DC statehood: Things that make my blood boil:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cannot roll my eyes any harder at people who choose to continue to live in DC, knowing full well they’re not living in a state, and then complain about it. Keep raging but it’s not ever gonna change in your lifetime.

Sure, I think the same thing of women living in certain red states with ridiculously stringent abortion law, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another unspoken cost is a DC state legislature. The DC City Council acts like a quasi legislative branch with limited authority from Congress. However, a 13-member unicameral body would not pass muster as a full-fledged state legislature. More members would be needed to check legislators’ power. The smallest legislature out there I believe is Nebraska’s unicameral body with 49 members. Establishing and maintaining a state legislature (unicameral or bicameral) would cost significantly more than maintaining the current city council. Election costs would rise, too.

This has all been laid out in the proposed state constitution
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/NCSC-Constitution-State-of-New-Columbia.pdf

Lol. This isn’t a state legislature. 21 members? Members elected at-large and from eight wards…excuse me, I meant to say…legislative districts? It’s the city council on steroids. It’s also dangerous. Only 11 votes needed to pass legislation? 14 votes to override a veto? This idea lacks sufficient checks on power and opens the door wide for potential abuse.

There would be so much corruption it would be insane.

Ohio’s state legislature has 132 members and is still corrupt AF. How big are we talking to avoid this situation?

It’s not an issue of corruption per se, but an issue of power. A 21-member “state legislature” with extremely low thresholds for passing bills (11 votes) and overriding vetos (14 votes) concentrates significant power in a small group of people. Under this scenario a faction of only 15 people could do whatever they wanted. The bar needs to be raised higher. A state legislature with 50 or 60 members would disperse legislative power more broadly and to the benefit of DC residents.

In this case it’s the concentration of power that would be a corruption magnet. A lot easier to corrupt a dozen people instead of 50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another unspoken cost is a DC state legislature. The DC City Council acts like a quasi legislative branch with limited authority from Congress. However, a 13-member unicameral body would not pass muster as a full-fledged state legislature. More members would be needed to check legislators’ power. The smallest legislature out there I believe is Nebraska’s unicameral body with 49 members. Establishing and maintaining a state legislature (unicameral or bicameral) would cost significantly more than maintaining the current city council. Election costs would rise, too.

This has all been laid out in the proposed state constitution
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/NCSC-Constitution-State-of-New-Columbia.pdf

Lol. This isn’t a state legislature. 21 members? Members elected at-large and from eight wards…excuse me, I meant to say…legislative districts? It’s the city council on steroids. It’s also dangerous. Only 11 votes needed to pass legislation? 14 votes to override a veto? This idea lacks sufficient checks on power and opens the door wide for potential abuse.

There would be so much corruption it would be insane.

Ohio’s state legislature has 132 members and is still corrupt AF. How big are we talking to avoid this situation?

It’s not an issue of corruption per se, but an issue of power. A 21-member “state legislature” with extremely low thresholds for passing bills (11 votes) and overriding vetos (14 votes) concentrates significant power in a small group of people. Under this scenario a faction of only 15 people could do whatever they wanted. The bar needs to be raised higher. A state legislature with 50 or 60 members would disperse legislative power more broadly and to the benefit of DC residents.

In this case it’s the concentration of power that would be a corruption magnet. A lot easier to corrupt a dozen people instead of 50.

You know you can support the overall notion of granting DC residents equal representation in congress to residents of other states but take issue with the specific method, right? That's a valid point but it shouldn't negate the concept that DC representation is a problem that should be fixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another unspoken cost is a DC state legislature. The DC City Council acts like a quasi legislative branch with limited authority from Congress. However, a 13-member unicameral body would not pass muster as a full-fledged state legislature. More members would be needed to check legislators’ power. The smallest legislature out there I believe is Nebraska’s unicameral body with 49 members. Establishing and maintaining a state legislature (unicameral or bicameral) would cost significantly more than maintaining the current city council. Election costs would rise, too.

This has all been laid out in the proposed state constitution
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/NCSC-Constitution-State-of-New-Columbia.pdf

Lol. This isn’t a state legislature. 21 members? Members elected at-large and from eight wards…excuse me, I meant to say…legislative districts? It’s the city council on steroids. It’s also dangerous. Only 11 votes needed to pass legislation? 14 votes to override a veto? This idea lacks sufficient checks on power and opens the door wide for potential abuse.

There would be so much corruption it would be insane.

Ohio’s state legislature has 132 members and is still corrupt AF. How big are we talking to avoid this situation?

It’s not an issue of corruption per se, but an issue of power. A 21-member “state legislature” with extremely low thresholds for passing bills (11 votes) and overriding vetos (14 votes) concentrates significant power in a small group of people. Under this scenario a faction of only 15 people could do whatever they wanted. The bar needs to be raised higher. A state legislature with 50 or 60 members would disperse legislative power more broadly and to the benefit of DC residents.

In this case it’s the concentration of power that would be a corruption magnet. A lot easier to corrupt a dozen people instead of 50.

You know you can support the overall notion of granting DC residents equal representation in congress to residents of other states but take issue with the specific method, right? That's a valid point but it shouldn't negate the concept that DC representation is a problem that should be fixed.

Why should I take DC statehood seriously when the proposal for governance is so unserious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In this case it’s the concentration of power that would be a corruption magnet. A lot easier to corrupt a dozen people instead of 50.

You know you can support the overall notion of granting DC residents equal representation in congress to residents of other states but take issue with the specific method, right? That's a valid point but it shouldn't negate the concept that DC representation is a problem that should be fixed.

Why should I take DC statehood seriously when the proposal for governance is so unserious?

Sounds like you're upset because DC voters elect people you don't like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In this case it’s the concentration of power that would be a corruption magnet. A lot easier to corrupt a dozen people instead of 50.

You know you can support the overall notion of granting DC residents equal representation in congress to residents of other states but take issue with the specific method, right? That's a valid point but it shouldn't negate the concept that DC representation is a problem that should be fixed.

Why should I take DC statehood seriously when the proposal for governance is so unserious?

Sounds like you're upset because DC voters elect people you don't like.[/quote

I didn't ask you to take it serious, you can acknowledge it's a problem without agreeing on a solution. You won't admit it's a problem to begin with.

[Anonymous]

How are people who don’t believe it’s a problem to be convinced if proponents don’t take it seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are people who don’t believe it’s a problem to be convinced if proponents don’t take it seriously?

If they don't think it's a problem, they wouldn't be convinced regardless of what solution is proposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are people who don’t believe it’s a problem to be convinced if proponents don’t take it seriously?

If they don't think it's a problem, they wouldn't be convinced regardless of what solution is proposed.

I’m not sure that you understand that you are trying to change the status quo, which means that your job is to convince people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

The founders of this country were the ones who decided DC would not be a state and they did it for a reason. It’s the Federal district. If you want to live in a state Maryland and Virginia are right here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

The founders of this country were the ones who decided DC would not be a state and they did it for a reason. It’s the Federal district. If you want to live in a state Maryland and Virginia are right here

The Federal District does not need to remain exactly the same size as it is now. In fact, its size has been reduced before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

The founders of this country were the ones who decided DC would not be a state and they did it for a reason. It’s the Federal district. If you want to live in a state Maryland and Virginia are right here

People were already living in the DC area before the Founders made it the federal district. They just didn’t care about giving them the vote, just like the didn’t care about giving women the vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

The founders of this country were the ones who decided DC would not be a state and they did it for a reason. It’s the Federal district. If you want to live in a state Maryland and Virginia are right here

People were already living in the DC area before the Founders made it the federal district. They just didn’t care about giving them the vote, just like the didn’t care about giving women the vote.

Give it a rest, Sistah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

The founders of this country were the ones who decided DC would not be a state and they did it for a reason. It’s the Federal district. If you want to live in a state Maryland and Virginia are right here

People were already living in the DC area before the Founders made it the federal district. They just didn’t care about giving them the vote, just like the didn’t care about giving women the vote.

Give it a rest, Sistah

Exactly the kind of response women got when advocating for the right to vote.

[Anonymous]

0% chance of statehood. It will never happen.