Should US Citizens in Washington DC have a voting rep in the house of representives?

[downtown]

Provided one was added to a state like say, Utah?

Poll coming

(Mods: poll should read "should DC get a voting rep (not us))

 

[Ansar]

Only Matt Brown .

 

[kramerfan86]

I think they should have one, forget party politics and all that rubbish. This is about what is right and American citizens deserve their representation. Isnt taxation without representation one of the major complaints that started this nation?

 

[Swedishguy]

US politics are so non-intuitive.

 

[The Yankee]

The argument for adding another district to Utah that I've heard is because the census typically undercounts some section of the population there. What I'm wondering is: Who are they? Are there really that many of them to warrant a new district (which would be some six or seven hundred thousand people at this point)?

I know for partisan purposes, the fact that the DC district would add one to the House Democratic caucus, but I believe that we should decide it as it is, without trying to bring some kind of bipartisan balance to it.

And I say yes, DC should have its voting representative.

(Though it could open up arguments for having voting House members from our territories, so whatever you may think of that, it could be another avenue of the debate. But then again, I think they're all exempt from federal taxes, aren't they?)

 

[North King]

The argument for adding another district to Utah that I've heard is because the census typically undercounts some section of the population there. What I'm wondering is: Who are they? Are there really that many of them to warrant a new district (which would be some six or seven hundred thousand people at this point)?

I've never heard this. The only reason for adding one to Utah was partisan balance.

I support it, obviously: the arguments against DC congressional representation are flimsy at best.

 

[Mark1031]

yes and 2 senators as well.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

It's an interesting point. I'd be for it if it was an exception exclusively meant for Washington DC. But it'd be a harder sell if what was at issue was allowing all terrorties with more than 500,000 people gaining voting power. By itself, there's no problem with the inclusion, but the influx of democrats and/or republicans would mean the other party will never allow it to happen.

 

[warpus]

As an ignorant Canadian Pole, I would have to say that if you're a citizen of a democracy.. you should be represented.. in some way... in the government. no matter where you live.

 

[The Yankee]

I've never heard this. The only reason for adding one to Utah was partisan balance.

I support it, obviously: the arguments against DC congressional representation are flimsy at best.

Utah missed getting a fourth House seat by 857 people after the 2000 census. State officials have argued that they were entitled to that new seat because the government failed to count some 11,000 Mormon missionaries living abroad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070918/dc-vote/

Believe the source or not, this isn't really a partisan statement.

But the thing is, if Utah did get that extra representative after the last census, then another state would have lost one to make up for it. Would expanding to 437 members always guarantee Utah another seat or would the math be redone in the next decade to account for the expansion?

 

[QuoVadisNation]

As an ignorant Canadian Pole, I would have to say that if you're a citizen of a democracy.. you should be represented.. in some way... in the government. no matter where you live.

They are represented.. in some way. Terrorities and other areas like Washington DC are allowed one elected representive that is allowed to voice their area's concerns. But they still can't vote for anything federally though. That's something, yes?

 

[kramerfan86]

I think all US territories should be given the option of leaving, status quo of no taxes but no representation, or taxes with representation and maybe statehood.

 

[zjl56]

I think we should treat them as we do Puerto Rico. They get no say in Congress but they don't have to pay federal income taxes.

 

[North King]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070918/dc-vote/

Believe the source or not, this isn't really a partisan statement.

Interesting! Thanks.

But the thing is, if Utah did get that extra representative after the last census, then another state would have lost one to make up for it. Would expanding to 437 members always guarantee Utah another seat or would the math be redone in the next decade to account for the expansion?

I would assume the seat could be lost, since there wouldn't be any democracy in giving them another seat. So yes, it would probably possibly be reapportioned in 2010. Of course, odds are that even in the current setup, Utah will gain one then.

 

[The Yankee]

I would assume the seat could be lost, since there wouldn't be any democracy in giving them another seat. So yes, it would probably possibly be reapportioned in 2010. Of course, odds are that even in the current setup, Utah will gain one then.

In which case, it's late enough in the decade to wait until the next reapportionment (which would probably take effect for 2012 elections) and expand the House by two seats.

But I do feel less against it due to this special circumstance. But on the other hand (this has to be my fifth hand already), isn't it possible for other states to have 11,000 people that couldn't be taken into account by the census? Enough for a new seat, in some cases?

 

[amadeus]

Sorry, but Washington already has 435 Representatives and 100 Senators.

 

[kramerfan86]

I am not an expert on foreign governments, but are there any other democracies which exclude their capital city from the legislative branch of government? The whole idea made sense back when states were treated sort of like mini countries, but now that they have been reduced to provinces it seems sort of archaic to not let DC be one.

 

[bhsup]

Nope, they are not States. Simple as that.

 

[North King]

In which case, it's late enough in the decade to wait until the next reapportionment (which would probably take effect for 2012 elections) and expand the House by two seats.

True enough. But I doubt that anyone will push for it by then.

But I do feel less against it due to this special circumstance. But on the other hand (this has to be my fifth hand already), isn't it possible for other states to have 11,000 people that couldn't be taken into account by the census? Enough for a new seat, in some cases?

Yes. Plenty of states have probably been screwed by rounding.

Sorry, but Washington already has 435 Representatives and 100 Senators.

Funny, I thought it had 9 and 2, respectively.

Nope, they are not States. Simple as that.

So the people aren't people? I don't get your logic here.

 

[bhsup]

So the people aren't people? I don't get your logic here.

I neither said nor implied that. The United States of America is a union of 50 sovereign States. It is the States which are represented in Congress. The District of Columbia is not a State. None of the States got representation before Statehood when they were territories, and current territories do not have voting representation either. Why should DC get special treatment.

Solutions to this issue:

• Let it go through the process of Statehood admission
• Dismantle the district and give all the land back to Virginia and Maryland, and just have our Federal Capital within the borders of one of those States. Frankly, I wish the Capital had stayed in Philadelphia, but they screwed that up.
• Maintain the status quo.
• Nuke Washington.