Moving US capital

[Brandon]

Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii?

Puerto Rico

Without A/C.

[hotdogPi]

Are we ready to move the capital to the cloud? Not those in the sky that cause rain. Not St. Cloud, MN or FL. But everything would be being done online.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii?

Puerto Rico

I'd move the capital to Florida or Puerto Rico as a category 5 hurricane is approaching either . We (you) missed some good oportunities with Irma and Maria...

[kalvado]

Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii?

Puerto Rico

I'd move the capital to Florida or Puerto Rico as a category 5 hurricane is approaching either . We (you) missed some good oportunities with Irma and Maria...

I am not sure... Given the choice between government and Cat 5, many people would choose the later...

[1995hoo]

Are we ready to move the capital to the cloud? Not those in the sky that cause rain. Not St. Cloud, MN or FL. But everything would be being done online.

Very unlikely in view of the use of SCIFs, among other reasons.

[Roadgeekteen]

Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii?

Puerto Rico

They need to become a state first. Can't have a capital where residents of it cannot vote for the government.

[vdeane]

Can't have a capital where residents of it cannot vote for the government.

We have that now.  Well, they have a nonvoting Congressional representative (as do Puerto Rico and the other major territories), and they can vote for president thanks to a Constitutional amendment, but that's it.

[kkt]

Are we ready to move the capital to the cloud? Not those in the sky that cause rain. Not St. Cloud, MN or FL. But everything would be being done online.

No.  The horse trading that goes on, the intimidation and implied threats, the implied quids pro quo all work a lot better in person than online.

And it's easy to say government should be abolished, but the alternative is civil war.

[Scott5114]

Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii?

You mean Mar-A-Lago?

[english si]

Can't have a capital where residents of it cannot vote for the government.

We have that now.

Surely that was the point? sarcasm does work well on the interwebs. Oh wait, just seen who you are responding to - that possibly have been the point but more likely wasn't.

[DTComposer]

As it is, most if not all Federal agencies maintain a plethora of regional offices in addition to their headquarters, so the government is already well dispersed. You could still maintain Washington as the nominal capital city, so some agency headquarters could remain along with the national monuments, museums, etc.

Again, most federal employees are outside of the DC metropolitan area. How much lower than 15% do you want to go?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/where-are-most-federal-employees-not-in-washington/2011/09/11/gIQAeKEhMK_blog.html?utm_term=.7ab88a6ce5a8

Many Americans – and the lawmakers who represent them – don't realize that about 85 percent of federal employees live and work well beyond Washington, with many of them located in tiny counties where the federal government is the dominant employer.

My end game in this hypothetical is not as much about dispersing (or further dispersing) the many thousands of government workers as it is to get our elected officials more in touch with the people who voted for them, and less in touch with the people corporations who grease their palms.

I get what someone up-thread said about the back-room dealings that are most easily done in person, but perhaps we need less of that kind of dealing as well.

[kkt]

As it is, most if not all Federal agencies maintain a plethora of regional offices in addition to their headquarters, so the government is already well dispersed. You could still maintain Washington as the nominal capital city, so some agency headquarters could remain along with the national monuments, museums, etc.

Again, most federal employees are outside of the DC metropolitan area. How much lower than 15% do you want to go?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/where-are-most-federal-employees-not-in-washington/2011/09/11/gIQAeKEhMK_blog.html?utm_term=.7ab88a6ce5a8

Many Americans – and the lawmakers who represent them – don't realize that about 85 percent of federal employees live and work well beyond Washington, with many of them located in tiny counties where the federal government is the dominant employer.

My end game in this hypothetical is not as much about dispersing (or further dispersing) the many thousands of government workers as it is to get our elected officials more in touch with the people who voted for them, and less in touch with the people corporations who grease their palms.

I get what someone up-thread said about the back-room dealings that are most easily done in person, but perhaps we need less of that kind of dealing as well.

There's a balance that needs to be made.  The legislators do need to represent their constituents, but they also need to get along with each other to make changes that are needed for the good of the country.  They need to make budgets, and every budget is going to have some things people don't like.

[kphoger]

Let's just outsource it to India.

[roadman65]

As it is, most if not all Federal agencies maintain a plethora of regional offices in addition to their headquarters, so the government is already well dispersed. You could still maintain Washington as the nominal capital city, so some agency headquarters could remain along with the national monuments, museums, etc.

Again, most federal employees are outside of the DC metropolitan area. How much lower than 15% do you want to go?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/where-are-most-federal-employees-not-in-washington/2011/09/11/gIQAeKEhMK_blog.html?utm_term=.7ab88a6ce5a8

Many Americans — and the lawmakers who represent them — don’t realize that about 85 percent of federal employees live and work well beyond Washington, with many of them located in tiny counties where the federal government is the dominant employer.

My end game in this hypothetical is not as much about dispersing (or further dispersing) the many thousands of government workers as it is to get our elected officials more in touch with the people who voted for them, and less in touch with the people corporations who grease their palms.

I get what someone up-thread said about the back-room dealings that are most easily done in person, but perhaps we need less of that kind of dealing as well.

There's a balance that needs to be made.  The legislators do need to represent their constituents, but they also need to get along with each other to make changes that are needed for the good of the country.  They need to make budgets, and every budget is going to have some things people don't like.

Good luck on that one.  As long as we have party loyalty it will never happen.

[MikeTheActuary]

Are we ready to move the capital to the cloud? Not those in the sky that cause rain. Not St. Cloud, MN or FL. But everything would be being done online.

No.

I've been a telecommuter for a good 10 years now.

One thing I've observed is that for telecommuting to really work, you really need all the participants to be technologically savvy, and comfortable/flexible with adapting to various modes of communication as the nature of discussion evolves.  As you start bringing folks without the same level of tech savvy / comfort with dynamic virtual discussion into the mix...you lose something.

Sometimes, there is something to be said for in-person, face-to-face interactions...and I'm pretty sure that holds true for most government functions.

[Roadgeekteen]

Can't have a capital where residents of it cannot vote for the government.

We have that now.

Surely that was the point? sarcasm does work well on the interwebs. Oh wait, just seen who you are responding to - that possibly have been the point but more likely wasn't.

Actually I was kinda serious. DC can vote for the president but not congress. LOL.

[cpzilliacus]

Yes, and the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington DC was a town back to colonial days.

Post-1776 and before the District of Columbia was established by acts of Congress and the Maryland General Assembly about 1790, Georgetown was the largest city in Montgomery County, Maryland (and its only seaport).

The Virginia General Assembly also acted to cede land to the federal government, but that was undone by Congressional retrocession of what is now Arlington County, Virginia and a large part of the City of Alexandria, Virginia in 1845.

[cpzilliacus]

You can give DC representation without giving it statehood. A similar fix was done with the 23rd Amendment, which gave DC electoral votes.

A later proposed constitutional amendment, that would've given DC full representation in Congress, failed by a wide margin.

Blame for that falls mostly on the person that should have been working to get it ratified, but was having too much fun doing other things - the late former Mayor-for-Life of the District of Columbia, Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr.  For all of Barry's complaining about congressional oversight of (and interference in the workings of) the District of Columbia, he did not lift a finger to get it ratified.

By the time to ratify the amendment started to wind down, Barry's reputation alone (such as the incident at the "This is It?" strip joint and criminal convictions of several high-ranking municipal officials in his administration) made it unlikely that the amendment would win enough states to be enacted - at least with him as Mayor (Barry's use of the crack pipe at the Vista Hotel (recorded on FBI videotape) did not happen until 1989, well after the period to ratify the proposed D.C. Voting Rights Amendment had expired).

[hbelkins]

Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr.

Drink! 

[Roadgeekteen]

I do think that DC should be represented in congress. However, Republicans would not like this because DC leans democrat. So a solution I have is to split Texas in half to give Republicans 2 more senators.

[bing101]

Move the US Capitol to Vacaville, CA! Yes and we get twice the drama for the price of One. First of All it will be Solano County,CA third time to contain a Capital city. The first two times for Solano County, CA was named Capital was because the State Capitol was in Benicia and Vallejo at the time.

This time Vacaville gets the US Capital and California specifically in the Sacramento Valley region will get twice the drama in politics!!

If that happens then parts of Dixon, CA and Vacaville would have to leave the State of California and become a federal district like Washington D.C. is.

[kkt]

I do think that DC should be represented in congress. However, Republicans would not like this because DC leans democrat. So a solution I have is to split Texas in half to give Republicans 2 more senators.

1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Article IV section 3

[Big John]

^^ Then how was West Virginia formed?  I've had a hard time figuring that out.

[Roadgeekteen]

^^ Then how was West Virginia formed?  I've had a hard time figuring that out.

Virginia was part of the confederacy so that might have something to do with that.

[oscar]

^^ Then how was West Virginia formed?  I've had a hard time figuring that out.

Basically, the Union welcomed northwestern Virginia's secession from the rest of Virginia, and giving it statehood helped cement Union control over potentially strategic territory even though the Confederacy never really controlled it. Since Virginia had left the Union (even though, technically, the Union didn't accept that departure), Virginia wasn't in a position to object. When Virginia was readmitted to the Union, it had to consent to the formation of West Virginia within its former boundaries, as a condition of readmission.

As for the split of Texas to give that state more senators (presumably Republican), AIUI when Texas was initially admitted to the Union it won the right to split into as many as five states. Good questions, though, whether giving Texas but not other states that option was constitutional, or whether that deal survived Texas' exit from and subsequent readmission to the Union. Of course, if both Texas and Congress were willing, a two-way split could be done (though Texas might view that as not worth the hassle, if it would get only two new senators as a result).