Houses Passes Bill for DC Statehood.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
7,150
7,645
136
Ok so honest question asked in Ernest: what is stopping the complete balkanization of US states for the sake of rigging the Senate?

Can California split into 2-3 states Gerrymandered for a couple extra Dem senators? What about Mississippi or Alabama breaking up into two smaller states so the Pubs pick up extra senate seats?

Smaller, less populous states also equal a higher representation per person in Congress.

Like the court packing idea, making new states in the current political climate just seems like it will lead to mutually assured destruction between the parties. The idea is the maintain a detante until we can get some less retarded people in (so maybe never).

The better play, IMO, is to shrink DC down tho just the land under/between federal buildings while adding the remaining population and landmass to Virginia. Add some safeguards in to ensure Virginia/surrounding states cannot engage in any fuckery with DC's infrastructure and call it a day.

Virginia is purple right now anyway, likely going blue in the near future if trends hold up.
 
  • Love
Reactions: HurleyBird

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
The District of Columbia isn’t big enough to reasonably function as a state, we should just add it to Virginia or Maryland.

Puerto Rico should be given the choice between becoming a sovereign nation or a state.
Why would land area be the defining attribute of a state instead of people.

We should make DC a state for two very simple reasons:

1) we shouldn’t have citizens who are taxed but don’t have federal representation.

2) it would help fix the extreme rural bias of the senate.

Republicans talk about Democrats wanting DC statehood because it will give them more power and this is of course true, but Republicans could always fix that by attempting to appeal to urban voters instead of counting on a biased system to carry them through anyway.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
as far as puerto rico, the residents have voted time and time again to NOT become a state in the US. they have had numerous occasions to become the 51st state and each time they themselves have voted against it.

also on DC:

the lack of statehood for the capital is enshrined in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the document reads, “The Congress shall have Power To …exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

the founders worried that if the capital were to be a state, the members of the government would be unduly beholden to it. Madison envisioned that voting members of a D.C. state would be able to ‘insult’ or ‘interrupt’ the proceedings of government to get their way, simply by virtue of physical proximity to the halls of power.

Congress, and the federal government maintains jurisdiction over the city.

regardless Democrat or Republican elected officials if made a state, there are valid reasons why our nation's capitol is not a state.
The Constitution has nothing to do with this. The DC statehood bill just shrinks the size of the district and makes the rest a new state. There’s no reason the whole city needs to be the district and a lot of common sense reasons why it shouldn’t be.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Ok so honest question asked in Ernest: what is stopping the complete balkanization of US states for the sake of rigging the Senate?

Can California split into 2-3 states Gerrymandered for a couple extra Dem senators? What about Mississippi or Alabama breaking up into two smaller states so the Pubs pick up extra senate seats?

Smaller, less populous states also equal a higher representation per person in Congress.

Like the court packing idea, making new states in the current political climate just seems like it will lead to mutually assured destruction between the parties. The idea is the maintain a detante until we can get some less retarded people in (so maybe never).

The better play, IMO, is to shrink DC down tho just the land under/between federal buildings while adding the remaining population and landmass to Virginia. Add some safeguards in to ensure Virginia/surrounding states cannot engage in any fuckery with DC's infrastructure and call it a day.

Virginia is purple right now anyway, likely going blue in the near future if trends hold up.

You do realize that Congress in the past created extra states for the express purpose of getting additional legislative power, right? This is not some new development. I mean why do you think there are two Dakotas?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,939
7,457
136
Repubs counter-offer will be to split every red state in the nation into two states, effectively doubling the social welfare workload needed to service their party members while stridently working at denying them their ability to have the welfare their constituents think is communist socialism.
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
7,150
7,645
136
You do realize that Congress in the past created extra states for the express purpose of getting additional legislative power, right? This is not some new development. I mean why do you think there are two Dakotas?

I hear you, but a couple points:

- So the the Dakotas became states in 1889, not exactly a super relevant example. All kinds of super shady skullduggery happened early in the Republic.
- I'm not sure I buy the implicit argument that "someone else did it, so we can do it too".

Is it *right* to push for statehood on the basis of political maneuvering or is there another way to actually achieve the stated ends (political representation for the DC population) without opening up a modern Pandora's box?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HurleyBird

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
I hear you, but a couple points:

- So the the Dakotas became states in 1889, not exactly a super relevant example. All kinds of super shady skullduggery happened early in the Republic.
- I'm not sure I buy the implicit argument that "someone else did it, so we can do it too".

Is it *right* to push for statehood on the basis of political maneuvering or is there another way to actually achieve the stated ends (political representation for the DC population) without opening up a modern Pandora's box?

But wouldn't creating any new state be inherently political for this reason? Is the answer to never make any more states? I don't think that makes much sense, if anything we probably should have carved up California into a few different states by this point.

Regardless, keeping the states and senate in the imbalanced way it is now is a political choice the same as making more states. The Senate is badly broken, in significant part because we made a whole bunch of states out of empty land with nobody living in it. Adding DC and PR would help restore the Senate to how it was originally envisioned.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Is it *right* to push for statehood on the basis of political maneuvering or is there another way to actually achieve the stated ends (political representation for the DC population) without opening up a modern Pandora's box?

Yes, it absolutely is right and is in line with US political precedent.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Why would land area be the defining attribute of a state instead of people.

We should make DC a state for two very simple reasons:

1) we shouldn’t have citizens who are taxed but don’t have federal representation.

2) it would help fix the extreme rural bias of the senate.

Republicans talk about Democrats wanting DC statehood because it will give them more power and this is of course true, but Republicans could always fix that by attempting to appeal to urban voters instead of counting on a biased system to carry them through anyway.
By that logic, Democrats could always fix this by attempting to appeal to rural voters instead of trying to invent a new state. The map’s colored in, there’s no need to create a new state. The District of Columbia can join Maryland or Virginia and achieve the first goal. The first issue is not a new one. We both know Democrats only care about the second goal.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
By that logic, Democrats could always fix this by attempting to appeal to rural voters instead of trying to invent a new state.

Lol at ‘invent a new state’. Congress has invented 37 new states so far. It’s no big deal.

As far as appealing to rural voters goes the reason why Republicans should appear to metro area voters more is because we live in a democracy and those are most of the people. Republicans count on having the system rigged to give them extra representation, which is toxic for democracy.

If you want to stop and think about a big reason why things are so fucked up in this country it’s because one of the two major parties has decided it has no interest in appealing to a majority of Americans and counts on a rigged system to keep them in power anyway.

The map’s colored in, there’s no need to create a new state. The District of Columbia can join Maryland or Virginia and achieve the first goal. The first issue is not a new one.

I’m impressed you came up with an even worse excuse not to do that than the ones you had said before. Who gives a shit if the ‘map is filled in’. The coloring book argument gets you zero points.

We shouldn’t stop with DC and PR either.

We both know Democrats only care about the second goal.

Who cares? It’s an affirmatively good thing all on its own! Decreasing the rural minority bias of the Senate is just flat out good for democracy.

Also, nice job of projection. Every single one of your invented excuses why we shouldn’t do this stems from your fear of additional Democratic senators.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,245
16,716
136
By that logic, Democrats could always fix this by attempting to appeal to rural voters instead of trying to invent a new state. The map’s colored in, there’s no need to create a new state. The District of Columbia can join Maryland or Virginia and achieve the first goal. The first issue is not a new one. We both know Democrats only care about the second goal.

Correct it’s sort of like stealing a Supreme Court pick or not allowing a D President to install judges or filibustering literally everything.
Fuck it the game has changed, no sense playing by the old rules when nobody else is.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,118
10,939
136
By that logic, Democrats could always fix this by attempting to appeal to rural voters instead of trying to invent a new state. The map’s colored in, there’s no need to create a new state. The District of Columbia can join Maryland or Virginia and achieve the first goal. The first issue is not a new one. We both know Democrats only care about the second goal.

Why would a party that appeals to the majority of the population change its platform to appeal to a minority of the population? Isn't that just further evidence that our electoral system is biased towards a minority of the country, which by definition, is then not representative of the majority of people?
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Why would a party that appeals to the majority of the population change its platform to appeal to a minority of the population? Isn't that just further evidence that our electoral system is biased towards a minority of the country, which by definition, is then not representative of the majority of people?
Because majority rule is not how our government functions.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Correct it’s sort of like stealing a Supreme Court pick or not allowing a D President to install judges or filibustering literally everything.
Fuck it the game has changed, no sense playing by the old rules when nobody else is.
You can thank Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid for that. By all means, let’s unnecessarily open yet another Pandora’s box.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,245
16,716
136
You can thank Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid for that. By all means, let’s unnecessarily open yet another Pandora’s box.

Nope tired of being the Cuck, let’s turn that role around and see how they like it.
I’m sick of this crap, if DC was going to met two R Senators guys who sound like you would be all for it. Fuck them.
BTW I’m talking recent history with that stuff.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,684
136
The reasoning from the same men who kept slavery and decided blacks were 3/5 of a person? I think we are allowed to decide some things for ourselves after over 200 years.


Apples and oranges.

Change the constitution if you want DC to become a state.
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,122
1,594
126
The District of Columbia isn’t big enough to reasonably function as a state, we should just add it to Virginia or Maryland.

Puerto Rico should be given the choice between becoming a sovereign nation or a state.
Puerto Rico is already a Corporate State. Why do you hate America?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
People of DC can vote for local government with local elections as they currently do.
For federal representation which is what statehood really grants, they can pick candidates from other states that reflect their interests. It actually would make DC extremely powerful as a voting bloc and not weak at all. They could for example all decide to vote in swing states like iowa or north carolina and really have a major impact on an election. Essentially allowing the people of DC to pick where-ever they want to vote would allow them to decide which states their vote would have the maximum impact. It would also force everyone running for congressional positions to have at least a little bit of a DC platform to sell to voters in case DC people are focusing on your state that year to vote in.

but you'd have to get them all to vote, and somehow agree to vote for each election, on a particular target state. If each voter gets to just vote for whatever state they want to, then it probably won't have an impact. Also...that is just bizarre. to what purpose would actual DC citizens have to vote for representatives of other states? Part of the problem overall is that politics has become so absurdly national. People don't really pay much attention to the stuff that actually effects them the most, which is local. so then we all get hyper-crazy and demand that everyone else think and do like "us," which really doesn't make that much sense from case to case.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
This wouldn't be an issue at all if it looked like DC would go republican. Why not just go ahead and say it's all about getting another couple democrat senators and a congresscritter?

wait--are you suggesting it wouldn't be an issue for Republicans, then? lol!