Maybe your website could convene a DC statehood conference, with the scholars and politicians and citizens hearing all the sides?

That helps illuminate your perspective, and is a legitimate point if view. I’m not persuaded by it because DC was borne out of the attempt to privilege it and make it fair to the states, not out of the intent to oppress it. If DC was just another state, then it should lose all the privileges and they should be fairly divided amongst all the states. Will DC be able to survive as a state?

It’s a legitimate question and I cannot find a good study. I’m truly ready to jump on board but there needs to be some scrutiny. Look at the recent Scottish referendum, it was evenly split but all sorts of questions (nuclear submarines!) popped up. And we are glossing over everything!

If we became a state, would we have an electoral assembly that replaces the DC Council with limits to the mandates? There’s so much to work out but I’m disturbed that we are not even trying to work it out. And while we are trying to work it out we could really squeeze the current status for many many more benefits. But we seem to only care about the appearances for political points.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One is our legitimate current political system and many of us feel relieved it worked, hoping it would bring with it a more serious attitude towards the electoral body and the act of legislating.

The other is not the legitimate expression of democracy in our system and is thus fairly prosecuted.

So one is our current democracy and the other is not, a big difference

Just remember when Congress removes rights that you enjoy and support, that is also the system working in your view. In principle, you are fully behind Congressional interference.

In the context of our privileged status as a federal district. That’s our democratic system until it’s changed.

Do I wish they had been a possibility of a congressional intervention when a number of states enacted anti-abortion acts last year? Yes. But I would not have been fully behind it because that’s not our democratic system.

That I think makes me a fairly consistent and even keeled democratic citizen, albeit quite a liberal one.

Correction. That is our system, but not a democratic one. The US is a republic in which citizens elect representatives to pass laws. DC residents are not allowed to elect such representatives and, hence, are not full participants in the republic, let alone democracy. During the time in US history in which only male property owners were allowed to vote, that was the US system but few would consider it an adequate democracy.

Jeff, I would appreciate your opinion, because I really can’t find enough on this and know you are a committed and it seems an informed supporter: what are the likely scenarios of winning the statehood?

What gets taken away?
What gets gained?
Can our economy support the state?
Etc.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One is our legitimate current political system and many of us feel relieved it worked, hoping it would bring with it a more serious attitude towards the electoral body and the act of legislating.

The other is not the legitimate expression of democracy in our system and is thus fairly prosecuted.

So one is our current democracy and the other is not, a big difference

Just remember when Congress removes rights that you enjoy and support, that is also the system working in your view. In principle, you are fully behind Congressional interference.

In the context of our privileged status as a federal district. That’s our democratic system until it’s changed.

Do I wish they had been a possibility of a congressional intervention when a number of states enacted anti-abortion acts last year? Yes. But I would not have been fully behind it because that’s not our democratic system.

That I think makes me a fairly consistent and even keeled democratic citizen, albeit quite a liberal one.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One is our legitimate current political system and many of us feel relieved it worked, hoping it would bring with it a more serious attitude towards the electoral body and the act of legislating.

The other is not the legitimate expression of democracy in our system and is thus fairly prosecuted.

So one is our current democracy and the other is not, a big difference

Just remember when Congress removes rights that you enjoy and support, that is also the system working in your view. In principle, you are fully behind Congressional interference.

You represent the fringe on this one, Jeff.

Anonymous wrote:One is our legitimate current political system and many of us feel relieved it worked, hoping it would bring with it a more serious attitude towards the electoral body and the act of legislating.

The other is not the legitimate expression of democracy in our system and is thus fairly prosecuted.

So one is our current democracy and the other is not, a big difference

Just remember when Congress removes rights that you enjoy and support, that is also the system working in your view. In principle, you are fully behind Congressional interference.

One is our legitimate current political system and many of us feel relieved it worked, hoping it would bring with it a more serious attitude towards the electoral body and the act of legislating.

The other is not the legitimate expression of democracy in our system and is thus fairly prosecuted.

So one is our current democracy and the other is not, a big difference

Anonymous wrote:

This to me sums up the cognitive dissonance in DC. When voting repeatedly does not improve your life, but quite the opposite, you welcome the intervention.

Part of participating in a democracy is accepting that things don't always go your way. Some days the votes go your way, some days they don't. Really, how much difference is there between "welcoming intervention" and "storming the capital"? Just different degrees of not accepting democracy.

This to me sums up the cognitive dissonance in DC. When voting repeatedly does not improve your life, but quite the opposite, you welcome the intervention.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point though is, even with a carjacking, that if the judiciary is overwhelmed as it already is, they don’t get prosecuted, as they already don’t, and it all gets much much worse.

Do you know why — in your words — carjackings are not prosecuted now? If so, do you now the impact on those factors of proposed revisions? It seems like you are making predictions that might not have a solid basis. Do you even know how many carjackers are arrested and then not prosecuted? If so, what are the reasons for the lack of prosecution?

Do you? I don’t, and that’s why I think I’m patronized by the DC Council more so than by the Congress. At least some DC Councilpersons does not use the word crime or carjacking — search their statements or Twitter feed. Why is that? How is that less ideological than not using the word abortion (this happened in a situation I used to be in)? I lived through a lack of free thought and this is reminiscent.

There’s an easy way out of this. Take both bills. Publish websites with the tables summarizing but then going over every change and its implication. Then put it to the people to vote. We assume people want it but the one poll was pretty bogus. These bills are now so radioactive that this is the way forward if we are committed to the democracy.

By the way? I’m pro rehabilitation all the way, no more than 20 years for anything. But this is a badly written, unimplementable legislation unless I can read to satisfy myself otherwise.

Not bane, name.

Anonymous wrote:The point though is, even with a carjacking, that if the judiciary is overwhelmed as it already is, they don’t get prosecuted, as they already don’t, and it all gets much much worse.

Do you know why — in your words — carjackings are not prosecuted now? If so, do you know the impact on those factors of proposed revisions? It seems like you are making predictions that might not have a solid basis. Do you even know how many carjackers are arrested and then not prosecuted? If so, what are the reasons for the lack of prosecution?

Sorry, I see that DC is in a privileged position, and not a colony, in some ways.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you have any details on the misdemeanor question above?

On your point right above, seriously what if, let’s say enough people get bussed in and stay here for 31 days and then vote, and a new Council passes anti-abortion bill? Would you say, fair play??

Yes, there is a popular saying, "I disagree with what you say but I support your right to say it." I feel the same about democracy. I may not like that the State of Florida has banned care for transgender children, but I accept the right of the state to enact its laws. I do not propose that the federal government autocratically overturn Florida's laws any more than I support Biden autocratically overturning ours.

But, I'll turn the question around to you. Now that you support in principle Congressional interference in DC's affairs, how will you respond when they go after laws that you support? Are your principles situational or based on values?

I may have a slightly unpopular opinion in that I don’t I see that DC has a privileged position, as the capital city and federal district. I tend to vote on issues. I would need to see, like say with Brexit or joining the EU, pros and cons and the scenarios. I think we have many privileges that we scoff at and don’t take full advantage of and some representation. I definitely don’t think taxation but no representation is good, but would want to be able to vote on the no taxation option too and to understand what would be taken away if we did become a state.

At best we seem an immature democracy and yet we are a leading democracy (or were). Something is subpar, and it may be our politicians. At the very least I’d have mandate limitations so we are not stuck with the bad apples on the pure bane recognition.