• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New states?

New states?


  • Total voters
    27
Two other facts that support the "DC is a place people move for the FG" idea is that the Single population is about 66% more that 20% more than the national average. And people 18 to 44 make up near half of the population.
 
it is relevant since the reasons behind not making DC a state hold true still today.





The average person with a Bachelor degree make up 47.1% of the population in DC. The national average is 27.5%. The average income in DC is 40K while the national average is 27K. This isn't a normal area with a normal distribution. People move to DC for government jobs and jobs to support the FG. It attracts people simple because the FG is there. I am not saying that their is not a nationally born DC'n but the majority of people move there for the FG. The Stats back up this fact. If you move there, then those people should know what they are getting into.



All this quote means is that they need a local government which they already have.

Nobody's From Here, Right? - Raw Fisher
 
Alright, let's rehash.

Even if everyone who lived in DC lived here purely because they moved here to work for the federal government, why shouldn't they be given fair representation in Congress if they pay taxes?

I'm sorry but I'm still not buying the original argument that DC shouldn't have representation just because people work for the FG.
 
Alright, let's rehash.

Even if everyone who lived in DC lived here purely because they moved here to work for the federal government, why shouldn't they be given fair representation in Congress if they pay taxes?

I'm sorry but I'm still not buying the original argument that DC shouldn't have representation just because people work for the FG.

Because they make too much money! I hate those federal employees! Screw them, their families, and their benefits!
 

Straight out of your article:

"In fact, many of those who move to Washington from elsewhere end up staying forever" This means they moved there and that means they should have known what they were getting into. I am the one who is arguing that the majority move into the city.

"the net migration from the District was 45,000, on a pretty substantial amount of churn--113,000 people moved into the city, while 158,000 moved out." The net gain of Virgina in the next sentence is irrelevant since we are discussing DC only. The that people move around isn't the issue. The issue is that people are moving into and out of DC and those reasons are mainly because of the FG.

"Forty percent of D.C. residents were born in this city. That's much lower than the portion in some states" again, this goes to show that more people moved there than were born there. Again, I am not saying that people aren't born there. I am saying that the majority moved there. This line alone proves my point. 60% is a majority.

I might add; this is the greatest line to support your theory: "50 percent of D.C. residents were living in the same residence in 2000 as they had been in 1995" but if you think about it, this make sense since 1995 to 2000 are encompassed by one President and is mostly covered one term with only one major political shift in power. What is the change in 2001 when Bush came in? Further, I am not only talk about political jobs but of all jobs in DC including lobbying jobs, military jobs, and other support jobs.

This article actually supports my position more than yours and doesn't even attempts to support the idea that DC is not a "No one from there" city.


Even if everyone who lived in DC lived here purely because they moved here to work for the federal government, why shouldn't they be given fair representation in Congress if they pay taxes?

I'm sorry but I'm still not buying the original argument that DC shouldn't have representation just because people work for the FG.

They are given fair representation in their home states. They shouldn't be given fair representation because DC was set up to be independent. That independence is of greater value than representation in one part of government.
 
Last edited:
Im welcome to any and all new states within reason. Now I admit I am unaware of what has to happen for an area to become a state but as long as those needs are met Im all for it.
 
I'm sorry but I'm still not buying the original argument that DC shouldn't have representation just because people work for the FG.

I agree. Change the law. Give the taxpayers of D.C. their fair representation.

This is truly an example of taxation without representation.
 
Straight out of your article:

"In fact, many of those who move to Washington from elsewhere end up staying forever" This means they moved there and that means they should have known what they were getting into. I am the one who is arguing that the majority move into the city.

.

A lot of people move to New York, too. Should New York City have no Congressmen?

Even if "a majority" move into Washington for the government, there is still the matter of those who were born there and live there with no connection to working for the government. Shouldn't these people have the same rights as everybody else?
 
The D.C. Congressional Representatives do have the ability to vote on committees and sub-committees; they are represented in Congress.

The question, it seems, is whether or not they're 'adequately' represented. I believe that should be left up to everyone's personal opinion. Let it go up to a vote in the Senate and if they can get their floor vote privileges, they can get them. Personally, I find it a bit tedious to argue that, literally, the writers of the Constitution created a violation of that document in that same document. I like to assume, as someone who does not have J.D., that those who wrote the Constitution were not so idiotic as they did not notice Article One, Section Eight.
 
Last edited:
I am largely ignorant about the overall health of the examples that you gave. I would not want a area that would be problematic to joins the United States simply because the people of that area wanted to. I believe if any states are added it needs to have a clear benefit to all involved.
 
Why can't we give DC representation the same to that of the states in congress but still have it be a non-state? Constitutional amendment?
 
I am largely ignorant about the overall health of the examples that you gave. I would not want a area that would be problematic to joins the United States simply because the people of that area wanted to. I believe if any states are added it needs to have a clear benefit to all involved.

That's more a discussion of annexation. In this issue, we are talking about allowing US territories to become states if they so desire.
 
If any territory wishes to become a state then they have to petition Congress to be one. If they agree then they (Congress) must pass an Enableing Act. Then they (the territory) have to draw up a State Constitution and submit it to the people of that territory to be voted on. If it passes then it must be sent to Congress for approval. If they approve then it is sent to the President to be signed. After which he must make a public declaration of acceptance.

I would imagine that this would include DC. But considering everything...doubt that Congress would approve of DC becoming a state.
 
Why can't we give DC representation the same to that of the states in congress but still have it be a non-state? Constitutional amendment?

There's also taxation issues, and the ability to set our own budget, control our schools, things like that. There's a vast amount of money generated by work in DC that the city sees no part of. If we were a state, we could control our own taxation, and maybe balance the stupid budget.
 
There's also taxation issues, and the ability to set our own budget, control our schools, things like that. There's a vast amount of money generated by work in DC that the city sees no part of. If we were a state, we could control our own taxation, and maybe balance the stupid budget.
Yeah, I suppose. It should really be a state. I think the fact that it's so small distinguishes it from other states and wouldn't make it look like one state was more important than another, which I'm pretty sure is why they put the capital in a non-state in the first place.
 
A lot of people move to New York, too. Should New York City have no Congressmen?

Even if "a majority" move into Washington for the government, there is still the matter of those who were born there and live there with no connection to working for the government. Shouldn't these people have the same rights as everybody else?

This counter is also false. NYC wasn't created specifically to have a separate area set aside for the federal government with special rules. Now if NYC was the national capital and create for that purpose, then those who moved there should understand the consequences of living there.
 
Can I quote you guys on that in support of DC statehood? Cuz we really need it.

Washington DC is a special case, and was never intended to be a state.
 
That's more a discussion of annexation. In this issue, we are talking about allowing US territories to become states if they so desire.

I do not see why my comment does not apply to both. Just because they are currently US territories does not mean by them joining in statehood that it would be beneficial to the nation.
 
I do not see why my comment does not apply to both. Just because they are currently US territories does not mean by them joining in statehood that it would be beneficial to the nation.

Well, put it this way - we either lose strategic territory in the pacific, or let them become a state (say Guam, Virgin Islands) not saying that we need to make the minor lying islands into states, since I don't even think they are populated, but if any of our regular territories want to become full states there is nothing wrong with that over them simply becoming independent.
 
We might as well. Obama already seems to think we have 57 states.
 
Of course they weren't but the idea behind limiting the the capital was brilliant.

First, being a member of Congress was never and should never be a full time job.

DC has about 600,000 people. 599,565 of them are not members of Congress. And the ones who are wouldn't be voting in DC anyway.

Second, creating a state that is also the seat of the federal government with essentially unlimited funds, paid for by the rest of the nation, is incredibly unethical.

Government money is coming into the District (as well as Maryland and Virginia) whether you call it a "district" or a "state." The only thing that denying DC statehood does, is to disenfranchise the people who live here.

Third, having the population have additional representation will cause further misappropriation of funds to the capital state.

Many federal offices are located in Maryland and Virginia, and there are military bases all across the country.

So no thanks, DC residents don't need to have anymore representation than they already do.

More than we already do? We don't have any. We can't even control our own city council without the dictatorship known as Congress vetoing their actions.
 
Because DC was specifically created to hold the US government on independent land. It is all federal land. If you were born there, sorry but the Federal government being independent is more important to the people of DC getting Congressional representation since there are alternatives. If you moved there, then you knew what you were getting into.

Are there any other parts of the world where you think people don't deserve democracy because they can always leave? Cuba, maybe? China?

I might add that if the roles were reversed and Philly was the nations capital on Federal land and created specifically to hold the Federal government outside of any States control, then the same rules would apply. I moved to Philly. I would have known that moving here would mean that I wouldn't get representation. If I had a significant issue with this (which I probably wouldn't), then I could move further into PA or to MD, DE, or NJ to get representation. Like DC, SEPTA makes living in any of these areas easy to commute into Philly.

This is supposed to be a democratic nation. You can't have the principles of representative democracy apply in SOME places and not others. It's ridiculous that our federal government throws its weight around so much trying to "spread democracy" to parts of the world where we have very little control over democratic development...yet it denies democracy to the one place in the world where it has TOTAL control.
 
Are there any other parts of the world where you think people don't deserve democracy because they can always leave? Cuba, maybe? China?

This is just foolishness. Not being a state does not mean that there is a lack of democracy.

Try cracking open a book sometime before you make such absurd comparisons.
 
This is just foolishness. Not being a state does not mean that there is a lack of democracy.

In DC's case, it absolutely does. We are lorded over by a Congress we did not elect, which can veto for any reason (or no reason) any decision made by our elected city council. Furthermore, this dictatorship known as Congress forces us to obey these things called "federal laws" and forces us to pay these things called "federal taxes."

In what world is this considered a democracy? There are plenty of dictatorships around the world where a nominally elected government is powerless in the face of an unelected body that ACTUALLY calls the shots.
 
In DC's case, it absolutely does. We are lorded over by a Congress we did not elect, which can veto for any reason (or no reason) any decision made by our elected city council. Furthermore, this dictatorship known as Congress forces us to obey these things called "federal laws" and forces us to pay these things called "federal taxes."

In what world is this considered a democracy? There are plenty of dictatorships around the world where a nominally elected government is powerless in the face of an unelected body that ACTUALLY calls the shots.

So you do admit that you have a democracy, but you're just not happy with how it's working out for you. Got it.
 
Back
Top Bottom