5 ms·

You think there is a problem that DC is underrepresented in the federal government?

by esrauch 12y ago

bryanl 12y ago
It actually is a problem. The residents of DC don't have fair representation. Politicians and the like are actually a very small portion of the population in DC.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  If DC had 2 senators they would have ridiculously high representation per person.
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    OK, but they only have one representative in the House. Nonvoting, IIRC.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      They are under-represented because that representative is non-voting, but they do have fewer residents per member of congress than California.
  - peterwwillis 12y ago
    No. It would have the same representation as Vermont and Wyoming, both states that have smaller populations and larger land masses.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      You are right that Vermont and Wyoming are even more ridiculously over represented than DC would be. I may be biased as a Californian, but I don't see why a person from Wyoming should have 25% more representation in the House and 6500% more representation in the Senate.
      - peterwwillis 12y ago
        Two reasons: One, band-sawing a senator into a fraction is probably bad for their health. Two, representatives exist so that the people can hold some say over how they are governed. Right now the people in the district have no say over how they are governed, as if they lived under a kind of monarchy. There are probably solutions to the percentage-of-representation issue you describe, like increasing the number of delegates to even out the numbers.
        seanflyon 12y ago
        I agree that DC is underrepresented because they have only 1 non-voting member of the house. If that member was voting they would have similar representation per capita to California. The point I made in my post above is that people in small states have dramatically higher representation than people in large states. This is why it is in California's best interest to split up and why there is not chance it will be allowed to.
peterwwillis 12y ago
The District itself is not "underrepresented", because the whole point of elected officials is to represent people, not arbitrary collections of land. There are more people living in DC than in Wyoming and Vermont, in a much smaller space. Unlike residents of U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam, which also have non-voting delegates, D.C. residents are subject to all U.S. federal taxes. In the financial year 2012, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.7 billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita. So in addition to paying the federal tax in the nation, the people who live there are not allowed to determine how those funds are allocated or used. Some other fun restrictions on the District include the President alone assigns the judges for the local courts. It also takes an act of congress to do things like change the city's budget. Basically, if the district wanted to change how its trash was collected, it has to be approved by Congress. The District did not even have an elected city government until the passage by Congress of the Home Rule Act of 1973. Besides lacking representation in Congress, the city is also deprived of the ability to have ultimate authority over how to spend the money it collects. Every law passed by the DC Council and signed by the mayor needs congressional approval. That includes the budget, even though DC residents and businesses provide a majority of the funds. This means that the Congress can modify DC’s budget any way it wants, even the portion of DC’s budget supported with the city’s own tax dollars. So, no, the people who live in the District are not underrepresented in the federal government that determines how their local government functions. They are simply not represented at all. But thank you for the snark.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  I wouldn't say that a non-voting member of the house is quite the same as "not represented at all"

You think there is a problem that DC is underrepresented in the federal government?

by esrauch 12y ago

You think there is a problem that DC is underrepresented in the federal government?

It actually is a problem. The residents of DC don't have fair representation. Politicians and the like are actually a very small portion of the population in DC.

seanflyon 12y ago
If DC had 2 senators they would have ridiculously high representation per person.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  OK, but they only have one representative in the House. Nonvoting, IIRC.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    They are under-represented because that representative is non-voting, but they do have fewer residents per member of congress than California.
- peterwwillis 12y ago
  No. It would have the same representation as Vermont and Wyoming, both states that have smaller populations and larger land masses.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    You are right that Vermont and Wyoming are even more ridiculously over represented than DC would be. I may be biased as a Californian, but I don't see why a person from Wyoming should have 25% more representation in the House and 6500% more representation in the Senate.
    - peterwwillis 12y ago
      Two reasons: One, band-sawing a senator into a fraction is probably bad for their health. Two, representatives exist so that the people can hold some say over how they are governed. Right now the people in the district have no say over how they are governed, as if they lived under a kind of monarchy. There are probably solutions to the percentage-of-representation issue you describe, like increasing the number of delegates to even out the numbers.
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        I agree that DC is underrepresented because they have only 1 non-voting member of the house. If that member was voting they would have similar representation per capita to California. The point I made in my post above is that people in small states have dramatically higher representation than people in large states. This is why it is in California's best interest to split up and why there is not chance it will be allowed to.

peterwwillis 12y ago

The District itself is not "underrepresented", because the whole point of elected officials is to represent people, not arbitrary collections of land. There are more people living in DC than in Wyoming and Vermont, in a much smaller space. Unlike residents of U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam, which also have non-voting delegates, D.C. residents are subject to all U.S. federal taxes. In the financial year 2012, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.7 billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita. So in addition to paying the federal tax in the nation, the people who live there are not allowed to determine how those funds are allocated or used. Some other fun restrictions on the District include the President alone assigns the judges for the local courts. It also takes an act of congress to do things like change the city's budget. Basically, if the district wanted to change how its trash was collected, it has to be approved by Congress. The District did not even have an elected city government until the passage by Congress of the Home Rule Act of 1973. Besides lacking representation in Congress, the city is also deprived of the ability to have ultimate authority over how to spend the money it collects. Every law passed by the DC Council and signed by the mayor needs congressional approval. That includes the budget, even though DC residents and businesses provide a majority of the funds. This means that the Congress can modify DC’s budget any way it wants, even the portion of DC’s budget supported with the city’s own tax dollars. So, no, the people who live in the District are not underrepresented in the federal government that determines how their local government functions. They are simply not represented at all. But thank you for the snark.

seanflyon 12y ago
I wouldn't say that a non-voting member of the house is quite the same as "not represented at all"