There's going to be a rally today at 2:30 PM at Freedom Plaza (13th and Pennsylvania) followed by a march to the Capitol in support of the bill to give DC a real representative in the US House just like those of us who live here are American citizens or something. Those of you who are enjoying congressional representation can help us out by clicking here and contacting your members of congress on our behalf.
« What The Voters Want | Main | The Irrelevance of Gonzalez »
Taxation: Perhaps Some Day With Some Representation
16 Apr 2007 08:08 am
Comments (10)
There's going to be a rally today at 2:30 PM at Freedom Plaza (13th and Pennsylvania) followed by a march to the Capitol
Great, so anybody without a daytime job can go! Awesome.
What am I missing? Doesn't the Constitution clearly define who gets representation and who does not i.e. States. D.C. doesn't meet the standard. We shouldn't demand things and try to ram them through based purely on politics. Sure, if you go through the process to amend the Constitution then I say great!
It's always good to be reminded of how deeply the average non-DC resident cares about democracy in America.
I guess the Constitution isn't so sacred after all, when violating it can add a few more reliably Democratic Reps to Congress. This isn't just about DC and Utah: Dems are trying to use extra-Constitutional means to set a precedent for giving voting Reps to other non-state territories: Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.
It seems as though the simplest solution would be to return the land to Maryland and have it become Washington, Maryland, though perhaps with special considerations for its particular status. That might avoid some constitutional trammels and perhaps give Maryland a further seat in the House of Representatives, which might satisfy those who insist upon reducing questions of democracy to electoral calculus.
Not that I'm really a democrat (referring to one who believes in democracy in this case), but as there are neither advantages in being a resident of the federal district nor any longer compelling concerns about the state where the capitol is located exercising excessive influence through it, rigid adherence to the present situation seems little else but reactionary. Of course, I am something of a reactionary, but indulging in that is poor manners.
Yes, Dave, it's weird how when more people vote, its always bad for the Republicans.
This will never happen unless Dems control all the levers of government. The Republicans will never consent to having a couple of Dem electoral votes added to the system.
It seems as though the simplest solution would be to return the land to Maryland and have it become Washington, Maryland, though perhaps with special considerations for its particular status.
I think I speak for all residents of Washington, DC (and the state of Maryland, too) when I say "Fuck. That. Shit."
You DC residents are a bunch of spoiled ingrate whiners.
Here's a deal: Let's offer to move the capital of the USA and all the federal agencies to, say, Dayton, Ohio, but as a condition of this Dayton residents would lose their right to elect a congressman.
Would it be wise for the people of Dayton to take the offer? I think so. Would DC residents favor the offer if in return they got Dayton's congressional district? I think not.
DC is also well represented by having a vastly disproportionate voice in the Electoral College with about 3x times more representation in that body than California residents, as well as by the fact the a huge % of congressmen have either their primary or a secondary home in DC.
If voting for Senators and Congressmen is so important to you, you can move your lazy butts 10 or 15 miles in any direction and then have your vote.
Comments closed April 30, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
What would be the effective date of this legislation? If DC and Utah each pick up one vote in Congress during this Congress, it would give an extra EV to Utah in 2008, potentially turning a 269-269 tie in the EC (with us winning in the House, in all likelihood) to a 270-269 GOP win.
Since the likelihood of a 269 tie in 2008 is not all that remote (a switch of 20,000 votes in NM, NV, and IA in 2004 would have thrown the election into the House), I'm firmly opposed to a deal of this sort that would take effect in this Congress.
I've got no problem with such a deal that takes effect in January 2009. But until I know which it is, I'm against it.
Posted by RT | April 16, 2007 9:06 AM