Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but using “state” and “commonwealth” together is not duplicative

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth because it will be a state - on par with the 50 other states

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth not because our laws are a codified version of Common Law. Rather, “commonwealth” in this context refers to the people and spirit of the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, coming together as one to help each other and to build together for the future

NP but it is a stupid name. It’s too long and there is already a Washington state. State of Washington would get confusing. They just need a new name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

It’s not a statement of the quality of governance of Wyoming, Vermont or New Hampshire. It’s a statement of the quality of politics and politicians in DC. Filling out all of those seats to form a state assembly would just empty the dregs of the DC political establishment. Every also-ran council candidate with a bizarre pet issue. That’s what would make a DC state assembly ungovernable.

I'm guessing that you've never met any of the state legislators in Wyoming, Vermont, or New Hampshire.

Anonymous wrote:This is the newest trend tho, like rebranding Wilson hs for August Wilson and not the Wilson people were objecting to.

August Wilson would be a great namesake for a high school.... in Pittsburgh. He has no connection to Washington, DC. Seems like DCPS was grasping to keep the name Wilson but not Woodrow, and of course it had to be for an African-American. At least they didn't choose Mary Wilson or Flip Wilson.

This is the newest trend tho, like rebranding Wilson hs for August Wilson and not the Wilson people were objecting to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but using “state” and “commonwealth” together is not duplicative

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth because it will be a state - on par with the 50 other states

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth not because our laws are a codified version of Common Law. Rather, “commonwealth” in this context refers to the people and spirit of the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, coming together as one to help each other and to build together for the future

Frederick Douglas was an interesting historical figure, but I don't think that we should name the jurisdiction after him, just so folks can continue to refer to "Dee-cee."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but using “state” and “commonwealth” together is not duplicative

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth because it will be a state - on par with the 50 other states

It will be referred to as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth not because our laws are a codified version of Common Law. Rather, “commonwealth” in this context refers to the people and spirit of the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, coming together as one to help each other and to build together for the future

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

Why are you mad at the PP? They are only using the name formally adopted by the council. They are the ones that did it because they want to retain the name “Washington, DC” and continue to use the “DC” abbreviation.

So they call it the “State of Washington” and say that DC stands for “Douglass Commonwealth”. That’s the official stance of the council. Go argue with them about how stupid it is.

https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/Constitution-of-the-State-of-Washington-DC.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Just stop.

+1 to the PP who called it a dumb name. Using “state” and “commonwealth” together is unnecessarily duplicative and sounds moronic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

“DC” is the past

State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth is the future

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Honestly, whoever came up with that dumb name lost all momentum for DC statehood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

When we are talking about the future State of Washington Douglass Commonwealth, let’s refer to it as that, and not as “DC”

Thanks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

It’s not a statement of the quality of governance of Wyoming, Vermont or New Hampshire. It’s a statement of the quality of politics and politicians in DC. Filling out all of those seats to form a state assembly would just empty the dregs of the DC political establishment. Every also-ran council candidate with a bizarre pet issue. That’s what would make a DC state assembly ungovernable.

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

New Hampshire’s population is just about double DC’s and has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators. Is it also “ungovernable?”

The State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth can fund its judicial system by asking the Federal Government to pay for it. After all, the rest of the country has enjoyed Federal representation that has been denied to those living in the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.

It is the least the rest of the country can do to right this historic wrong

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wyoming, who are constantly cited as the reason why DC needs statehood, has a state senate with 30 members and 60 members in the house.

Imagine how ungovernable DC would be if the city council were expanded to 90!

That's a good reason for DC not to do it that way, then.

Kinda makes you wonder why Wyoming does, though. Each Wyoming house member represents fewer than 10,000 people.

Vermont is the other state with less population than DC, it has a 150-member House of Representatives and 30-member Senate.

If the suggestion is that DC needs statehood for representation, your idea is to make it the least democratic state in the country? Seems like not a great argument for statehood then.

In that case, the least democratic state in the country is California: one US senator per 20 million people. And the US Senate may be the least democratic deliberative body in the US. Kinda ironic that it's a minority of US Senators who are blocking DC statehood, isn't it?

Actually, DC is the least democratic, but not for the reason that you think. Rather, because one party so dominates DC politics, it's possible in a multcandiate race that someone is as good as elected if he or she wins 12 or 13 percent in the primary, as long as that is one more vote than the next candidate. There is no choice in September.

Other jurisdictions with one party dominance are moving to ranked choice voting for primaries (NYC) or putting the top vote grimary vote getters regardless of party on the November ballot. If DC s serious about moving from adolescence to adulthood politically, it needs to reform.