• 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!

Should Washington D.C. become a state?

Which of these is the most viable option

  • Washington D.C. should be granted statehood.

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Washington D.C. citizens should have the same voting rights as citizens of actual states.

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Voting rights in D.C. should remain the same.

    Votes: 12 52.2%
  • Other.

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Total voters
    23

DashingAmerican

Civil Libertarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
3,357
Reaction score
986
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The population of Washington D.C. is ~ 603,000. The population requirement is 60,000 citizens. The population of the Capitol can't vote, yet they get 3 electoral votes. Not sure how that works. The citizens of D.C. paid more than some states in taxes.

So, should D.C. be made a state?

or rather

Should the citizens of D.C. be granted the same rights of citizens of actual states?
 
Yes. What ever happened to no taxation without representation? We are more subject to the whims of Congress than anyone else in the country (as Congress can veto anything the city decides to do), yet we have no voice in Congress. We have one non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives, and no representation at all in the Senate.

If Wyoming gets two senators and a representative, we should have at least that much.
 
My position is that DC should not be a state. However, I think that it is wrong to deny them representation in Congress. So, I would compromise. The the House of Representatives was originally set up to represent the "people," and the Senate was originally set up to represent the states. Give DC's representative in Congress the same power as any other voting representatives, and don't give them a senate seat.
 
I'm confused on how they have three electoral votes when D.C. citizens don't get to vote. Can you explain that one Kandahar? I'm asking because you actually live there.
 
I'm confused on how they have three electoral votes when D.C. citizens don't get to vote. Can you explain that one Kandahar? I'm asking because you actually live there.

There was a constitutional amendment to give DC three electoral votes. Prior to 1961 we didn't have any representation in the White House either.
 
There was a constitutional amendment to give DC three electoral votes. Prior to 1961 we didn't have any representation in the White House either.

Gonna show a little ignorance here, who picks who your electoral votes go towards?
 
Coming from the DC area, I think DC's representation should stay the same as it is currently. I don't believe it should become a state either.
 
Why?

123456

DC is property of the federal government. The land that is now Washington DC was given by Maryland to the federal government to create the capitol city. Washington DC also consumes an extreme amount of federal funds, making it a state and then having the feds fund it like it does simply because the state holds the capitol wouldn't be very fair to the other states. The only way I think DC should ever become a "state" would be to give it back to Maryland. The feds actually tried this and Maryland declined because DC would cost too much in state funds. I think it's best that DC remain a federal district and not a state.
 
Nope but it could become the next federal prison, just to think how much money we would save on transportation cost for convicts.
 
I think they should certainly get congressional representation. However, I am of mixed feelings about senate representation. Perhaps their votes should count towards elections in maryland or virginia for that body.
 
I think they should certainly get congressional representation. However, I am of mixed feelings about senate representation. Perhaps their votes should count towards elections in maryland or virginia for that body.

This is something that I would favor. It is unfair that residents of DC don't get the same representation in Congress as residents of other states, including Washington's own suburbs. Give them representation through MD and VA instead of creating new Senate seats.
 
The population of Washington D.C. is ~ 603,000. The population requirement is 60,000 citizens. The population of the Capitol can't vote, yet they get 3 electoral votes. Not sure how that works. The citizens of D.C. paid more than some states in taxes.

So, should D.C. be made a state?

or rather

Should the citizens of D.C. be granted the same rights of citizens of actual states?

Yes, it should become a state.

The city has grown too large for it to be administrated over by Congress, and the city budget should not be a matter of national politics - rather, it should be of local politics.

And the people of the city should be able to vote and have representation in Congress. 1 Representative and 2 Senators.

No good reason why they shouldn't.
 
No for Statehood. The reason for the District's foundation in the first place was to avoid having the Capital in one of the States in the first place. The District of Columbia is not a very big place anyone who lives there and wants to have a state Government can just move a few miles a way to a real state. Anyway to make it a State would require an Amendment to the US Constitution.
 
Anyway to make it a State would require an Amendment to the US Constitution.

No it wouldn't. Washington, D.C. is a federal district by an Act of Congress, so it would only take an Act of Congress to amend the nature of the federal district to allow it to become a state pursuant to the normal procedures for an area to acquire statehood.
 
Gonna show a little ignorance here, who picks who your electoral votes go towards?

The residents of DC are able to vote for president like any state...we just don't have any representation in Congress (aside from a non-voting delegate).
 
Last edited:
DC is property of the federal government. The land that is now Washington DC was given by Maryland to the federal government to create the capitol city. Washington DC also consumes an extreme amount of federal funds, making it a state and then having the feds fund it like it does simply because the state holds the capitol wouldn't be very fair to the other states.

The federal government could still retain control over the National Mall, and turn the rest of the District over to the people. Many of the federal agencies are in suburban Maryland or Virginia anyway, so federal funds are already going toward specific states to fund the operations of the federal government. And let's not even get into all the military bases that are located around the country, thus funding the economies of those various states.

Besides, the federal government is already sending a certain amount of money to this part of the country, regardless of whether you call it a "state" or a "district" or whatever else. So if it's a question of fairness it isn't like the other 50 states would suddenly be worse off.

The only way I think DC should ever become a "state" would be to give it back to Maryland. The feds actually tried this and Maryland declined because DC would cost too much in state funds. I think it's best that DC remain a federal district and not a state.

Maryland doesn't want DC back, which is why DC should become a state. It's ridiculous that we have no representation in Congress despite the fact that we have MORE at stake in congressional decisions than any state does, since Congress can and does veto the actions of our city council for their own political whims.
 
Last edited:
No for Statehood. The reason for the District's foundation in the first place was to avoid having the Capital in one of the States in the first place.

And why is that necessary today?

The District of Columbia is not a very big place anyone who lives there and wants to have a state Government can just move a few miles a way to a real state.

Why should we have to move in order to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

Anyway to make it a State would require an Amendment to the US Constitution.

No, it can become a state at any time through the same process as any other state.
 
I would say no to statehood, but I do think they should be represented in Congress.
 
No, it can become a state at any time through the same process as any other state.

Two problems with that...

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 -- which lists the powers of Congress

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

So, for the status of DC to change, this clause would need to be changed, which can only be done through Constitutional amendment

Also, as DC was a part of Maryland, MD would have to sign off on it to. MD surrendered the territory to the federal government for the purposes of being the national capital, NOT for it to become a state.


Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
 
I don't think the U.S. will ever add another state. Solely because it would mess up the balance of red states and blue states in the Senate.
 
link

You may not like the source, but this is a good read on the topic...


In The Federalist No. 43, James Madison explained the need for a "federal district," sub*ject to Congress's exclusive jurisdiction and sep*arate from the territory, and authority, of any single state:

The indispensable necessity of compleat authority at the seat of Government car*ries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every Legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insult*ed and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general Government, on the State comprehending the seat of the Government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy.

Madison's concerns about insults to the "public authority" were not speculative. In June 1783, several hundred unpaid and angry Conti*nental soldiers had marched on Philadelphia, menacing Congress in Independence Hall itself. Pennsylvania refused all requests for assistance and, after two days, Congress adjourned. Its Members fled into New Jersey.

The incident made a lasting impression. The Framers referenced it over and again in defend*ing their provision for a "federal town," which Anti-Federalists persisted in visualizing as a sink of corruption and a potential nursery for tyrants. In fact, however, the need for a territo*ry in which the general government exercised full sovereignty, not beholden to any state, was probably inherent in the federal system itself.
 
Two problems with that...

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 -- which lists the powers of Congress

So, for the status of DC to change, this clause would need to be changed, which can only be done through Constitutional amendment

That clause gives Congress the POWER to exercise exclusive legislation over a district. It doesn't specify where the district is located, nor does it mandate that Congress exercise this power at all.

Also, as DC was a part of Maryland, MD would have to sign off on it to. MD surrendered the territory to the federal government for the purposes of being the national capital, NOT for it to become a state.

Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1

DC is no longer part of Maryland; the original reason it was surrendered to the federal government is irrelevant. This clause doesn't matter because DC is not located "within the jurisdiction of any other state."
 
Back
Top Bottom