One additional philosophical argument against DC statehood is this: with all other states, it is an open question whether big or small government policies are more favorable to them. If politics had no cultural/social component and it only came down to the economy, taxes, fiscal policy, then places like Texas, Alaska or Mississippi should be big government states while New York or Massachusetts should favor small government.

However, unlike any other state, DC is the capital of the nation and as such will always favor big government policies. The interests of DC are far more predetermined than those of any other state. The allegiance of the other states can and has changed throughout American history, New York used to prefer the pro-business and small tax party for stretches, Texas used to be blue. DC, on the other hand, is completely predictable. If 400 years from now American politics is fought between 3 major parties, the human-alien-coexistence party, the human-supremacist party and the praise-our-alien-overlords party, DC would still favor whichever of those 3 promises the most government spending.

We use imperial for a few things still, fishing related math is mostly in lbs for example.
A 40 pounder sounds better than 20 kg.

Yeah that perspective doesn't make sense to me. A city that has a massive amount of lobbyists, lawyers, judges, consultants, advisors, appointed officials, nsa/cia/fill in theblank agents and so on is by no means disenfranchised.

This is the equivalent of asking why the kings court doesn't get additional power, like lol, because they already have so much of it in there.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 28 2020 05:39am

The DC rep doesn't have voting rights iirc.



That's certainly possible but Dems aren't as aggressive when they get the trifecta. They are run by a bunch of pussies after all.



DC is half black lol. That's a pretty gross way of describing the city.

This post was edited by thundercock on Oct 28 2020 11:43am

The issue with your argument is that we don't remove people's right to representation based on their ability to get political influence, and the average person in DC is not one of the people you describe.

under this logic a citazen of the United States can be born, live, and die inside of the United States and never enter a State and that's just gravy lol.

i mean its true but hundreds of thousands of united states residents dont live in a state but live in the country.

It's true, they don't. The Congress governs DC, so quite literally, the representatives of the other 435 congressional districts govern DC, and this is by design. Think of it this additional way: prior to the travesty of the 17th amendment, the legislatures of the several states elected its Senators, so DC's Senators would have been elected by... Congress?

Suppose we carve out the white area of DC as shown here and the red becomes "Swaplandia". Are there non-partisan reasons to keep these people from being represented in the House? I find the partisan reason to be compelling tbh b/c that's how new states were admitted in the pre-civil war era.

Non partisan? I don't think so. Partisan? Absolutely.

/e allow me to say, I don't think there should be a city state, and that opinion is non partisan.

This post was edited by Santara on Oct 28 2020 03:28pm

I still haven't seen a compelling reason why people in DC can't attach their votes to Maryland. Saying 'neither side wants it' is weak. Like why don't they want it? Who exactly is giving these 'reasons'. For all you know it's basically Democratic leadership that sees there's zero to gain from it so instead they're pushing for an option that has max benefit. Maryland is a perpetually blue state, so adding an additional 400-500k of more blue votes is meaningless, obviously blue run Maryland & DC are not going to want it.

Choosing the option that has most political impact and saying it's the only way is also just as political as republicans not wanting to confirm it as it's own entity.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 29 2020 06:26am