Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: D.C. Votes To Become The 51st State, But It Likely Won’t

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:02 AM
    Location
    LA (Lower Alabama)
    Posts
    5,662
    Post Thanks / Like

    Idea! D.C. Votes To Become The 51st State, But It Likely Won’t

    D.C. Votes To Become The 51st State, But It Likely Won’t
    “Washingtonians are tired of being treated like second-class citizens,” the mayor says.

    11/09/2016 | 05:42 pm ET | Nina Golgowski | Trends reporter, The Huffington Post

    Washingtonians took another step toward statehood, but they’re likely to be tripped up again.

    An overwhelming 79% of District of Columbia residents votedTuesday to become the 51st state, with the mayor vowing to send the petition to Congress for approval by Inauguration Day, Jan. 20.

    “Their votes confirmed what we all knew is that Washingtonians are tired of being treated like second-class citizens,” Mayor Muriel Bowser said at a Wednesday afternoon news conference.

    <snip>

    One twist is that, should the District become a state, two more seats would be added to the Senate. According to The Washington Post, this has drawn resistance from Republicans, as those seats would likely be held by Democrats, who have an overwhelming majority in the District.

    That means Tuesday’s big win for the Republicans, in both the presidency and the U.S. House, will likely make the petition’s final approval by Congress a dead issue.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:02 AM
    Location
    LA (Lower Alabama)
    Posts
    5,662
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does anyone have an opinion on this? I tend to lean towards letting it become a state so the residents can gain proper recognition, but I have also heard some arguments against it that make sense. There seems to be a lot of resentment over how much Congress meddles in the affairs of the District, which is currently perfectly legal.
    You can't spell "hatred" without "red hat".

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 9:42 AM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    13,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    DC was specifically set up to NOT be a state. It shouldn't be. If people who live there don't like it, they should pack their shit and move out to Maryland or Virginia. It's not like it's that far away.
    Leftists have unquestionably demonstrated their hatred for due process, and Democrats have undeniably obstructed justice for, and thoroughly victim-shamed and smeared, Karen Monahan.

  4. Likes Newman, 80zephyr liked this post
  5. #4
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Posts
    9,379
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are a trio of absurd ideas that liberals are promoting with furrowed brows and high-minded arguments. This is one.

    1) Give a one-industry city the power of a state, the subject of this thread.

    2) Abolish the Electoral College and base the presidency entirely on the popular vote.

    3) Have states form consortia, agreeing to throw their Electoral College votes in accord with the nation's popular vote.

    The essential argument is that our republic is structurally flawed because the progressives didn't get their way.

  6. Likes Novaheart, Lady Marva, 80zephyr liked this post
  7. #5
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 31st, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:54 AM
    Posts
    3,991
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    There are a trio of absurd ideas that liberals are promoting with furrowed brows and high-minded arguments. This is one.

    1) Give a one-industry city the power of a state, the subject of this thread.

    2) Abolish the Electoral College and base the presidency entirely on the popular vote.

    3) Have states form consortia, agreeing to throw their Electoral College votes in accord with the nation's popular vote.

    The essential argument is that our republic is structurally flawed because the progressives didn't get their way.
    I'm actually in favor of #2, given that we have outgrown the need for the electoral college. I'm sure that it will not happen, however, as it would require a Constitutional amendment.
    #3 is an attempt to make #2 work without such an amendment. Slightly more likely than #2, but still not happening.

    An alternative that's actually practical and would better represent voters is to divide up electoral votes within the State. Each congressional district would apply it's own electoral vote, and the two for the State would go to whoever wins the State. Maine and one other State already do this.

    That's not likely either, but it would be more representative than the winner take all we have now.

    Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
    All mistakes are caused by the phone.
    That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    13,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Djharkavy View Post
    I'm actually in favor of #2, given that we have outgrown the need for the electoral college. I'm sure that it will not happen, however, as it would require a Constitutional amendment.
    #3 is an attempt to make #2 work without such an amendment. Slightly more likely than #2, but still not happening.

    An alternative that's actually practical and would better represent voters is to divide up electoral votes within the State. Each congressional district would apply it's own electoral vote, and the two for the State would go to whoever wins the State. Maine and one other State already do this.

    That's not likely either, but it would be more representative than the winner take all we have now.

    Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
    All mistakes are caused by the phone.
    That's my story and I'm sticking to it...
    Ratify Article the First.

    And by apportioning the vote by Congressional district would subject the Executive Branch to gerrymandering. It is already anti-(small d) democratic enough as it is.
    Last edited by Billy Jingo; Thursday, November 10th, 2016 at 9:10 AM.
    “Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.”

    ~ Hannah Arendt

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 3:10 PM
    Posts
    10,759
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    The essential argument is that our republic is structurally flawed because the progressives didn't get their way.
    Do they've taken to temper tantrums in the streets.

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Posts
    9,379
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Djharkavy View Post
    I'm actually in favor of #2, given that we have outgrown the need for the electoral college. I'm sure that it will not happen, however, as it would require a Constitutional amendment.
    #3 is an attempt to make #2 work without such an amendment. Slightly more likely than #2, but still not happening.

    An alternative that's actually practical and would better represent voters is to divide up electoral votes within the State. Each congressional district would apply it's own electoral vote, and the two for the State would go to whoever wins the State. Maine and one other State already do this.

    That's not likely either, but it would be more representative than the winner take all we have now.

    Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
    All mistakes are caused by the phone.
    That's my story and I'm sticking to it...
    I couldn't disagree more, and I don't think many people in "Dumbfuckistan" will agree with you either.

    2jea15.jpg

    There would be very little campaigning in places outside of the heavily populated urban areas without the EC, and exceedingly little attention paid to their concerns. this time around, Clinton paid a price for seeming to call for the unemployment of coal miners. Without the EC it wouldn't have mattered.

    It's hardly surprising that the losers would like the rules changed to hand them perpetual victory. It's surprising that they expect anyone to take them seriously.

  11. Likes Lady Marva liked this post
  12. #9
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    13,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    It's hardly surprising that the losers would like the rules changed to hand them perpetual victory.
    It's hardly surprising the minority political viewpoint likes the rules that allows them to control the government without the consent of the governed.
    “Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.”

    ~ Hannah Arendt

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 31st, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:54 AM
    Posts
    3,991
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    I couldn't disagree more, and I don't think many people in "Dumbfuckistan" will agree with you either.

    2jea15.jpg

    There would be very little campaigning in places outside of the heavily populated urban areas without the EC, and exceedingly little attention paid to their concerns. this time around, Clinton paid a price for seeming to call for the unemployment of coal miners. Without the EC it wouldn't have mattered.

    It's hardly surprising that the losers would like the rules changed to hand them perpetual victory. It's surprising that they expect anyone to take them seriously.
    You know me better than that. I've said the same thing consistently regardless of who won the election.

    Also note that I have never used the Dumbfuckistan or any similar epithets.

    I wanted to react to your point. Had I realized it was just to lead to an attack, I might not have bothered.

    Do you really approve of a less democratic method of choosing or leader just because you perceive (and as bok points out probably mistakenly so) that it gives your "side" an advantage?

    Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
    All mistakes are caused by the phone.
    That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •