4 ms·

I didn't move here, I was born here. I work here for a private company that has no relationship to the federal government. My home is here. The apathy about th

I didn't move here, I was born here. I work here for a private company that has no relationship to the federal government. My home is here. The apathy about this issue is what confuses me - what harm would it do to allow DC residents to vote? What reason could you have to oppose DC citizens gaining the right to vote? The argument that federal government workers should be forbidden from voting is incredibly hollow - the vast majority of them reside outside the city. Also, this is tantamount to saying "Park Rangers in Idaho shouldn't be allowed to vote," a position I have never heard put forward.

Dylan16807 12y ago
I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming your ancestors. I'm not against letting DC vote to fix the problem at this point. But this situation is ridiculous. There was no reason to start a major city in the no-voting zone.
- eru 12y ago
  Why? Not having a vote is not a major pain point for most people.
- TheCoelacanth 12y ago
  The no-voting zone was created around two already existing cities (Georgetown and Alexandria).
jfoutz 12y ago
Historically, i think it made some sense. now with instant communication, it seems hard for locals to influence congress unduly. Personally, I have no problem with adding DC as another state. Politically, it'll never happen (imho). why would any senator give up 2% of their power to add 2 more senators? There are probably many issues blocking, but on that one at least is a monster to overcome.
- curun1r 12y ago
  There's no need to add it as a separate state, just give back the land that Virginia and Maryland originally donated to create DC in the first place. Then when the next census rolls around, residents would be considered during redistricting. No new senators would be created, so no yielding 2% power, and Maryland and Virginia might get 1-2 more electoral votes and/or congressional representatives. I would imagine that the main issue that would need to be resolved is jurisdictional...would laws passed in Maryland and Virginia apply to residents of DC? If so, it's conceivable that those states could influence Federal policy. What would happen if one of those states made it illegal to order a drone strike without the approval from one of their courts...could the President be arrested and charged in that state for violating that law?
  - desdiv 12y ago
    The jurisdictional problem isn't as big as it seems, because not 100% of the land will be returning to Maryland, only 99.99% of it. To wit, the White House, the Capitol, and the Supreme Court building will still retain their status quo[0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession#Proposed_Maryland_retrocession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocessi...
    - saalweachter 12y ago
      Not to mention that neither the Pentagon nor the CIA are in DC.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > What would happen if one of those states made it illegal to order a drone strike without the approval from one of their courts...could the President be arrested and charged in that state for violating that law? Probably not, because Supremacy Clause. Federal officers operate in the states fairly regularly, and this general issue (not the specific issue involving the President and drone strikes in particular) has been litigated extensively.
    - 12y ago
rayiner 12y ago
The harm is that DC is already "the capital" from hunger games. Housing prices going up while the rest of the country suffers. People here don't need the vote. Heck, we should take it away from NoVa and Maryland for good measure.
- eru 12y ago
  > Housing prices going up while the rest of the country suffers. Aren't rising house prices also a problem?
  - bmelton 12y ago
    If the problem is that too many members of the underclass live in D.C. without representation, then rising house prices is, in a somewhat sadistic sense, a potential solution.
- dangerlibrary 12y ago
  Housing in DC didn't have the crash that the rest of the country experienced, that's true. Of course, neither did Houston's, or San Francisco's, or much of New York City's. By contrast, people who don't live in DC didn't have their pay cut 10% by mandatory furloughs demanded by a governing body they have no vote in. People who don't live in DC get to pass laws determining how they want to live, without those laws being vetoed by representatives from Oklahoma who find them politically inconvenient in their home state. I haven't even touched on the fact that DC's population is over 50% black, and has been for decades. It may not be the case now, but in the past the arguments for refusing DC residents the right to vote were very explicitly racial.

Dylan16807 12y ago

I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming your ancestors. I'm not against letting DC vote to fix the problem at this point. But this situation is ridiculous. There was no reason to start a major city in the no-voting zone.

eru 12y ago
Why? Not having a vote is not a major pain point for most people.
TheCoelacanth 12y ago
The no-voting zone was created around two already existing cities (Georgetown and Alexandria).

jfoutz 12y ago

Historically, i think it made some sense. now with instant communication, it seems hard for locals to influence congress unduly. Personally, I have no problem with adding DC as another state. Politically, it'll never happen (imho). why would any senator give up 2% of their power to add 2 more senators? There are probably many issues blocking, but on that one at least is a monster to overcome.

curun1r 12y ago
There's no need to add it as a separate state, just give back the land that Virginia and Maryland originally donated to create DC in the first place. Then when the next census rolls around, residents would be considered during redistricting. No new senators would be created, so no yielding 2% power, and Maryland and Virginia might get 1-2 more electoral votes and/or congressional representatives. I would imagine that the main issue that would need to be resolved is jurisdictional...would laws passed in Maryland and Virginia apply to residents of DC? If so, it's conceivable that those states could influence Federal policy. What would happen if one of those states made it illegal to order a drone strike without the approval from one of their courts...could the President be arrested and charged in that state for violating that law?
- desdiv 12y ago
  The jurisdictional problem isn't as big as it seems, because not 100% of the land will be returning to Maryland, only 99.99% of it. To wit, the White House, the Capitol, and the Supreme Court building will still retain their status quo[0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession#Proposed_Maryland_retrocession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocessi...
  - saalweachter 12y ago
    Not to mention that neither the Pentagon nor the CIA are in DC.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > What would happen if one of those states made it illegal to order a drone strike without the approval from one of their courts...could the President be arrested and charged in that state for violating that law? Probably not, because Supremacy Clause. Federal officers operate in the states fairly regularly, and this general issue (not the specific issue involving the President and drone strikes in particular) has been litigated extensively.
  - 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

The harm is that DC is already "the capital" from hunger games. Housing prices going up while the rest of the country suffers. People here don't need the vote. Heck, we should take it away from NoVa and Maryland for good measure.

eru 12y ago
> Housing prices going up while the rest of the country suffers. Aren't rising house prices also a problem?
- bmelton 12y ago
  If the problem is that too many members of the underclass live in D.C. without representation, then rising house prices is, in a somewhat sadistic sense, a potential solution.
dangerlibrary 12y ago
Housing in DC didn't have the crash that the rest of the country experienced, that's true. Of course, neither did Houston's, or San Francisco's, or much of New York City's. By contrast, people who don't live in DC didn't have their pay cut 10% by mandatory furloughs demanded by a governing body they have no vote in. People who don't live in DC get to pass laws determining how they want to live, without those laws being vetoed by representatives from Oklahoma who find them politically inconvenient in their home state. I haven't even touched on the fact that DC's population is over 50% black, and has been for decades. It may not be the case now, but in the past the arguments for refusing DC residents the right to vote were very explicitly racial.