How would you move the US capital if you had too to make it more centrally located? I think St. Louis or Kansas City would be my choice.
I would move it to Lebanon KS. It's physically impossible for it to be more centrally located in the lower 48 (unless they annex immediately adjacent areas of Canada and/or Mexico) :bigass:.
If I had to move it somewhere central, I'd probably build an entirely new city so that there wouldn't be the problem of trying to graft all sorts of ugly security measures onto existing public spaces.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2017, 05:00:22 PM
If I had to move it somewhere central, I'd probably build an entirely new city so that there wouldn't be the problem of trying to graft all sorts of ugly security measures onto existing public spaces.
An entirely new capital city would almost certainly be a "company town". That would aggravate one of the more unattractive features of our existing capital.
Maybe downsize and/or decentralize the Federal government, so the new capital would fit into an existing major commercial center with a lot more going on than just government. St. Louis or Kansas City could be options, but Dallas/Ft. Worth might be better even though not as centrally located.
How about putting government on a big ship, sailing to the center of Atlantic ocean and sinking it right there?
Denver It is almost the western capital now.
I would say a newly built city somewhere along I-44 in MO between Joplin and St. Louis. It's the closest interstate highway to the population center of the US.
Quote from: oscar on November 27, 2017, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2017, 05:00:22 PM
If I had to move it somewhere central, I'd probably build an entirely new city so that there wouldn't be the problem of trying to graft all sorts of ugly security measures onto existing public spaces.
An entirely new capital city would almost certainly be a "company town". That would aggravate one of the more unattractive features of our existing capital.
Maybe downsize and/or decentralize the Federal government, so the new capital would fit into an existing major commercial center with a lot more going on than just government. St. Louis or Kansas City could be options, but Dallas/Ft. Worth might be better even though not as centrally located.
Yeah, I had the same thought, but I had trouble finding a non-political way to express it.
In the age of the Internet, it's foolish to continue to have our nation's capital in one single city. Remember, 9/11 could have been a whole lot worse than it was, had the hijackers managed to hit the White House or the Capitol Building.
Each branch could be in a different city today, none of which should be within range of a nuke (read: not on either coast). Congresscritters could locate their offices strictly in their state/district, with votes by electronic means. Then, for example, locate the White House in Chicago, the Supreme Court building in Denver, and the military (Pentagon II) in Kansas City. The various government agencies under the Executive Branch could be located pretty much anywhere.
The news media would certainly throw fits, since they'd have to be located somewhere in Flyover Country instead of The Almighty East. :)
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 27, 2017, 07:31:43 PM
In the age of the Internet, it's foolish to continue to have our nation's capital in one single city. Remember, 9/11 could have been a whole lot worse than it was, had the hijackers managed to hit the White House or the Capitol Building.
Each branch could be in a different city today, none of which should be within range of a nuke (read: not on either coast). Congresscritters could locate their offices strictly in their state/district, with votes by electronic means. Then, for example, locate the White House in Chicago, the Supreme Court building in Denver, and the military (Pentagon II) in Kansas City. The various government agencies under the Executive Branch could be located pretty much anywhere.
The news media would certainly throw fits, since they'd have to be located somewhere in Flyover Country instead of The Almighty East. :)
One of the biggest problems in Washington is the lack of cooperation among members of Congress. Your proposal would make it substantially worse since no one would ever actually meet. Also, the legislative and executive being in Washington helps for cooperation between the two branches, which is honestly essential to advance policy.
The various government entities COULD NOT ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT be located anywhere. I used to work at a federal agency in Washington and we often had to collaborate with other agencies, including traveling to meetings with people at the other agencies, you can't just spread agencies around the country.
The entire government needs to be the same city for everything to function. Anything else is a mere fantasy.
Plato, MO.
It's the population center of the US, so.
Bodie, CA the place could use a little extra life.
Quote from: kalvado on November 27, 2017, 05:57:08 PM
How about putting government on a big ship, sailing to the center of Atlantic ocean and sinking it right there?
Did the US military conquer Atlantis?
Quote from: kalvado on November 27, 2017, 05:57:08 PM
How about putting government on a big ship, sailing to the center of Atlantic ocean and sinking it right there?
I like that idea. Barring that, Wake Island sounds like a good choice. With no airport or docks.
South Africa has the branches of government spread out. The president, cabinet, and civil service offices are in Pretoria, but the legislature meets in Capetown, the Supreme Court of Appeal is in Bloemfontein, and the constitutional court is in Johannesburg. I wonder if anyone has written about how well or poorly it works for them.
Quote from: Brandon on November 27, 2017, 09:37:18 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 27, 2017, 05:57:08 PM
How about putting government on a big ship, sailing to the center of Atlantic ocean and sinking it right there?
I like that idea. Barring that, Wake Island sounds like a good choice. With no airport or docks.
When Alaska was noodling over whether and where to move its state capital (not happening), there was sentiment both for moving the capital closer to the Anchorage area so people there could more easily wring legislators' necks, and for instead moving it somewhere remote and unpleasant like the far western Aleutian Islands.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2017, 05:00:22 PM
If I had to move it somewhere central, I'd probably build an entirely new city so that there wouldn't be the problem of trying to graft all sorts of ugly security measures onto existing public spaces.
So basically what the Burma/Myanmar did when it moved its capital from the ancient city of Yangon (Rangoon) to the modern city of Naypyidaw.
I don't have a source handy, but the majority of federal workers are outside of the Washington metropolitan area (sadly, think back to Oklahoma City as an example of a flyover city with a federal office presence), considering field offices, military bases, ports-of-entry, etc.
It's a fun mental exercise but of little practical use. I imagine the Constitution would need to be amended to seriously move towards any type of highly-distributed federal government. As I recall, there were even issues when the federal government first started moving agencies into nearby Virginia and Maryland.
How would you name a new capital? Americana? Americanopolis? Freedom City?
The capital of the Netherlands is constitutionally Amsterdam, but parliament, government institutions and embassies are in The Hague. Bolivia is another country with a different constitutional capital (Sucre) than the seat of government (La Paz).
Quote from: Chris on November 28, 2017, 10:20:36 AM
How would you name a new capital? Americana? Americanopolis? Freedom City?
How about Lobbyville, after those whom our gummint officials really represent? :-D :)
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 28, 2017, 10:49:41 AM
Quote from: Chris on November 28, 2017, 10:20:36 AM
How would you name a new capital? Americana? Americanopolis? Freedom City?
How about Lobbyville, after those whom our gummint officials really represent? :-D :)
Ajit Pai would certainly love it.
I'd say St. Louis over Kansas City simply because it is on the Mississippi River, the dividing line between East and West.
Quote from: Chris on November 28, 2017, 10:20:36 AM
How would you name a new capital? Americana? Americanopolis? Freedom City?
Effectively what Brazil did, both by moving the capital to a custom-built city off its east coast (previous Rio) and with its name (Brasilia).
Quote from: oscar on November 27, 2017, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2017, 05:00:22 PM
If I had to move it somewhere central, I'd probably build an entirely new city so that there wouldn't be the problem of trying to graft all sorts of ugly security measures onto existing public spaces.
An entirely new capital city would almost certainly be a "company town". That would aggravate one of the more unattractive features of our existing capital.
Disagree. The capital should be just that -- the seat of government. There should be nothing but government offices there. The government should own all the land and there should be no residents or local government. That's what DC was originally meant to be, as I understand it.
In terms of spreading the offices out, everything doesn't need to be in the capital city. Annapolis is a prime example. The capitol is there, but many of the state offices are in Baltimore. When I went to the AASHTO Subcommittee on Transportation Communications conference there a couple of years ago, most of the SHA folks were out of Baltimore.
There would have been a reasonable case for moving the capital 100 years ago. These days travel is so easy that there's no way it out outweigh the costs of moving.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 28, 2017, 01:22:06 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 27, 2017, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2017, 05:00:22 PM
If I had to move it somewhere central, I'd probably build an entirely new city so that there wouldn't be the problem of trying to graft all sorts of ugly security measures onto existing public spaces.
An entirely new capital city would almost certainly be a "company town". That would aggravate one of the more unattractive features of our existing capital.
Disagree. The capital should be just that -- the seat of government. There should be nothing but government offices there. The government should own all the land and there should be no residents or local government. That's what DC was originally meant to be, as I understand it.
In terms of spreading the offices out, everything doesn't need to be in the capital city. Annapolis is a prime example. The capitol is there, but many of the state offices are in Baltimore. When I went to the AASHTO Subcommittee on Transportation Communications conference there a couple of years ago, most of the SHA folks were out of Baltimore.
Where do they eat and sleep? :D
Actually, come to think if it, the Eastern Market was part of DC's original L'Enfant plan, so the idea that only offices were supposed to be there is false. The Eastern Market was supposed to be the commercial hub of the Capital.
Quote from: Rothman on November 28, 2017, 02:01:26 PM
Actually, come to think if it, the Eastern Market was part of DC's original L'Enfant plan, so the idea that only offices were supposed to be there is false. The Eastern Market was supposed to be the commercial hub of the Capital.
Yes, and the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington DC was a town back to colonial days.
Quote from: kkt on November 28, 2017, 02:05:28 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 28, 2017, 02:01:26 PM
Actually, come to think if it, the Eastern Market was part of DC's original L'Enfant plan, so the idea that only offices were supposed to be there is false. The Eastern Market was supposed to be the commercial hub of the Capital.
Yes, and the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington DC was a town back to colonial days.
The District of Columbia has, at various times, contained at least three separate municipalities: Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria. Alexandria was returned to Virginia and Georgetown was later (1871) merged into Washington.
From a practical standpoint, of course, even if a "new US capital city" were to be a "company town," there would still have to be businesses not directly involved in the business of government, such as grocery stores (to give the most obvious example), because the government's employees would still have to live there.
And pricey restaurants for lobbyists to take legislators to lunch in :)
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 27, 2017, 08:18:08 PM
The various government entities COULD NOT ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT be located anywhere. I used to work at a federal agency in Washington and we often had to collaborate with other agencies, including traveling to meetings with people at the other agencies, you can't just spread agencies around the country.
Teleconferences could solve that issue. That's how a LOT of statewide business is done in New York. I've even been in ones where other people
in the same building joined that way rather than in person.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 27, 2017, 07:31:43 PM
none of which should be within range of a nuke (read: not on either coast).
While certain countries with ambitions towards being a nuclear power may not yet have the capability of reaching beyond the coasts, the established powers (Russia et al) can certainly reach anywhere in the U.S., and the others soon will be able to as well.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 27, 2017, 08:18:08 PM
The various government entities COULD NOT ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT be located anywhere. I used to work at a federal agency in Washington and we often had to collaborate with other agencies, including traveling to meetings with people at the other agencies, you can't just spread agencies around the country.
The entire government needs to be the same city for everything to function. Anything else is a mere fantasy.
As mentioned above, it works fine in other countries, and in other states within this country (as just another example, California's Supreme Court meets in San Francisco, not Sacramento). Just because it wasn't what you did doesn't mean it can't be done.
You talk of collaboration - that's not happening now. I think there's something to the idea of spreading our Congress out for the majority of the year. Let them work full-time in their home districts, making them more accessible to their constituents (and less accessible to the lobbying machines) then they could meet monthly for three to four days in regional "pods" that move around (and teleconference with the other "pods" from there), then once a year they could convene nationally for two weeks in another rotating location.
So for example, there could be five pods of 9 to 11 states each, each currently having between 60 and 75 million people (for this example geography is more important than population, but it's nice that they're not too horribly skewed). The West pod would include Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho and Montana. The 11 monthly meetings could rotate between each state (maybe one each in Northern and Southern California).
The annual national meeting location would rotate as well. Maybe it sounds daunting to convene the entire congress (plus their staff) in a different location each year, but would it be any more logistically difficult than the Super Bowl? If all 535 members participate, maybe they even all bring a spouse and two kids, and they each bring 20 staff members. That's 12,840 people. Each Super Bowl estimates at least 100,000 people come into a town each year.
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.
Just spitballin'...
Quote from: DTComposer on November 28, 2017, 04:03:08 PM
As mentioned above, it works fine in other countries, and in other states within this country (as just another example, California's Supreme Court meets in San Francisco, not Sacramento).
The state supreme court also hears cases in Sacramento and Los Angeles.
In Alaska, the state Supreme Court as well as many of the smaller state agencies are based in Anchorage rather than the capital city of Juneau.
Quote from: DTComposer on November 28, 2017, 04:03:08 PM
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
QuoteMany 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.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 28, 2017, 02:09:48 PM
From a practical standpoint, of course, even if a "new US capital city" were to be a "company town," there would still have to be businesses not directly involved in the business of government, such as grocery stores (to give the most obvious example), because the government's employees would still have to live there.
No. The employees would live in the surrounding non-capital district, which is where the businesses would be. That would eliminate this "taxation without representation" crap that goes on in DC now. People choose to live in DC, knowing it has no congressional representation. If they want a congressman, they should move to Virginia or Maryland.
Sounds kind of like a medieval walled city! I guess, from a "security" standpoint, maybe that makes sense. Sometimes in DC it feels like the government views the public as a big nuisance they'd like to sweep out of the city.
I agree 100% with your comments about people moving to DC knowing it has no representation.
But you would also have immediate employee needs that would all need to be government run, from cafeterias to medical treatment facilities. I guess you could do without gas stations, although depending on the size of the city they would be someone important I would think.
There's also electrical needs, internet, television, gas, oil, etc. All those companies will need to be located outside the city, with the necessary hookups within the city.
You could also just give DC representation, given how its population is larger than the populations of Vermont and Wyoming.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2017, 11:51:41 AM
Sounds kind of like a medieval walled city! I guess, from a "security" standpoint, maybe that makes sense. Sometimes in DC it feels like the government views the public as a big nuisance they'd like to sweep out of the city.
I agree 100% with your comments about people moving to DC knowing it has no representation.
That was pretty much the idea. Philadelphia/Pennsylvania police refused to get protesters away from Congress so Congress decided they wanted a capital city that
they controlled.
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2017, 12:48:16 PM
You could also just give DC representation, given how its population is larger than the populations of Vermont and Wyoming.
The District of Colombia was supposed to not be a part of any state.
It could be ceded back to Maryland like the part south of the Potomac was ceded back to Virginia.
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on November 29, 2017, 01:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2017, 12:48:16 PM
You could also just give DC representation, given how its population is larger than the populations of Vermont and Wyoming.
The District of Colombia was supposed to not be a part of any state.
It could be ceded back to Maryland like the part south of the Potomac was ceded back to Virginia.
Z981
You can give DC representation without giving it statehood. A similar fix was done with the 23rd Amendment, which gave DC electoral votes.
I still have never heard a reasonable answer to the question, however, why it is justified to tax DC residents with federal taxes while denying DC residents any say in those taxes. If you're really hell-bent on denying representation in Congress, then presumably you'd support federal tax waivers to DC residents?
Especially since there were established communities already in DC before DC was ceded from Maryland.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 29, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment).
The argument is that such a constitutional amendment would be needed to confer full Congressional representation unless D.C. became (part of) a state; that giving D.C. statehood (except perhaps as part of Maryland) would suck for various reasons; and anyway, D.C. residents who moved there from elsewhere did so by choice, and even D.C. natives are within what is for most people long walking distance from Maryland and/or Virginia, so any unfairness to them is not a serious wrong.
Moving the capital city elsewhere would eliminate that headache, though it could also turn D.C. economically into a smoldering crater.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 29, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 29, 2017, 01:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2017, 12:48:16 PM
You could also just give DC representation, given how its population is larger than the populations of Vermont and Wyoming.
The District of Colombia was supposed to not be a part of any state.
It could be ceded back to Maryland like the part south of the Potomac was ceded back to Virginia.
Z981
You can give DC representation without giving it statehood. A similar fix was done with the 23rd Amendment, which gave DC electoral votes.
I still have never heard a reasonable answer to the question, however, why it is justified to tax DC residents with federal taxes while denying DC residents any say in those taxes. If you're really hell-bent on denying representation in Congress, then presumably you'd support federal tax waivers to DC residents?
If they have representation in Congress it's a de facto state. They would have to apply for statehood. And given the the likely full Democrat delegation Republicans would not support it. ( Same reason Democrats would not support splitting states that have have Democrat urban areas and Republican rural regions.)
I see your point about paying federal taxes.. make it like Puerto Rico.
If DC residents did not pay federal taxes there would be far less people living in suburbs in MD, VA and even WV and PA. The District of Colombia would have well over 1 million people
Z981
I'm not sure there would be space for 1 million people to live in DC. It's got a fairly low height limit. It would raise the demand for real estate within DC for sure, though.
Quote from: kkt on November 29, 2017, 04:28:09 PM
I'm not sure there would be space for 1 million people to live in DC. It's got a fairly low height limit. It would raise the demand for real estate within DC for sure, though.
Much of DC is zoned for single-family homes, R-1 on the map (https://ggwash.org/images/posts/201202-081108.jpg). With the stroke of a pen, DC could drastically raise its housing capacity without even coming close to the height limit. For historical reference, the maximum city population was 802K, having swelled during WWII.
To put it another way, the population of DC is over 681K and the overwhelming majority of the city doesn't even come close to the height limit.
Quote from: Chris on November 28, 2017, 10:20:36 AMThe capital of the Netherlands is constitutionally Amsterdam, but parliament, government institutions and embassies are in The Hague. Bolivia is another country with a different constitutional capital (Sucre) than the seat of government (La Paz).
The UK too, though there's no constitution to say that London is the capital, just that London is considered the capital despite the seats of state power always having been just outside.
Quote from: kkt on November 29, 2017, 04:28:09 PMI'm not sure there would be space for 1 million people to live in DC. It's got a fairly low height limit.
Visit Paris! 5 times denser than DC and mostly mid-rise 5-7 storey buildings.
Tall buildings don't give too much of a boost. Interestingly Paris' high-rise residential 13th arrondissement has 62k/sq mi, compared with 55k/sq mi for the whole city (which includes non-residential areas). The 19th arrondissement has 66k/sq mi despite no high rise.
I can't think of a single drawback to the US capital being moved to Bouvet Island.
Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii? :bigass:
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 29, 2017, 11:01:07 PM
Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii? :bigass:
Puerto Rico ;)
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.
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2017, 12:54:41 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 29, 2017, 11:01:07 PM
Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii? :bigass:
Puerto Rico ;)
I'd move the capital to Florida or Puerto Rico as a category 5 hurricane is approaching either :sombrero:. We (you) missed some good oportunities with Irma and Maria...
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on November 30, 2017, 08:40:30 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2017, 12:54:41 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 29, 2017, 11:01:07 PM
Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii? :bigass:
Puerto Rico ;)
I'd move the capital to Florida or Puerto Rico as a category 5 hurricane is approaching either :sombrero:. 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...
Quote from: 1 on November 30, 2017, 05:33:34 AM
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.
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2017, 12:54:41 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 29, 2017, 11:01:07 PM
Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii? :bigass:
Puerto Rico ;)
They need to become a state first. Can't have a capital where residents of it cannot vote for the government.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 30, 2017, 11:57:37 AM
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.
Quote from: 1 on November 30, 2017, 05:33:34 AM
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.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 29, 2017, 11:01:07 PM
Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii? :bigass:
You mean Mar-A-Lago?
Quote from: vdeane on November 30, 2017, 01:35:13 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 30, 2017, 11:57:37 AM
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. ;)
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 28, 2017, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on November 28, 2017, 04:03:08 PM
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
QuoteMany 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.
Quote from: DTComposer on November 30, 2017, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 28, 2017, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on November 28, 2017, 04:03:08 PM
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
QuoteMany 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.
Let's just outsource it to India.
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2017, 05:50:32 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on November 30, 2017, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 28, 2017, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on November 28, 2017, 04:03:08 PM
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
QuoteMany 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.
Quote from: 1 on November 30, 2017, 05:33:34 AM
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.
Quote from: english si on November 30, 2017, 03:31:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 30, 2017, 01:35:13 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 30, 2017, 11:57:37 AM
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.
Quote from: kkt on November 28, 2017, 02:05:28 PM
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.
Quote from: oscar on November 29, 2017, 02:14:29 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 29, 2017, 01:45:15 PM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment).
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).
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.
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.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 02, 2017, 10:42:37 PM
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.
Quote1: 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
^^ Then how was West Virginia formed? I've had a hard time figuring that out.
Quote from: Big John on December 02, 2017, 11:22:57 PM
^^ 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.
Quote from: Big John on December 02, 2017, 11:22:57 PM
^^ 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).
The division of Texas was allowed for in the law that annexed Texas territory to the United States, however not in the law that finally admitted Texas as a state, and not in the law that readmitted Texas to the Union following the unpleasantness.
Quote from: 1 on November 30, 2017, 05:33:34 AM
Are we ready to move the capital to the cloud?
There's an idea. Great symbolism. The elites and leaders live in the cloud, and the little people have to look up at them while they toil away in the mines.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/d/d2/Kirk_and_Spock_view_Stratos_from_surface.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090204050616&path-prefix=en)
Quote1: 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.
You've misread it by isolating the emphasized phrase out of context. You need to read it with the next one, and together it says you can't split up a state or merge (parts of) states together without the consent of the affected states' legislatures and Congress.
When West Virginia split, there was a functioning pro-Union remnant of the Virginia legislature that organized in Wheeling to continue the functions of the area of the state that did not want to secede from the Union. It was that legislature was recognized by the Union government and consented to the creation of West Virginia.
Excuse me, but I included the context. I emphasized the part most relevent to the discussion and figured readers could read on the end of the sentence without having their hands held.
Quote from: wxfree on December 03, 2017, 08:50:45 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 30, 2017, 05:33:34 AM
Are we ready to move the capital to the cloud?
There's an idea. Great symbolism. The elites and leaders live in the cloud, and the little people have to look up at them while they toil away in the mines.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/d/d2/Kirk_and_Spock_view_Stratos_from_surface.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090204050616&path-prefix=en)
The air force would have to do a lot of work against the angry masses if we went from a free country to this.
Quote from: corco on November 26, 2013, 01:14:44 AM
A legitimate argument could be made to relocate the nation's capital to American Falls
Quote from: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: corco on November 26, 2013, 01:14:44 AM
A legitimate argument could be made to relocate the nation's capital to American Falls
I am confused. Couldn't this name be used for any US town near a waterfall? Why this one?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 13, 2017, 05:37:12 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: corco on November 26, 2013, 01:14:44 AM
A legitimate argument could be made to relocate the nation's capital to American Falls
I am confused. Couldn't this name be used for any US town near a waterfall? Why this one?
Click on the quote link and actually read
corco's post that I snipped that from. And then be glad I didn't quote the entire post.
Quote from: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 06:03:48 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 13, 2017, 05:37:12 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: corco on November 26, 2013, 01:14:44 AM
A legitimate argument could be made to relocate the nation's capital to American Falls
I am confused. Couldn't this name be used for any US town near a waterfall? Why this one?
Click on the quote link and actually read corco's post that I snipped that from. And then be glad I didn't quote the entire post.
Wow! So much effort by Corco!