This. DC deserves representation in the chamber of Congress which represents the people, hence, the DC rep should become a voting member of the House. DC is not, and was never intended to be, a state though, so I dont see why it should be entitled to seats in the chamber representing the states, i.e. the Senate.

/thread.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 22 2021 10:57am

ok fine if we have to give them a representative I have an idea.

D.C. doesn't represent the people so I should represent D.C.
lmk

Senators represent states who have equal suffrage in the senate.

Go on...

States are..._________________

i wonder what the capital of the state of DC will be? a Mcdonalds bathroom?

As someone who does not live in the USA, I have always found it peculiar that DC is not a state. Can anyone explain to me why it is that way? And what is the difference between DC is governed locally and how any other state is governed locally?

firsty, upon creation, it wasnt really meant to be a permeant residence. it was just a chunk of mostly empty land where we plopped govt buildings where only a few people were there (compared to today) and state reps came and went.

so state reps being the main "residents" means they are represented back home, as well as the executive branch which comes from somewhere (trump voted in florida in 2020 iirc).

now fast forward and its a booming metropolitan area with very little free space.

land wise DC = 69 square miles, Rhode Island the smallest state by a wide margin = 1214 square miles.

The historical reason for it not being a state makes sense for sure.

What are the current counter-arguments for it becoming a state?

The most interesting thing about DC is that it is one of the Richest cities in the world. The wealthy people are just very good at hiding their money, because lobbyists driving around in BMV's is a bad look for the country.



Originally the capital was Philadelphia, but it was moved to near Virginia as a compromise for getting the votes of southern states. That's why the location DC was chosen.

Shortly later in the constitution, DC itself was chosen as the entity to rule itself. Congress was charged with governing DC.

DC already has competitive governing ability through lobbying and a Mayor as well.

It would require at least a consitutional amendment and the reversal of 200 years of judicial rulings for this to actually happen.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Apr 22 2021 12:14pm

historically DC's governance was given over to Congress via the constitution. in 1973 a mayor and 13 elected officials were added, but are still under the control of congress.

it remains the same because the constitution remains the same, the local council is a loophole of sorts, because ultimately they're under congress in the chain of command, although im not sure how often congress exercises this right to overrule the mayor or council. as does the requirements for a new state, in the constitution, which DC does not meet.

as with many issues, the answer is of Muh Constitution.