Adding states to the Union has always been political, if not in motivation then in execution. In the early days it was about adding free or slave states. Then it was Dem or Republican. Now it is urban vs rural. At the same time, some of these states had to be added one way or another. Continuing as a territory forever wasn't viable, so they had to be formed into states somehow. The Dakotas, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska all needed to be formed, and the politics of how much power to give them (by dint of how many states to make of them) came in the details. Same will come with Puerto Rico, which needs to become a state or else leave, imo. DC doesn't ever need to become a state. I can see a viable argument that the people of DC need fuller representation (though I don't subscribe to it), but we don't need to make a state to achieve that. DC residents would have more say over their state law if they are not diluted in Maryland's population, true. However, Texas' residents and the residents of every other state in the Union has their say in the US Senate diluted by the addition of DC Senators to the Senate. Is that self-determination for DC residents worth the trade-off for anyone else? As a Texan, there's really nothing in it for me. For every sparsely-populated expansive Great Plains state over-represented in the Senate (like Wyoming, North Dakota, or Montana), there's a more densely-populated but postage-sized state also over-represented in the Senate (think Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island). Adding DC just makes the problem worse. And makes Texans' representation in the Senate all the tinier. I would add that DC is too damn small to be a viable state. They want to spend their tax money as they see fit? How much taxes can they raise with 700,000 people? They have to stand up their own state government, pay a governor, run a state legislature, have state agencies with state employees, have state troopers, inspectors, etc. To get an idea, Vermont's government administration (so not considering big variable components like education, healthcare, or policing) is 75% bigger on a per-capita basis than the average state. And then you still have the redundancy of these some kinds of functions at the municipal level (unless you abolish that per state law). That's just not efficient at all. You get economies of scale by being part of a bigger state. The one saving grace is that by having 2 senators for a mere 700,000 people, you should be able to wring a lot of tax money out of the federal government, seeded by other states. Something else that I, as a Texan, don't have an interest in seeing happen.
As a Houstonian, I would like the ability to choose and be represented by Houstonian senators, not the two nitwits Texas elected. Where's my self-determination?
Sure, as I do. But you and I have the ability to identify, support, and vote for different candidates in Texas. The people in DC would like to as well.
lol I'd like upstate New York to vote for its own Senators and not the two nutjobs favored by people who live in Manhattan, but that ain't gonna happen either.
They're all small compared to Texas. Wyoming is 2% the population of Texas; DC, 2.5%. I am totally unimpressed by DC having more people than Vermont. By that logic, El Paso should have 2 senators. Maybe it's a good argument for merging some of those New England states. I don't understand where you're going with that.
So why should Wyoming and Vermont have Senators since DC has a bigger population than both? Why don't you want them to have two Senators?
No, they are Maryland's senators. DC citizens didn't elect them. The MD senators didn't campaign in DC. The Maryland senators are people from Maryland, who campaigned in Maryland, and campaigned on issues that were important to people (like them) in Maryland. The people in DC would like to choose their own senators, from among people that live in DC, and who campaigned on issues important to people that live in DC.
What makes Vermont and Wyoming different than DC? Why does population not impress you since we base an entire house of congress on population rates?
no different than me moving to a new state. the senators there represent me, even tho i didn't vote for them. next time the vote comes around, i will make my voice heard.
that's just stupid, the admissions clause allows the addition of new states, whereas Article I governs specifically the federal district. that's just stupid.
Moving to a new state is a choice a state annexing you is not a choice. You know like the whole reason people want Texas to annex so they can pick their own representation.
