• 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!

Senators Agree to Consider D.C. Voting Rights Bill

Should the new bill, granting DC citizens the right to vote, be passed?

  • Absolutely.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, but I would support a Constitutional amendment for it.

    Votes: 5 50.0%

  • No way.

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • Not sure.

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Total voters
    10
danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I really have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, citizens deserve to vote, but on the other hand, merely passing a bill is going to be unconstitutional, and DC should only get the vote, along with representation, if it is done through a Constitutional amendment.

What say you?

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
It seems blatantly unconstitutional, and I'm sure the Supreme Court will agree. But yes, they should be allowed to vote, just like anyone else.
 
danarhea said:
I really have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, citizens deserve to vote, but on the other hand, merely passing a bill is going to be unconstitutional, and DC should only get the vote, along with representation, if it is done through a Constitutional amendment.

What say you?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Liberal Democrats back it, so my default starting point is in opposition, naturally.

Why should I support this?
 
DC has voting rights, don't they? 3 EV's last I checked.
 
Kandahar said:
It seems blatantly unconstitutional, and I'm sure the Supreme Court will agree. But yes, they should be allowed to vote, just like anyone else.
Click to expand...

What other US districts do you support giving Congressional representation to and why? I don't yet know what to think of this bill and would like to hear your side.
 
danarhea said:
I really have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, citizens deserve to vote, but on the other hand, merely passing a bill is going to be unconstitutional, and DC should only get the vote, along with representation, if it is done through a Constitutional amendment.

What say you?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

I just noticed how the poll question does not represent the article.

" Should the new bill, granting DC citizens the right to vote, be passed?"

The article spoke only about adding Sensate seats, which I shouldn't need to point out is not what "citizen's right to vote" means.

Did I miss something? How is this not simply the expansion of government? Who, exactly, is today denied their personal constitutional right to vote? Names and links, please.
 
Jerry said:
What other US districts do you support giving Congressional representation to and why? I don't yet know what to think of this bill and would like to hear your side.
Click to expand...

The District of Columbia is the only US district there is.

I think they should have congressional representation because they're citizens of the United States just like anyone else. I don't see any reason they shouldn't have a say in our government just because they live in DC as opposed to Wyoming or Montana.

And while we're at it, I think we should give them more sovereignty over their own affairs too. Their local government doesn't have much power, because everything they do has to be approved by Congress. IMO this is one of the reasons that DC has one of the highest crime rates and highest poverty rates of any large city.

I think DC should, for the most part, be treated just like a state. Give the feds control over the National Mall and Embassy Row and maybe a few other specific places...but give the locals control over everything else and give them representation in Congress, just as we do for states.
 
Jerry said:
I just noticed how the poll question does not represent the article.

" Should the new bill, granting DC citizens the right to vote, be passed?"

The article spoke only about adding Sensate seats, which I shouldn't need to point out is not what "citizen's right to vote" means.

Did I miss something? How is this not simply the expansion of government? Who, exactly, is today denied their personal constitutional right to vote? Names and links, please.
Click to expand...

Well they have the right to vote...but their vote doesn't count for much. Having a figurehead congressperson who can't actually vote doesn't really cut it IMO. There are more people living in DC than in Wyoming, which has a representative and two senators with full voting rights.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I just noticed how the poll question does not represent the article.

" Should the new bill, granting DC citizens the right to vote, be passed?"

The article spoke only about adding Sensate seats, which I shouldn't need to point out is not what "citizen's right to vote" means.

Did I miss something? How is this not simply the expansion of government? Who, exactly, is today denied their personal constitutional right to vote? Names and links, please.
Click to expand...

You missed nothing. I did. In my haste to post the article, I posted about voting rights, when it should have been about representation. My bad.
 
Kandahar said:
Well they have the right to vote...but their vote doesn't count for much. Having a figurehead congressperson who can't actually vote doesn't really cut it IMO. There are more people living in DC than in Wyoming, which has a representative and two senators with full voting rights.
Click to expand...

Why not make DC a State, then?
 
Because there's enough confusion for elementry school people that there's a Washington State and Washington DC. Now make it Washington SC so they'd confuse Washington State, Washigton SC, and SC (south Carolina) :)

;)

I don't have much of an issue with this. When the constitution was created I don't believe it was ever invisioned that there'd be more people living within the capital then you have in some states.

A possible solution instead though would be to perhaps split DC Down the middle, with the northern portion having their votes and population tallied for Maryland and the bottom half for Virginia, thus allowing them a chance to vote for representation?

Don't know if that'd work, was just a sudden brain storm.

But I am strangely not too up in arms over this as I do think this is the type of situation amendments were created for; things that the founders couldn't forsee but have came to pass. I think I'd support a consitutional amendment to allow this.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
The District of Columbia is the only US district there is.

I think they should have congressional representation because they're citizens of the United States just like anyone else. I don't see any reason they shouldn't have a say in our government just because they live in DC as opposed to Wyoming or Montana.
Click to expand...

So, should Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc. also be granted Congressional representation in addition to Electoral Votes? They are, after all, US citizens as well.
 
ludahai said:
So, should Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc. also be granted Congressional representation in addition to Electoral Votes? They are, after all, US citizens as well.
Click to expand...

Well...sort of. They aren't part of the "proper" US government (mostly by their own choice), and don't really have the same status as DC and the states. They are exempt from certain taxes whereas DC is not, and they don't participate in certain federal programs whereas DC does. Another important difference is that the federal government holds near-total power over the District of Columbia, whereas the territories usually enjoy more sovereignty than even US states and thus have less of a stake in the happenings of the federal government.

With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to giving those territories a little bit of representation. They shouldn't get as much as they would if they were states though.
 
Last edited:
Just count Washington DC with part of Maryland or Virginia when it comes to electing senators and representatives.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Just count Washington DC with part of Maryland or Virginia when it comes to electing senators and representatives.
Click to expand...

I think a proposal has been floated for quite some time to do exactly that - at least with Maryland. WAsn't the "Virginia" part of DC from the original formation of the District returned to Virginia some time ago?
 
ludahai said:
I think a proposal has been floated for quite some time to do exactly that - at least with Maryland. WAsn't the "Virginia" part of DC from the original formation of the District returned to Virginia some time ago?
Click to expand...

Yes. The District of Columbia was originally composed of land that was half north of the Potomac (Maryland), and half south of the Potomac (Virginia). The Virginian part of DC was returned in 1847, and is now Arlington County.
 
Several thoughts:

-Giving them a congressional seat in their current form is most likely unconstitutional.

-If they deserve a Congressional seat, why not 2 senators? There's no intellectually honest argument for one but not the other.

-If the people of DC want to be represented, they should retrocede everything but the national mall and the federal buildings back to MD and VA.

-The whole "oh its fair because we're giving UT an extra congressional seat" thing is a load of ****. UT is already going to get that seat in 2 years when they do the next census anyways.
 
RightinNYC said:
Several thoughts:

-Giving them a congressional seat in their current form is most likely unconstitutional.

-If they deserve a Congressional seat, why not 2 senators? There's no intellectually honest argument for one but not the other.

-If the people of DC want to be represented, they should retrocede everything but the national mall and the federal buildings back to MD and VA.

-The whole "oh its fair because we're giving UT an extra congressional seat" thing is a load of ****. UT is already going to get that seat in 2 years when they do the next census anyways.
Click to expand...

I think the Democrats know that too. They are probably going for that "extra" electoral vote. :mrgreen:
 
Jerry said:
Why not make DC a State, then?
Click to expand...

Because the whole purpose of Washington, D.C. was that the nation's capital wouldn't be the domain of any one state.

That said, I'd support the following alternatives to the law being considered:
  • Moving every resident of D.C. out of D.C., with proper compensation to residential landlords and a grant to residents (if they do not own their own home)
  • Creating a number of voting districts in D.C. equivalent to the number of states bordering its area (can't remember if it's 2 or 3) -- give each district the right to vote in the Congressional elections of the nearest Congressional district
  • Make Washington, D.C. entirely subject to its own code of law, which would be composed and enforced by the District government (the mayor and a "city" council elected by District residents)
Any of those would be fine by me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom