles. Maryland could take back it's half like Virginia did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocess... , but creating a state out of a piece of land specifically designated as non-state doesn't make sense.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > creating a state out of a piece of land specifically designated as non-state doesn't make sense I mean, neither does creating a large metropolitan area with no representation after just winning a war over not having representation. Here we are, though.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- justapassenger 5y ago
  That’s not a reasonable argument for any position. Just because few hundred years ago something was designed differently isn’t a reason not to change it.
  - SllX 5y ago
    Well the parent proposed something perfectly reasonable: retrocession back into Maryland. This would wholly resolve their lack of Congressional representation and Maryland would gain a House seat, or maybe two if they were already on the threshold for another.
    - snowwrestler 5y ago
      DC can’t force MD to take them back, and neither can the federal govt. And MD doesn’t want them. Reasonable or not, it’s a no-go.
      - stjohnswarts 5y ago
        It's absolutely a no-go. The constitution says that the seat of the US government will not be a US state to prevent favoritism for said state. There are some pitches for greatly reducing "Washington DC" down to the smallest possible constitutionally allowed area, but I don't see that happening. Republicans will not allow another Democratic state into the union anytime soon.
      - SllX 5y ago
        DC also can’t force us or the other States to accept it in as a State. So, who blinks first? From where I sit, retrocession is already a massive compromise where Maryland gets its land back, 1 to 2 House seats and a bigger tax base; and the residents of DC get the right to vote for not just Congressional representation but also for a State government.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    my argument was not that it was done 200 years ago, hence it should stay. My argument was the initial reasoning was to have a neutral ground, which is as valid today as it was 200 years ago. As a counter-example, the European Parliament is being moved EVERY MONTH between Bruxelles and Strassbourg, because France wanted to have the capitol on their ground at least partially. A neutral city built from scratch at the border would have made more sense in the 1990s just like 200 years ago.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022? it has over 700,000 residents and its own school system… since its inception it has struggled time and time again due to its awkward status… the people living there want it overwhelmingly!
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022? Many things in the US political system don't make sense in 2022, especially from an European point of view - mining and water rights, inequality of rural and urban votes because of unproportional representation in the Senate, Presidential votes in "stronghold" states being effectively wasted thanks to the Electoral College, the effective two-party system caused by the effects of FPTP, the fact that the US votes on Tuesday because of farmers going to church on Sunday in Ye Olde Days, the entire gun rights complex (it was reasonable and made sense back in Ye Olde Days that everyone could own a handgun and a hunting rifle, it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war), the fact that "gerrymandering" is not only a thing but actively and maliciously used, the general lack of federal protections for voters, that "union busting" is legal, the weirdness that is how DC and the US Territories are set up... the list is endless, that's just what came up in my mind in five minutes. The problem is, the US and the UK are the only geopolitically relevant (sorry, Australia and Canada) countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues.
    - PickledHotdog 5y ago
      Don't forget little old Australia
    - pseudo0 5y ago
      > it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war) That was in fact the entire point (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246). > (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. > The problem is, the US and the UK are the only countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, and likely a few others I'm forgetting all seem to be doing fine.
nradov 5y ago
A better option would be to cede most of the residential and commercial areas of DC to surrounding states. Just keep a few blocks containing the key federal government buildings, parks, monuments, and museums.
- imgabe 5y ago
  That's not a better option. VA and MD don't want that. The people in DC don't want that. The people in DC want to be a state. That's what matters. We're far removed from it historically, but this country was created by groups of people coming together to decide they want to form a state and then joining up with other states. It's literally right there in the name: United States. It's kind of, like, our whole deal as a country.
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    Have the people considered moving?
    - imgabe 5y ago
      They already live in the US. They shouldn't have to move anywhere to exercise their rights as US citizens.
      - R0b0t1 5y ago
        They're already able to exercise their rights. As they don't live in a state they don't get to vote in state elections. The land was set aside for federal use, living in it and then complaining you don't live in a state seems insane.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > The land was set aside for federal use, living in it and then complaining you don't live in a state seems insane. Kind of like complaining about not getting a vote on taxes imposed on you when you choose to live in North American colonies rather than Britain proper. Whiners. Also note that US citizens who live overseas can vote in state elections for federal office under federal law (and in most states can also do so for local/state offices under state law.) Inside the US but not within the boundaries of a state is the only place US citizens are systematically disenfranchised by geography.

SllX 5y ago

Better: retroceded back into Maryland.

The whole point of DC was that it won't be in any state. That was the sole reasoning for creating those 100 square miles. Maryland could take back it's half like Virginia did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocess... , but creating a state out of a piece of land specifically designated as non-state doesn't make sense.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> creating a state out of a piece of land specifically designated as non-state doesn't make sense I mean, neither does creating a large metropolitan area with no representation after just winning a war over not having representation. Here we are, though.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
justapassenger 5y ago
That’s not a reasonable argument for any position. Just because few hundred years ago something was designed differently isn’t a reason not to change it.
- SllX 5y ago
  Well the parent proposed something perfectly reasonable: retrocession back into Maryland. This would wholly resolve their lack of Congressional representation and Maryland would gain a House seat, or maybe two if they were already on the threshold for another.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    DC can’t force MD to take them back, and neither can the federal govt. And MD doesn’t want them. Reasonable or not, it’s a no-go.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      It's absolutely a no-go. The constitution says that the seat of the US government will not be a US state to prevent favoritism for said state. There are some pitches for greatly reducing "Washington DC" down to the smallest possible constitutionally allowed area, but I don't see that happening. Republicans will not allow another Democratic state into the union anytime soon.
    - SllX 5y ago
      DC also can’t force us or the other States to accept it in as a State. So, who blinks first? From where I sit, retrocession is already a massive compromise where Maryland gets its land back, 1 to 2 House seats and a bigger tax base; and the residents of DC get the right to vote for not just Congressional representation but also for a State government.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  my argument was not that it was done 200 years ago, hence it should stay. My argument was the initial reasoning was to have a neutral ground, which is as valid today as it was 200 years ago. As a counter-example, the European Parliament is being moved EVERY MONTH between Bruxelles and Strassbourg, because France wanted to have the capitol on their ground at least partially. A neutral city built from scratch at the border would have made more sense in the 1990s just like 200 years ago.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022? it has over 700,000 residents and its own school system… since its inception it has struggled time and time again due to its awkward status… the people living there want it overwhelmingly!
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022? Many things in the US political system don't make sense in 2022, especially from an European point of view - mining and water rights, inequality of rural and urban votes because of unproportional representation in the Senate, Presidential votes in "stronghold" states being effectively wasted thanks to the Electoral College, the effective two-party system caused by the effects of FPTP, the fact that the US votes on Tuesday because of farmers going to church on Sunday in Ye Olde Days, the entire gun rights complex (it was reasonable and made sense back in Ye Olde Days that everyone could own a handgun and a hunting rifle, it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war), the fact that "gerrymandering" is not only a thing but actively and maliciously used, the general lack of federal protections for voters, that "union busting" is legal, the weirdness that is how DC and the US Territories are set up... the list is endless, that's just what came up in my mind in five minutes. The problem is, the US and the UK are the only geopolitically relevant (sorry, Australia and Canada) countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues.
  - PickledHotdog 5y ago
    Don't forget little old Australia
  - pseudo0 5y ago
    > it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war) That was in fact the entire point (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246). > (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. > The problem is, the US and the UK are the only countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, and likely a few others I'm forgetting all seem to be doing fine.

nradov 5y ago

A better option would be to cede most of the residential and commercial areas of DC to surrounding states. Just keep a few blocks containing the key federal government buildings, parks, monuments, and museums.

imgabe 5y ago
That's not a better option. VA and MD don't want that. The people in DC don't want that. The people in DC want to be a state. That's what matters. We're far removed from it historically, but this country was created by groups of people coming together to decide they want to form a state and then joining up with other states. It's literally right there in the name: United States. It's kind of, like, our whole deal as a country.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  Have the people considered moving?
  - imgabe 5y ago
    They already live in the US. They shouldn't have to move anywhere to exercise their rights as US citizens.
    - R0b0t1 5y ago
      They're already able to exercise their rights. As they don't live in a state they don't get to vote in state elections. The land was set aside for federal use, living in it and then complaining you don't live in a state seems insane.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > The land was set aside for federal use, living in it and then complaining you don't live in a state seems insane. Kind of like complaining about not getting a vote on taxes imposed on you when you choose to live in North American colonies rather than Britain proper. Whiners. Also note that US citizens who live overseas can vote in state elections for federal office under federal law (and in most states can also do so for local/state offices under state law.) Inside the US but not within the boundaries of a state is the only place US citizens are systematically disenfranchised by geography.