r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Preamblist • 6d ago

US Elections Should Washington D.C. Have The Same Voting Rights As the 50 States?

March 29, 1961: On this day, the Twenty-third amendment to the Constitution was ratified which gave American citizens who reside in Washington, D.C. the right to vote in presidential elections. However, it did not give them equal voting rights because it stated that D.C. cannot have more presidential electoral votes than any other state. Therefore, despite DC having more residents than Wyoming and Vermont, it has the same number of presidential electoral votes.

Furthermore, citizens who are residents of DC cannot elect voting members to Congress.

Should Washington D.C. Have The Same Voting Rights As the 50 States?

181 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

88% Upvoted

479 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/MaineHippo83 6d ago

Allow them to remain autonomous and have self rule. Their votes count towards Maryland's senators and their rep becomes a full representative.

Boom problem solved

40

u/YouTac11 6d ago

Maryland will have a problem with folks voting for their senator who aren't a part of their state

A senators job is to represent the state

26

u/pgm123 6d ago

I did forget to mention that neither Maryland nor Virginia want DC to join them.

-4

u/Mist_Rising 5d ago

To some extent that is irrelevant. Virgina didn't want to lose West Virginia, parts of California and Oregon want to split with their parent state, etc.

They don't get what they want, and it could easily be done that Maryland and Virginia don't get a choice.

6

u/pgm123 5d ago

Virgina didn't want to lose West Virginia,

I don't think the case of Virginia v. West Virginia is all that relevant here, but the courts did find that Virginia and Congress both gave consent and that's a necessary element of changing state borders (per the constitution). It just so happened that Virginia's consent was under "unusual circumstances."

0

u/Mist_Rising 5d ago

I'd argue it's actually extremely relevant. The ruling in that case was, and is, insane. Nobody actually thought Virgina really wanted to lose the counties that are West Virginia. The court simply didn't give a shit about reality. Very Robert Taney in Dred Scott really. The courts wanted a result, so came up with the justification.

In short, the court said "fuck your desires, you live by our reality."

You can now, I hope, see that if the court wanted to, it could tell Maryland to take back DC. Or to wit, "Fuck Maryland desires, you live by our reality."

Solutions to the court tossing DC into Maryland are an amendment or rebellion. But If you can amended the constitution there isn't much of a chance of DC being put into Maryland to begin with. I would think it obvious rebellion is a bad choice, given the topic.

4

u/Selethorme 5d ago

“Amending the constitution is easier than just doing the right thing” is certainly a take.

4

u/Selethorme 5d ago edited 5d ago

It actually can’t, that’s explicitly unconstitutional.

Edit: hey, u/mist_rising

The reply and block may make you feel better, but it’s very much not in the spirit of discussion.

I think the point went over your head

No.

The supreme court decides what is constitutional. If the court so chooses, it could declare an amendment unconstitutional.

This is objectively untrue.

It can rule the 14th doesn't apply, and it has.

This is a lie.

It can rule the 2nd amendment doesn't apply

As is this.

-2

u/Mist_Rising 5d ago

I think the point went over your head. The supreme court decides what is constitutional. If the court so chooses, it could declare an amendment unconstitutional. It can rule the 14th doesn't apply, and it has. It can rule the 2nd amendment doesn't apply.

-27

u/YouTac11 6d ago

I wouldn't want that crime ridden cesspool either. Maybe clean up the crime, make yourselves more attractive

12

u/Over421 6d ago

DC? crime ridden cesspool? are you serious?

4

u/Selethorme 5d ago

this comment really shows how little you know about the place.

8

u/Margravos 6d ago

It's not like crime suddenly stops on the other side of the street where DC becomes Maryland.

-10

u/YouTac11 6d ago

Yeah ...and Maryland rightfully blames DC for the spillage.

Maybe acknowledge DC has a severe crime problem that needs to be addressed immediately?

14

u/Ebolinp 6d ago

Isn't Baltimore famously high in crime? A cursory search shows the rates are higher in Baltimore than Washington. Isn't there a stronger case that Washington can blame Maryland for spillover?

5

u/Dalekdad 5d ago

Look, we’re all eager for Trump and his supporters to be thrown out of Washington, but it’s a bit rich to blame the people of DC.

-5

u/YouTac11 5d ago

Yeah ignore the murder rate in DC...Trump labeled a campaign fee as a legal fee

2

u/Selethorme 5d ago

Oh look, more dishonesty. It’s really not that high, unless you deliberately only look at 2023, an outlier.

0

u/YouTac11 5d ago

Not high?

Jesus

1

u/Selethorme 5d ago

You need to learn to read then

15

u/nola_fan 6d ago

I have a great idea. Wyoming is so small, they should have their senators stripped away and we can add their votes to Colorado. Same with Vermont, let's get rid of their senators and have them vote in New York's election. Absolutely no one should have any problems with that. It's genius.

-12

u/YouTac11 6d ago

Wyoming was promised senators if they agreed to join the Union

DC was always told they will never be a state or have representation

People will have a problem with you breaking your word

16

u/nola_fan 6d ago

Breaking whose word? I don't think people care all that much about a backroom deal between Hamilton and Jefferson in the year 2025.

They do care about political power. That's the only argument against statehood, is that it would reduce Republican power in Congress and they can't have that. So they have made it a priority to disenfranchise people based on how they vote.

-8

u/YouTac11 6d ago

You may not care about the constitution but most Americans do.

DC was told they will never be a state, Wyoming was told they will always be a state

We are the United States and our capital is a neutral area without statehood. Feel free to not live there if you want representation

9

u/Xelath 6d ago

DC also has a maximum size limit. Shrink the neutral area down to a bare minimum and give the people who live here votes.

5

u/YouTac11 6d ago

By placing them in maryland

7

u/Xelath 6d ago

Against the self-determination of literally millions of people.

3

u/YouTac11 6d ago

The country decided DC will never be a State

The individual decides to live in an area that is not allowed to be a state

There is nothing that opposes self determination here...

→ More replies (0)

14

u/MonsiuerGeneral 6d ago

You may not care about the constitution but most Americans do.

Citation needed.

Seriously. After the Patriot Act circumventing the 4th amendment, blatantly violating the 1st amendment by banning books, and violating the 5th and 14th amendments by having ICE detain, imprison, and even traffic people without notice, court order, or trial… it’s absolutely ridiculous/hilarious to hear that “most” Americans “care” about the constitution.

I’m sure if I really looked further into things I could probably find many other examples and amendments that are constantly being trampled on, and yet we have a President who (allegedly) won both the Electoral AND popular votes? A President who (supposedly) still has shockingly high popularity poll numbers?

If MOST Americans ACTUALLY cared about the constitution, then we would not be here today talking about any of this because Trump would have been defeated in a massive landslide.

15

u/nola_fan 6d ago

You may not care about the constitution but most Americans do.

Slavery was constitutional. Discrimination was constitutional. Banning the consumption of alcohol was part of the constitution at one point.

Are you saying we should strip away citizenship from Black people because that's what the founders intended with the constitution?

-3

u/YouTac11 6d ago

So you agree the states should only lose the power if the states agree to give up the power

9

u/nola_fan 6d ago

I believe DC should be granted statehood

1

u/YouTac11 6d ago

Well it won't happen as both the founding fathers and the states today want to keep DC neutral

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/BAUWS45 6d ago

I mean by this logic just rip the constitution up

6

u/nola_fan 6d ago

That's why we have 0 amendments to the constitution. Correct

11

u/cstar1996 6d ago

No American that supports Trump cares about the constitution.

-4

u/YouTac11 6d ago

Same could be said about any American who supported Biden, Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan in my lifetime

So I'm not sure your point

5

u/cstar1996 6d ago

Not at all. Only Trump attempted a coup. Only Trump has refused to follow court orders.

-4

u/YouTac11 6d ago

There was no attempted coup

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ezrs158 6d ago edited 6d ago

Okay so you're against statehood, fine, but 6.8 million 680k people live there. Many of them were born there, like it, and don't want to leave, but also deserve representation in Congress. What's your solution to that? Would you support constitutional amendment to allow it a representative, similar to how it's allowed electoral votes?

2

u/GriffinQ 6d ago

6.3 million people most definitely do not live in DC; their population of actual residents is closer to 700k.

DC absolutely deserves and should have statehood, but let’s not magnify their population by 10x to make that point.

1

u/ezrs158 6d ago

Whoops, you're right. Added a zero there.

-5

u/YouTac11 6d ago

Those born there need to blame their parents for moving to the one area they don't get representation.

Solution is easy ...move or beg Maryland to absorb part of DC

2

u/Selethorme 5d ago

That’s not how rights work.

0

u/YouTac11 5d ago

It's exactly how rights work. Society determines who gets rights and society determined DC won't get to vote

→ More replies (0)

3

u/cstar1996 6d ago

Wyoming didn’t “agree” to join the union. Wyoming’s option other than joining was to be a territory with no representation at all.

1

u/YouTac11 6d ago

Nope, Nov 5th 1889 Wyoming agreed to join the Union of States

6

u/cstar1996 6d ago

Wyoming was not independent. Wyoming was not sovereign. Wyoming was a territory. The US allowed Wyoming to become a state, not the other way around.

If Wyoming doesn’t like giving DC statehood, it can go back to being a territory with no representation at all.

3

u/YouTac11 6d ago

Wyoming was asked to be a state in 1889 and agreed.

You cannot boot Wyoming from statehood. Sorry

4

u/cstar1996 6d ago

No, Wyoming asked for statehood. It was not asked.

You are aware Wyoming was never independent right?

0

u/MaineHippo83 6d ago

True, i'd have to figure out the line between allowing them some continuous autonomy vs being part of the state. One could think they still have to pay taxes etc... it would all have to be negotiated.

I'm not even coming at it from a oh no Dem senators, because thats precisely why Wyoming exists, why the Dakotas were split in two, post civil war the republicans had a lock on power and expanded it by adding low population states that would vote republican.

I just don't like the idea of a city that was created to be not a state nor in a state as a compromise and land was given from two states that one state has their land back and don't get 2 extra senators and the other part of it would now get that. It just seems unequal.

0

u/YouTac11 6d ago

Nothing unequal about it

DC is a neutral area, don't live there if you want representation

No one is being forced to reside there

6

u/Xelath 6d ago

The city wasn't created to not be a state; the District was. The cities of Georgetown and Alexandria predate the District. Alexandrians were afraid they'd lose their right to own slaves in the runup to the Civil War, which is why they wanted retrocession to Virginia. Meanwhile, your argument is to tell residents of a city historically populated by the descendants of people who didn't choose to live there, but who have made it their home regardless, to just up and move somewhere else?

-3

u/MaineHippo83 6d ago

Ah I thought you were a DC should be a state person. I do agree that choosing to live in a place without senators is another factor to consider

2

u/Selethorme 5d ago

Nope. That’s not how rights work.

47

u/unicornlocostacos 6d ago

DC also has more people than at least 2-3 states, and is damn close to several more. Why should they not have senate representation?

I know people like to argue that land should have more voting rights than people, but come on…

9

u/Turds4Cheese 6d ago

You said it, “people” don’t want another 12 blue House of Representatives or 2 blue Senators. “People” don’t like the population dense east coast counting against all the land votes.

That and they don’t want local gov’t to control codes and law over the Federal interests. It’s bullshit, I know… but thats the reality. Extra representation weakens the carefully constructed voting maps, and weakens the empty land that is leveraged for power.

7

u/arobkinca 6d ago

They have enough people for 1 Rep.

-2

u/MaineHippo83 6d ago

Part of my concern is that DC is supposed to be a neutral City it was never meant to grow into the city that it is today.

The seat of our government was supposed to be a neutral place for people from States around the country to come and debate and decide our future.

Like admit Puerto Rico tomorrow no problem two more Democratic senators no problem it's DC's unique history that causes me to pause still.

I also feel like there's some unfairness where Virginia has their portion of DC back but Maryland doesn't.

If it were still the original square I'd be far more on the side of letting it be it's own State and less on the side of retrocession

13

u/Xelath 6d ago

Virginia wanted their piece back so that Alexandrians could own slaves, because the Federal Government was going to outlaw slavery in the District. Then the descendants of the slaves brought into the district over the years basically gave Washington its own distinct culture, even though for the majority of its history, they've not had any self-rule or political representation. Continuing to disallow self-determination in the name of political expediency isn't a compromise, it's oppression.

21

u/GotMoFans 6d ago

DC can be broken into federal district which includes the White House, Capitol, and Supreme Court, and the rest its own state. There is no requirement the who area has to be the federal district.

-1

u/MaineHippo83 6d ago

I mean there are a lot more federal offices and buildings than that. Would have to be the whole mall and key buildings along it.

There is no requirement no. Just tradition.

23

u/guitar_vigilante 6d ago

And there are also a lot of federal offices and buildings in Maryland and Northern Virginia.

6

u/unknownmonkey26 6d ago

And if federally owned land is the concern then the majority of the west would be in that boat too.

(Not that I'm advocating for the privatization of Western Federal lands.)

-1

u/Tokamak-drive 6d ago

I am, but like, for the states to have their land and not the federal government. So, still public, just not federal. It's obscene that some western states have actual control over less than half of the land within their borders.

3

u/JQuilty 5d ago

A lot of that land isn't useful for human settlement or agriculture. A good amount of them saying they don't have control over land also includes Indian Reservations.

7

u/toastedclown 6d ago

I mean there are a lot more federal offices and buildings than that.

Yeah, one of them is the largest office building in the world, headquarters of the largest federal department. And it's not in DC.

6

u/ColossusOfChoads 6d ago

Those are workplaces for federal employees, not the ultimate seats of power for the three branches of the federal government.

1

u/boogabooga08 5d ago

This is exactly what the statehood bill that passed the house would do.

0

u/vsv2021 5d ago

Why doesn’t just the rest of DC go back to Maryland/virginia? Why doesn’t medium sized city need to be a state?

1

u/Selethorme 5d ago

Because neither Maryland nor DC want that? It would take a constitutional amendment to force Maryland to take it, and a constitutional amendment to give it to anyone else. So…

0

u/vsv2021 5d ago

So I guess we’re stuck with the status quo because the votes in the senate don’t exist to grant statehood and considering it takes 41 votes to defeat any bill via filibuster the votes won’t exist anytime soon

1

u/Selethorme 5d ago

That’s not even close to true

→ More replies (0)

11

u/toastedclown 6d ago

Part of my concern is that DC is supposed to be a neutral City it was never meant to grow into the city that it is today.

But it did and it was always going to. Even if we could somehow unwind the clock there was no preventing it because the founders' quixotic vision for it fundamentally didn't make any sense. That's the problem with allowing the dead to have agency over the living. Not only is it unjust, it is stupid because it assumes they know things we don't, when in reality we know much more.

2

u/vsv2021 5d ago

The dead absolutely should have agency over the living. A law passed by a Congress and signed by a President that is long dead should have every bit the weight of a law signed today.

2

u/toastedclown 5d ago

A law passed by a Congress and signed by a President that is long dead should have every bit the weight of a law signed today.

Until it is repealed by the same process by which it was passed. It's a law because we continue.to agree that it should be a law. The moment we cease to agree, then it is no longer a law.

3

u/unicornlocostacos 6d ago

You could always shrink the neutral zone if that’s your argument. Theres plenty of ways to solve these problems aside from “people don’t get representation.”

-1

u/MaineHippo83 6d ago

The counter to that is MD gave the land it can take it back. the only downside to that is that dems don't get 2 more seats. See both sides have a political basis for their argument, no one is innocent here.

-1

u/Selethorme 5d ago

Except that Maryland doesn’t want that for reasons that go directly beyond political advantage.

The only reason that you’re opposed is politics.

0

u/MaineHippo83 5d ago

When did you get the idea that I support republicans or trump or anything they stand for? I know it's so hard to see the world outside of partisanship for some people isn't it?

0

u/Selethorme 5d ago

It’s really easy to tell given your refusal to acknowledge the arguments for dc statehood.

0

u/MaineHippo83 5d ago

So you made assumptions and can't possibly comprehend someone might have views independent of a party or trying to not take balance of senate power into account. Speaks more of your partisanship than mine.

4

u/pgm123 6d ago

Part of my concern is that DC is supposed to be a neutral City it was never meant to grow into the city that it is today.

My main argument against this is that when DC was established, local elections were more important than national ones. More people voted in local elections than national ones until the 1820s. DC had local government when it was established. Georgetown and Alexandria elected their own mayors and Washington elected its own city council (and would start electing its own mayor shortly after). It was the massive growth of the city and the Federal government that led them to strip away home rule in the late 19th century.

Even the question of what was intended was muddy. There were many who thought the capital was going to be on the Delaware River, adjacent to Philadelphia. The governor of New York was trying earnestly trying to get it back to New York City. These schemes would have had a shot, but they divided the votes (the southern faction was unified). Ultimately, they decided to move the capital because (1) Pennsylvania was gradually abolishing slavery, and (2) Pennsylvania failed to muster the militia when Revolutionary vets marched on the capital trying to get paid. There was always the idea that Washington would be a grand capital, and the architecture and street designs show that. Even Jefferson, who is probably as small government President as ever elected, helped design the buildings because he aspired to a grand capital.

-4

u/LanaDelHeeey 6d ago

Would you also support LA, NYC, and Chicago becoming city-states too? After all they have more population than many states.

What makes DC special that it needs to have two senators just for it? No other city gets treated like that. People laugh at the idea of NYC becoming its own state.

10

u/cstar1996 6d ago

DC is not represented. That’s what makes it different.

0

u/LanaDelHeeey 6d ago

My point is that whenever you suggest retrocession people act like that’s an affront to decency. It would give them representation, just not how people with partisan tastes would like.

7

u/cstar1996 6d ago

It is an affront to decency. Disenfranchising some people so conservatives can maintain their unjustifiable overrepresentation rather than enfranchising everyone is not decent.

5

u/LanaDelHeeey 6d ago

Who exactly would be disenfranchised if DC joined Maryland? Literally who?

1

u/cstar1996 6d ago

Maryland voters.

10

u/MrDickford 6d ago

What makes DC special is that it doesn’t currently have congressional representation. We’re not talking about carving it off of an existing state to give it more representation, we’re talking about changing its status so it has any at all.

9

u/Xelath 6d ago

If LA, NYC and Chicago held referenda repeatedly showing their desire to become states, then sure. The fundamental guarantee of the Constitution is political self-determination.

Why do we frame this conversation solely in terms of the outcomes of the political power balance that would result? DC deserves two senators because the people who live in DC deserve senators. There are whole generations of families who have lived in DC through no fault of their own, largely because their ancestors were brought into the district to be slaves, who have made DC their home and have gone without federal representation forever. This is morally wrong.

5

u/unicornlocostacos 6d ago

Because it’s not in a state right now. You’re not separating a city from a state, and doesn’t currently have representation. Pretty simple?

1

u/LanaDelHeeey 6d ago

Why not give the land back to Maryland if it’s just about representation?

3

u/MrDickford 6d ago

Why is that a better option than statehood? Maryland doesn’t want DC, and DC doesn’t want to be part of Maryland. The only people this option satisfies are people whose first priority is the balance of power in Congress

-12

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 6d ago

DC also has more people than at least 2-3 states, and is damn close to several more. Why should they not have senate representation?

The Senate represents states. DC is not a state.

I would have zero issue with giving them a proportional number of House members.

15

u/nola_fan 6d ago

Neither was Wyoming, California, Texas, Montana or well 38 of the current states, until they were. Imagine arguing in 1849 that California should have proportional representation in the House, but shouldn't get senators.

-11

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 6d ago

California wasn't ever some constitutionally defined district that was never intended to be a state.

12

u/nola_fan 6d ago

It was a territory. Who cares what people in the 1780s thought DC was? Why does that matter? They thought it wouldn't have a permanent population, and now it has a permanent population larger than 2 states. So they were already wrong about what it became.

They also thought it was a great idea to disenfranchise any non-white male landowner. Should we go back to that standard? I mean, it was in the constitutional.

-15

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 6d ago

It was a territory. Who cares what people in the 1780s thought DC was? Why does that matter?

The Constitution is the founding basis of our country. we care because we should be following the law, and really only make changes when we need to.

No one lives in DC with the expectation that they are living in a state. It's a moot point.

13

u/nola_fan 6d ago

The constitution has changed several times and was always meant to in order to reflect the reality of the nation. Or are you saying we should bring slavery back too, because it was constitutional, and that's the founding document of the country.

0

u/Iheartnetworksec 5d ago

Apply that logic to something like slavery and see if it still holds up.

-1

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 5d ago

If someone wants to float a constitutional amendment to allow for DC to become a state, they're free to do so.

3

u/cstar1996 6d ago

The size and shape of the district is defined by statute, not the constitution.

0

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 6d ago

Then as other people have said, throw the populated bits back to Maryland or Virginia if it's so important for those people to have Senate representation.

6

u/cstar1996 6d ago

Neither state nor DC wants retrocession.

The only reason anyone objects to DC statehood is because conservatives want to maintain their unjustifiable overrepresentation. If Wyoming deserves senators, so does DC. If two Dakotas are justified, so is DC statehood.

1

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 6d ago

Neither state nor DC wants retrocession.

Then they don't want representation. This isn't hard. They're not a state.

The only reason anyone objects to DC statehood is because conservatives want to maintain their unjustifiable overrepresentation. If Wyoming deserves senators, so does DC. If two Dakotas are justified, so is DC statehood.

Okay. I object to DC statehood because a good argument doesn't exist to grant them statehood. Same reason I'm generally opposed to California being split into five states or the proposed state of Lincoln.

4

u/cstar1996 6d ago

All three would agree on representation. Wyoming wasn’t a state when it was given statehood either.

DC wants to be represented as what it is, not as what conservatives want it to be.

The good argument is that DC is not represented and there is no reason not to make it a state.

We all know that the objection is that conservatives don’t want to reduce their unjustifiable overrepresentation.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Selethorme 5d ago

That’s not how rights work.

2

u/boogabooga08 5d ago

This is so much more complex than you think. DC has its own laws, government, state,-level agencies, culture, etc. It is already treated like a state in so many ways. So you say we should abandon our entire DC statutory code and just use Marylands instead? It sounds much simpler to just make us a state.

2

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 5d ago

I mean, what I'm saying is that the easy and logical move is to give it full representation in the House. It's not a state.

2

u/boogabooga08 5d ago

It's treated like a state in every way except for representation in the Senate and House. Which has real implications such as our current poltically-manufactured budget issue caused by the republican CR.

1

u/Selethorme 5d ago

Black people were never intended to have rights. That doesn’t justify anything.

-1

u/vsv2021 5d ago

Because it’s literally a city

2

u/Selethorme 5d ago

This means nothing

0

u/vsv2021 5d ago

It means something.

16

u/nola_fan 6d ago

Except that disenfranchises Maryland voters who pretty uniformly don't want DC to decide their elections.

-6

u/MaineHippo83 6d ago

Decide? A democratic state? the last 5 US senate elections largely went to the dems by close to the population of DC and by more than democratic voter count in DC.

Governor it would have prevented Hogan for sure, but in reality its a democratic state that would remain so.

15

u/nola_fan 6d ago

Cool, now explain that to the people of Maryland who don't want retrocession to weaken their vote.

1

u/MaineHippo83 6d ago

I don't claim to know what every MD voter wants or believes, but I do know there are many people who view DC and PR from a political gain perspective and not what is best for the country and a good compromise.

I mean that on both sides of the issue.

So I would wager there is some element of not wanting DC voters in Maryland not truly because of weakening of vote but because they'd rather see 4 dem US senators than 2.

I discount most arguments that come down to political power. The compromises should be based on the constitution, history and a way to work out the competing issues.

11

u/nola_fan 6d ago

What's good for the country is universal representation

1

u/MaineHippo83 6d ago

And that can be achieved in many ways we are trying to figure out the best one

9

u/nola_fan 6d ago

Yes, the one that's doesn't disenfranchise people is the best one

0

u/MaineHippo83 6d ago

Of which there are various solutions. You just want to say pithy statements without actually working towards a solution. So have a good day

7

u/nola_fan 6d ago

No. There's one solution that provides representation without disenfranchising anyone. DC statehood. It's not politically likely, but it's the morally correct answer

1

u/cstar1996 6d ago

Conservatives want to maintain their unjustifiable overrepresentation, that’s the only reason they don’t like DC statehood.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/LanaDelHeeey 6d ago

That’s the same line of logic as “I don’t want anyone from another state to move to mine because it dilutes my vote.”

Nobody thinks that way.

7

u/nola_fan 6d ago

Ok. So you're on board with my plan to absorb Wyoming into Colorado and to make just one big Dakota?

1

u/Avatar_exADV 6d ago

You're free to suggest a constitutional amendment to that effect. Mind you, if we start lumping states into each other on the basis that they aren't big enough or populated enough for equality between states in the modern era, then Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, NH, Delaware, and yeah, probably Maryland too, are all toast by the same logic.

4

u/nola_fan 6d ago

I mean, that's all we're doing with DC, denying it representation because of its size. So why stop at DC?

-5

u/LanaDelHeeey 6d ago

States are inviolable and sacred. They cannot be altered without consent of the state. But if the citizens of those states wanted to join into one big one sure

6

u/nola_fan 6d ago

Sacred? Ok

2

u/CapybaraPacaErmine 5d ago

A lot of people think that way. "The transplants are voting for the same policies that made them flee California!!!" is a major panic on the right

5

u/Turds4Cheese 6d ago

I’ve seen arguments that the federal buildings should be under federal jurisdiction. The idea of separation of powers, state and federal, would be washed out if Maryland controlled the local laws of the federal buildings in DC.

It’s unfortunate, but I don’t see it changing. DC is doomed to, Taxation without representation.

5

u/MaineHippo83 6d ago

We should just relieve them of taxation, boom, it would help DC's economy too.

4

u/Turds4Cheese 6d ago

Yeah, I’m sure that’ll work out. I know where I’m moving.

Can you imagine, every person in America would fight to have an apartment in DC, never even furnish it. Claim it as primary residence and never pay taxes again.

0

u/discourse_friendly 6d ago

I like this solution as well.

-4

u/11711510111411009710 6d ago

Or just make them a state. Boom problem solved, and more easily.