Splitting states

[Roadgeekteen]

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

If DC voted the other way, would you still think that DC should be returned to Maryland?

[hotdogPi]

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

[webny99]

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC.

Power struggle? I guess that's one way to put it...

[kkt]

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

It doesn't fly with me that citizens within the United States should have to move in order to enjoy their constitutional rights.  That's like telling African Americans in the 1960s, hey, if you want to be able to eat in the same restaurants white people eat at, move out of the southern states.

[triplemultiplex]

I think you misread that post, kkt.  He's saying the District of Columbia should go back to Maryland, as in return to being part of that state; not the people get up and move.

[kkt]

Okay, but returning the District to Maryland isn't practical.  The Federal government can't force Maryland to change its boundaries - Virginia wanted its part of the original district back.

[Scott5114]

Maryland doesn't want them, and they don't want to be part of Maryland, since they'll have more influence on their own, and more control over their local area, than they would as a part of Maryland. So that's a solution that wouldn't make anyone actually involved in it happy.

And forcing new territory onto Maryland that they don't want violates Maryland's state rights. Or do we not care about that anymore?

I see no reason why what is currently DC couldn't be split into two portions, one which becomes a state and one which remains the federal district. It's probably more legitimate than when WV split off from VA.

[Roadgeekteen]

DC has more people than Wyoming. If DC is merged into Maryland, Wyoming can be merged into Colorado.

[hotdogPi]

I see no reason why what is currently DC couldn't be split into two portions, one which becomes a state and one which remains the federal district. It's probably more legitimate than when WV split off from VA.

As the 23rd Amendment is written, the remaining federal district still gets 3 electoral votes. You can't make it completely empty, as homeless people living within the boundaries count as inside.

[Roadgeekteen]

I see no reason why what is currently DC couldn't be split into two portions, one which becomes a state and one which remains the federal district. It's probably more legitimate than when WV split off from VA.

As the 23rd Amendment is written, the remaining federal district still gets 3 electoral votes. You can't make it completely empty, as homeless people living within the boundaries count as inside.

Wonder how the court would interpret that. If DC became a state and the federal district had either none or very few people, then would there be 3 electoral votes controlled by very few people? The democrats would love that as the DC homeless population skews Democrat and they would be getting 6 electoral votes out of DC.

[Scott5114]

I see no reason why what is currently DC couldn't be split into two portions, one which becomes a state and one which remains the federal district. It's probably more legitimate than when WV split off from VA.

As the 23rd Amendment is written, the remaining federal district still gets 3 electoral votes. You can't make it completely empty, as homeless people living within the boundaries count as inside.

Wonder how the court would interpret that. If DC became a state and the federal district had either none or very few people, then would there be 3 electoral votes controlled by very few people? The democrats would love that as the DC homeless population skews Democrat and they would be getting 6 electoral votes out of DC.

The Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." In all 50 states, the state appoints electors based on an election by the citizens. 48 states are winner-take-all, while Maine and Nebraska appoint two electors based on the statewide vote, while the other electors are allocated by Congressional district.

But there is nothing saying that the Legislature has to appoint them according to the results of a statewide election. (Indeed, in the country's early days, electors were chosen by some of the state legislatures.) The 23rd Amendment says "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation," which implies that the Congress takes the role of the Legislature in this instance.

So Congress could pass a law saying that DC's 3 electoral votes always follow the national popular vote. Or they could say that they always vote for George Washington, or Alan Merritt, or one each to the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian candidates, or someone else if they want those three votes to effectively go away until they can get around to repealing the 23rd Amendment.

[kphoger]

D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

Mexico's federal district was in a similar situation but became a state in all but name just a few years ago.

Does Mexico allocate legislators based on states? If not, then it really isn't a comparable action.

Mexico has three Senators (upper house) from each federal entity (31 states + Mexico City).  Of the three per federal entity, two are elected, and one is assigned from the runner-up party within that entity.  In addition, there are 32 Senators who represent the country as a whole, whose political makeup is distributed based on the vote breakdown.

Mexico has 500 Deputies (lower house).  300 of those are elected by electoral district.  The other 200 are assigned based on the vote breakdown, based on five larger-than-state electoral regions, each of which has 40 seats.

[Scott5114]

That seems kind of complicated, but I really like the idea of having a third senator from the non-majority party for each state. It would be nice having a way to guarantee that, e.g. Republicans in California and Democrats in Oklahoma have a say.

[kphoger]

That seems kind of complicated, but I really like the idea of having a third senator from the non-majority party for each state. It would be nice having a way to guarantee that, e.g. Republicans in California and Democrats in Oklahoma have a say.

You mean other than Arnold Schwarzenegger?

[Scott5114]

Schwarzenegger's election was borne out of a unique set of circumstances–the California energy crisis and budget crisis, as well as other decisions, making the incumbent Democratic governor, Gray Davis, historically unpopular, leading to a recall election that had 135 candidates, of whom Schwarzenegger had the most name recognition. Schwarzenegger would only go on to win with 48.6% of the vote.

I'd say if I were a California Republican, I would consider the possibility of someone like Schwarzenegger being elected far from the guarantee that the Mexican system offers.

[ran4sh]

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

It doesn't fly with me that citizens within the United States should have to move in order to enjoy their constitutional rights.  That's like telling African Americans in the 1960s, hey, if you want to be able to eat in the same restaurants white people eat at, move out of the southern states.

It's not that people have to move in order to enjoy rights, but rather, what certain people define as a right, yes you might have to move for. For example, you might believe that housing is a right. In that case you may have to move to a place where you can afford housing. Or if you believe a job is a right, then you might have to move where there are jobs available.

My solution to the DC issue is to exempt them from having to pay tax. They complain "Taxation Without Representation", we exempt them from tax, and thus, their complaint about representation becomes invalid.

That seems kind of complicated, but I really like the idea of having a third senator from the non-majority party for each state. It would be nice having a way to guarantee that, e.g. Republicans in California and Democrats in Oklahoma have a say.

The problem is that independents and 3rd-party members still get screwed.

[Roadgeekteen]

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

It doesn't fly with me that citizens within the United States should have to move in order to enjoy their constitutional rights.  That's like telling African Americans in the 1960s, hey, if you want to be able to eat in the same restaurants white people eat at, move out of the southern states.

It's not that people have to move in order to enjoy rights, but rather, what certain people define as a right, yes you might have to move for. For example, you might believe that housing is a right. In that case you may have to move to a place where you can afford housing. Or if you believe a job is a right, then you might have to move where there are jobs available.

My solution to the DC issue is to exempt them from having to pay tax. They complain "Taxation Without Representation", we exempt them from tax, and thus, their complaint about representation becomes invalid.

They should be able to choose between the two options.

[ran4sh]

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

It doesn't fly with me that citizens within the United States should have to move in order to enjoy their constitutional rights.  That's like telling African Americans in the 1960s, hey, if you want to be able to eat in the same restaurants white people eat at, move out of the southern states.

It's not that people have to move in order to enjoy rights, but rather, what certain people define as a right, yes you might have to move for. For example, you might believe that housing is a right. In that case you may have to move to a place where you can afford housing. Or if you believe a job is a right, then you might have to move where there are jobs available.

My solution to the DC issue is to exempt them from having to pay tax. They complain "Taxation Without Representation", we exempt them from tax, and thus, their complaint about representation becomes invalid.

They should be able to choose between the two options.

Right. By moving to a state they gain representation. By remaining in DC they would lose taxation.

Let's combine some while were at it.  Do we need two Dakotas?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population

Too bad the link to the larger version of the map is broken.  I would be nice to be able to read which cities are in which new states.

There were two Dakotas only so Republicans would be appointing 4 senators instead of 2, and 6 electoral college votes instead of 3.

Democrats should not shy away from getting DC represented the same as a state and admitting Puerto Rico.  Politics is a rough game and if you play like gentlemen you will lose.

With the packing the court talk I'm sure a lot more blue states will be created.

I always laugh when a party complains about gerrymandering when they both do it.  All boundries should be drawn up by an independent group. 

The problem is, no one is truly independent.

[Roadgeekteen]

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

It doesn't fly with me that citizens within the United States should have to move in order to enjoy their constitutional rights.  That's like telling African Americans in the 1960s, hey, if you want to be able to eat in the same restaurants white people eat at, move out of the southern states.

It's not that people have to move in order to enjoy rights, but rather, what certain people define as a right, yes you might have to move for. For example, you might believe that housing is a right. In that case you may have to move to a place where you can afford housing. Or if you believe a job is a right, then you might have to move where there are jobs available.

My solution to the DC issue is to exempt them from having to pay tax. They complain "Taxation Without Representation", we exempt them from tax, and thus, their complaint about representation becomes invalid.

They should be able to choose between the two options.

Right. By moving to a state they gain representation. By remaining in DC they would lose taxation.

Let's combine some while were at it.  Do we need two Dakotas?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population

Too bad the link to the larger version of the map is broken.  I would be nice to be able to read which cities are in which new states.

There were two Dakotas only so Republicans would be appointing 4 senators instead of 2, and 6 electoral college votes instead of 3.

Democrats should not shy away from getting DC represented the same as a state and admitting Puerto Rico.  Politics is a rough game and if you play like gentlemen you will lose.

With the packing the court talk I'm sure a lot more blue states will be created.

I always laugh when a party complains about gerrymandering when they both do it.  All boundries should be drawn up by an independent group. 

The problem is, no one is truly independent.

People shouldn't have to move to get their constitutional rights.

[hbelkins]

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

[Roadgeekteen]

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

So you don't want Puerto Rico to become a state because of racism. (or politics)

[kkt]

I see no reason why what is currently DC couldn't be split into two portions, one which becomes a state and one which remains the federal district. It's probably more legitimate than when WV split off from VA.

As the 23rd Amendment is written, the remaining federal district still gets 3 electoral votes. You can't make it completely empty, as homeless people living within the boundaries count as inside.

Wonder how the court would interpret that. If DC became a state and the federal district had either none or very few people, then would there be 3 electoral votes controlled by very few people? The democrats would love that as the DC homeless population skews Democrat and they would be getting 6 electoral votes out of DC.

The Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." In all 50 states, the state appoints electors based on an election by the citizens. 48 states are winner-take-all, while Maine and Nebraska appoint two electors based on the statewide vote, while the other electors are allocated by Congressional district.

But there is nothing saying that the Legislature has to appoint them according to the results of a statewide election. (Indeed, in the country's early days, electors were chosen by some of the state legislatures.) The 23rd Amendment says "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation," which implies that the Congress takes the role of the Legislature in this instance.

So Congress could pass a law saying that DC's 3 electoral votes always follow the national popular vote. Or they could say that they always vote for George Washington, or Alan Merritt, or one each to the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian candidates, or someone else if they want those three votes to effectively go away until they can get around to repealing the 23rd Amendment.

Yes.  For that matter, if statehood for DC passed, repealing the 23rd amendment should be accomplished pretty quickly.  I can't imagine who'd want to keep it once DC was properly represented.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

English is co-official in Puerto Rico. And keep in mind, English is not an official language of the United States as it is.

[ran4sh]

Yes.  For that matter, if statehood for DC passed, repealing the 23rd amendment should be accomplished pretty quickly.  I can't imagine who'd want to keep it once DC was properly represented.

You sure about that? Amendments are "kept" by default, it takes a new amendment (which requires 3/4 the states) to repeal a previous amendment. So it only takes 13 Democrat states to block the repeal.

It's not that people have to move in order to enjoy rights, but rather, what certain people define as a right, yes you might have to move for. For example, you might believe that housing is a right. In that case you may have to move to a place where you can afford housing. Or if you believe a job is a right, then you might have to move where there are jobs available.

My solution to the DC issue is to exempt them from having to pay tax. They complain "Taxation Without Representation", we exempt them from tax, and thus, their complaint about representation becomes invalid.

They should be able to choose between the two options.

Right. By moving to a state they gain representation. By remaining in DC they would lose taxation.

People shouldn't have to move to get their constitutional rights.

They're not losing any rights. Under my suggestion, they would not be taxed, and since they are not taxed, they cannot claim a right to federal representation.

[vdeane]

They're not losing any rights. Under my suggestion, they would not be taxed, and since they are not taxed, they cannot claim a right to federal representation.

Do you honestly think taxation is the only way in which the federal government impacts a person's life?  As long as the government impacts one's life in any way, shape, or form, no matter how small, one should have a say in how that government is run.  In other words, the right to vote and fair representation.