DC Statehood-How Do You Feel?

[Polly]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200683.html

OK-I'm NOT happy that the vote is delayed. Do I think DC should get a vote? Darn right! This is about the enfranchisment of voters. I have several friends that live in DC and they don't get an electoral college vote in the presidental elections. So why should they pay taxes? :soapbox

The Republicans that are against DC getting the vote certainly don't want to see another Democratic Electoral College vote, even if it means Utah gains another Representative. Think how close the last presidential elections were-could they risk it again?

FYI-in case anyone is going to be in DC there will be a march for statehood on April 16th. http://www.votingrightsmarch.org/

Polly

[gr8mommy]

No, I don't think DC should get statehood. Our nation's capital was deliberately not placed within any state to avoid any favoritism or perceived favoritism or benefit.

If they receive government services, they should pay taxes. If they don't like not having an electoral college vote, they should move.

[Lori]

Yes, I think DC should be granted electoral rights. In the current context, where politicans travel all throughout the country and only live in DC on a very temporary basis, I don't think that the idea of favoritism holds sway anymore. It might have at a time where politicians made their homes in DC, but now it doesn't.

I do think this is very much politically motivated, as an attempt to keep the people of DC--a substantial number of whom are poor, black, and Democratic--from having an electoral voice. Of course, I think the whole electoral college system is highly problematic and would ideally be replaced by a system where every vote actually counts as one vote, but that's probably not going to happen.

[Kristen]

I'm not terribly well-schooled on the topic of DC and statehood, but wasn't the Revolutionary war about taxation without representation? If the people of DC are being taxed without being represented, I think that's not fair or right.

[YourMom]

I'm not terribly well-schooled on the topic of DC and statehood, but wasn't the Revolutionary war about taxation without representation? If the people of DC are being taxed without being represented, I think that's not fair or right.

That's on the DC licenseplates ;)

[ColleenC]

Coming from Canada I really don't know what you guys mean. So if you live in DC you can't vote? They dont pay taxes? That just sounds wierd to me.

Can someone please explain it to me? And use small words please as I am on my third drink LOL

[Polly]

If you live in DC, you can vote for the position of mayor and the city council. Your votes for the presidental election are counted in the popular count but they do not have an electoral college vote. Since the founding fathers really didn't trust the unwashed masses of American men at the time of writing the Constitution, they created the Electoral College. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

Yes, they pay taxes to the city (instead of a state) and federal income taxes. In fact, one of the problems that DC currently has is that most people that work in DC don't live there. But they do use DC public transport (Metro and buses) and services. However, the city can't tax the commuters. The commuters pay income tax to the state (usually Virginia or Maryland) that they live in. (And the DC government has tried to pass a commuter tax for years!)

Polly

[gr8mommy]

Yes, I think DC should be granted electoral rights. In the current context, where politicans travel all throughout the country and only live in DC on a very temporary basis, I don't think that the idea of favoritism holds sway anymore. It might have at a time where politicians made their homes in DC, but now it doesn't.



I don't think politicians ever made their homes in DC, and that was the point. Back in the day, the idea was for representatives and Senators to live in their districts, and only come to DC to vote. The idea of making a career or political office was pretty much a 20th century invention.

I still stand by the idea that no single state should claim the country's capital as their 'own'.

[elin]

the whole electoral college should be tossed out. I think most Americans, because of the hanging chads controversy, do not realize that Gore won the popular vote and lost the election. I was surprised people weren't more upset about that. DC does have, as do the other territories of the US, nonvoting members in Congress, who can voice opinions. But the lack of a vote makes them powerless. Furthermore, Congress actually makes a lot of choices for DC, because of the strange legal positioning of the city. None of us would want to be so beholden to people we cannot vote for. The position of those who live in DC is strangely akin to that of the colonists who were ruled in part by the choices of a parliament they could not elect.

The thing is that the powerful people in DC, don't live there. Their residency is elsewhere, so that they can vote and have that vote counted. s was said above it is mainly the poor and the black who have no voice. This seems patently unfair, especially given high levels of unemployment and crime in the nation's capital.


And

[Christine]

Can't they just extend the state lines to include the areas where people live and leave DC just to the government offices?

[Jejune]

Can't they just extend the state lines to include the areas where people live and leave DC just to the government offices?


That's a really intriguing idea! I need to think more about it, but I think it sounds like a good idea just on the face of it.

I'm torn on the electoral college, but it's almost a non issue to me, because I don't think we'll ever get rid of it. It's not just a matter of not trusting the unwashed masses, but a compromise between the big and little states in founding the country. Some states' electoral votes make them far more important electorally than they would be if they went by popular vote, and I can't see them giving that up. My personal opinion is that states should divide their electoral votes as the population of that state votes, but I suppose you might as well go by popular vote then. Also, a few states do this, but unless all do, there's no point to it.

[Lori]

Kristen, ITA that, if we aren't going to get rid of the electoral college, the electoral votes should be split. Otherwise, I think it's a bad system, whether the state goes to one candidate by a landslide or a slim margin. If a state goes to a candidate by a slim margin, then the millions of votes for the other candidate effectively don't count. If a state goes to a party by a wide margin election after election, then people who would vote for the other party might feel disinclined to vote, since their vote really won't mean anything.

[Polly]

Can't they just extend the state lines to include the areas where people live and leave DC just to the government offices?

No. I've lived in the DC metro area all my life-the government building are not grouped together. They are all around DC, Maryland, and Virginia. Although, if you look at the original maps of DC, Arlington and Alexandria, VA were part of it at DC's founding. (Both Arlington County and the City of Alexandria precede DC in their own founding by about 60 years.) If you want to see rioting in the streets of VA, the federal government should re-encorporate Arlington and Alexandria and "bring back the diamond!"

DC neighborhoods are mixed use of retail, government (both Federal and DC government), and housing. For example, in a 3 block span, the GSA building of the Federal Gov, GW University, and the World Bank are neighbors with Tower Records and an indoor shopping mall.

Yeah, get rid of the Electoral College. It's time.

Polly

[AdinaVerbena]

I'm not opposed to DC having one electoral vote. That seems fair.

I like the idea of the electoral college, but the way it is used varies so much from state to state that it often isn't an accurate representation of what voters are voting for. I think candidates should get the votes for the districts they win. But in order for that to happen, every state would have to go along with that. I'm not sure why they wouldn't, but I'm not fond of the idea of them being forced to change their constitutions to do so (I think states' rights trump federal rights most of the time).