Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   Don't want to take D.C. statehood seriously? Fine, how about we shut down all commuter routes into the city   (wtop.com) divider line 252
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

19461 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 May 2010 at 4:27 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-05-14 07:27:18 PM  
aerojockey: Look, people in DC, I'm really sad you have no representation in Congress and everything, but someone had to be tha sacrificial lamb to ensure no one had to bear intolerably smug Marylanders prattling on about how their state is the best because it houses the nation's capital. I mean, taxation without representation is bad, but come on, intolerably smug Marylanders.

The smug would destroy us all, really.
 
2010-05-14 07:27:50 PM  
jbuist: SurfaceTension: I always wondered why terrorists haven't targeted the American Legion and Woodrow Wilson bridges.

Even terrorists don't dare go into DC.


DARE go? They just see it's worse than if they went in blowing stuff up. No reason to go in.
 
2010-05-14 07:30:08 PM  
sendbillmoney: The total area of the United States is 3,794,101 square miles.
The total ares of the District of Columbia is 68.3 square miles, a whopping 0.0018002% of the country.

If having two Senators and a voting Representative is a big deal to someone, they could always move to somewhere in the other 99.9981998% of the country.

/Square mileage retrieved from Wikipedia, so it must be true
//How the hell is D.C. more than ten square miles? Congress has the power "[t]o 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 ..."
///Slashies


so your rights as a citizen are based on the size of the geographical area in which you live? Did I miss that in the Constitution somehow? Someone should let those people in Rhode Island know. They probably have a few more rights than their size allows them, according to your "logic"

psst - check out population, DC is bigger than a few states. And that is ACTUALLY how the House of Representatives is apportioned.
 
2010-05-14 07:37:17 PM  
Glendale: aerojockey: Look, people in DC, I'm really sad you have no representation in Congress and everything, but someone had to be tha sacrificial lamb to ensure no one had to bear intolerably smug Marylanders prattling on about how their state is the best because it houses the nation's capital. I mean, taxation without representation is bad, but come on, intolerably smug Marylanders.

The smug would destroy us all, really.


well, hell, that's the only argument I've seen that makes sense.
 
2010-05-14 07:44:16 PM  
pb-crunch: The Founding Fathers also didn't believe in women voting

The founding fathers actually said nothing about women voting. They might have assumed that they wouldn't, but that's not what the document said when the wrote it, and there were places like NJ that allowed women to vote for some time after the founding of the country until it was later outlawed in 1807.

It's also worth noting that the constitution doesn't really say much about voting, just about apportionment of representatives. The actual methods for selecting most of those representatives were not restricted to voting, but were left at the discretion of the states. Electors for the electoral college and senators, for example, are not required to be selected by popular vote, and senators in particular were not for a good while (17th amendment). And even when representatives are selected by voting (house, modern senate), the particulars of how voting works and who is eligible is left at the discretion of the states.
 
2010-05-14 07:47:49 PM  
SharkInfested: sendbillmoney: The total area of the United States is 3,794,101 square miles.
The total ares of the District of Columbia is 68.3 square miles, a whopping 0.0018002% of the country.

If having two Senators and a voting Representative is a big deal to someone, they could always move to somewhere in the other 99.9981998% of the country.

/Square mileage retrieved from Wikipedia, so it must be true
//How the hell is D.C. more than ten square miles? Congress has the power "[t]o 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 ..."
///Slashies

so your rights as a citizen are based on the size of the geographical area in which you live? Did I miss that in the Constitution somehow? Someone should let those people in Rhode Island know. They probably have a few more rights than their size allows them, according to your "logic"

psst - check out population, DC is bigger than a few states. And that is ACTUALLY how the House of Representatives is apportioned.


Funny you brought up the Constitution. You obviously missed the part where DC doesn't get a vote. They felt that just being the Nation's capital is more than enough compensation. Don't like it?
Move.
The framers wanted the seat of the nation to be a federal territory. We have State legislatures, you have congress. We have governors, you have the president.
 
2010-05-14 08:18:04 PM  
Cuz the folks that wrote the rules; Adams, Jefferson, Washington , Franklin, Hamilton, etc. see they had they insight that people like you Progressives would come along and be so much smarter than them that they made it waht we call a "living" document. That means if it promotes your view it is changable to whatever cuz you Libs are so much smarter than the founders. Amazing they saw you comming and set it up that way. 200 years of 2/3rds ratify and then "Hey its a living doument" my goodness the arrogance is astounding.
 
2010-05-14 08:18:47 PM  
Look, I don't live in DC or have anything to do with this, but:

Disallowing 500k US citizens to vote because of where they live is the most farking retarded thing I've ever heard of in my life.

/and that's saying a lot.
 
2010-05-14 08:22:21 PM  
SharkInfested: logruszed: I'm not a political scientist and I don't really know the ramifications of statehood for D.C. but aren't all citizens supposed to be guaranteed equal representation, or at least the illusion of equal representation? Didn't we have some sort of war a few hundred years back where the people claimed this was the cause of said war?

THIS!

Tha amount of ignorance people display in DC threads is epic:
1. Anyone who says "don't like it, move!" proves that they are someone who thinks it is a A-OK to deny Federal and State taxpaying citizens their Constitutional right to elected representation based on geography, and why do you hate the Constitution and America? Do you really want the capital of the United States to be an empty wasteland of empty buildings instead of a vibrant city? It's not just a city wanting to be a state (are people that stupid?) it is US citizens denied a basic right upon which this country was founded. And you know what - it's NOT UP TO US TO JOIN WITH MARYLAND! WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER! THAT'S THE POINT!

2. And yes, it is a vibrant city. Anyone who says "meh, who cares, it's just a hellhole anyway" is again, displaying vast amounts of ignorance. Sure, there are some sketchy neighborhoods, but name a city that doesn't have those. The majority of northwest is lovely, upscale residential neighborhoods. Drop me a line if you want a tour. And there are plenty of similar neighborhoods in NE, SW, and SE. And if you don't know what I mean when I talk about NW or NE, you have no idea about the District.

One of the reasons that there were/are so many issues as far as the running of the District is that the Congressional Oversight Committee, for the most part, treats us as a way of scoring political points with their constituents at home by imposing things on us that their constituents agree with in theory, but don't want imposed on them, regardless of whether or not it is in the best interests or in accordance with expressed wishes of the FEDERAL TAX PAYING RESIDENTS of the District of Columbia. Just for fun, look up the first time that medical marijuana was voted on here (have to go back about 15 years). The Oversight Committee would not even allow the results to be released - that seems pretty small government and constitional, eh? Individuals that we did not vote for, whose policies we don't agree with, imposing their ideas on us against our will? Sound good to you?

And say what you want about Marian Berry, but do you know why he was re-elected? Because he got things done for the people, his constituents. Yeah, he's a scumbag, but he gave the finger to Congress and took care of people when Congress wouldn't. And yeah, get over it, it's been quite some time since he was mayor. If one scumbag politician voided every citizens basic right to elected representation, you would all be in the same boat we are.

I'm not saying statehood is the answer, but how can anyone dispute that the people who live within sight and sound of Congress are denied the most basic right of American citizens?

And you know what? This is why it both amuses and angers me when people refer to "the politicians in Washington" Who know who's politicians they are? YOURS. We are the only people in the country who can really complain about the politicians in Washington, because while you can vote who to send here, we can't. And your people are making our decisions for us, and frankly, you seem to have chosen...poorly.


THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
 
2010-05-14 08:24:27 PM  
"We need full voting representation for all of the disenfranchised residents of the District of Columbia."

No, all the "residents" need to get the fark out. It should have never been zoned for residential use. It's one massive admin building. Set up for the government.

"The Organic Act of 1801 officially organized the District of Columbia and placed the entire federal territory, including the cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria, under the exclusive control of Congress. "
 
2010-05-14 08:34:27 PM  
bigsteve3OOO: Cuz the folks that wrote the rules; Adams, Jefferson, Washington , Franklin, Hamilton, etc. see they had they insight that people like you Progressives would come along and be so much smarter than them that they made it waht we call a "living" document. That means if it promotes your view it is changable to whatever cuz you Libs are so much smarter than the founders. Amazing they saw you comming and set it up that way. 200 years of 2/3rds ratify and then "Hey its a living doument" my goodness the arrogance is astounding.

www.randomfunnypicture.com

Imma' let you finish, but I just wanted to say that your definition of "progressive" seems to be tied to the concept of "change", and despite the campaign slogans and posters George W. Bush had the most change of any president in our history! That's change you can count on, while the habeas gets the corpus suspended the fark out of it.

/Executive orders bypassing congress = 291
//Imaginative reinterpretations of the Bill of Rights = less than 291, but still beat Lincoln's record.
 
2010-05-14 08:34:41 PM  
bigsteve3OOO: Cuz the folks that wrote the rules; Adams, Jefferson, Washington , Franklin, Hamilton, etc. see they had they insight that people like you Progressives would come along and be so much smarter than them that they made it waht we call a "living" document. That means if it promotes your view it is changable to whatever cuz you Libs are so much smarter than the founders. Amazing they saw you comming and set it up that way. 200 years of 2/3rds ratify and then "Hey its a living doument" my goodness the arrogance is astounding.

You're in America now. English please.
 
2010-05-14 08:45:24 PM  
DC can't function without the money showered on them from the Feds. SO statehood is not an option. But I am in favor of shutting down the transportation system if it keeps the human fecal matter at the capital from meeting and passing more dumbass laws.
 
2010-05-14 08:52:18 PM  
The only redeeming factor of Washington D.C. are the museums and monuments. The rest of the city is a hole on par with Detroit. Racism? It isn't racist when the African American majority lives there, runs things, elects all their leaders/criminals and fails miserably at doing it. It is a very sad fact.

If "Ahmet the Awful" detonated a thermonuclear bomb and wiped out the whole place, it wouldn't be a an act of war, it would be an act of mercy.
 
2010-05-14 08:59:27 PM  
dcist.com
 
2010-05-14 08:59:40 PM  
logruszed: bigsteve3OOO: Cuz the folks that wrote the rules; Adams, Jefferson, Washington , Franklin, Hamilton, etc. see they had they insight that people like you Progressives would come along and be so much smarter than them that they made it waht we call a "living" document. That means if it promotes your view it is changable to whatever cuz you Libs are so much smarter than the founders. Amazing they saw you comming and set it up that way. 200 years of 2/3rds ratify and then "Hey its a living doument" my goodness the arrogance is astounding.



Imma' let you finish, but I just wanted to say that your definition of "progressive" seems to be tied to the concept of "change", and despite the campaign slogans and posters George W. Bush had the most change of any president in our history! That's change you can count on, while the habeas gets the corpus suspended the fark out of it.

/Executive orders bypassing congress = 291
//Imaginative reinterpretations of the Bill of Rights = less than 291, but still beat Lincoln's record.


I see 0 difference between Bush and Obama. actually Obama has thus far done less damage. The patriot act was bar none the biggest affront to american ideals to date.
 
2010-05-14 09:08:55 PM  
I've always found it laughable when DC tries to justify a commuter tax by saying 'You use our roads and services! WHARBL!'

I've worked in DC for over 10 years and have never needed any city services, and if I did I am sure the fees and taxes they stick my employer with more than covers them.

DC will never get voting rights. To many people benefit from things as they are.
 
2010-05-14 09:09:25 PM  
www.nieu.org
 
2010-05-14 09:15:25 PM  
bigsteve3OOO: logruszed: bigsteve3OOO: Cuz the folks that wrote the rules; Adams, Jefferson, Washington , Franklin, Hamilton, etc. see they had they insight that people like you Progressives would come along and be so much smarter than them that they made it waht we call a "living" document. That means if it promotes your view it is changable to whatever cuz you Libs are so much smarter than the founders. Amazing they saw you comming and set it up that way. 200 years of 2/3rds ratify and then "Hey its a living doument" my goodness the arrogance is astounding.



Imma' let you finish, but I just wanted to say that your definition of "progressive" seems to be tied to the concept of "change", and despite the campaign slogans and posters George W. Bush had the most change of any president in our history! That's change you can count on, while the habeas gets the corpus suspended the fark out of it.

/Executive orders bypassing congress = 291
//Imaginative reinterpretations of the Bill of Rights = less than 291, but still beat Lincoln's record.

I see 0 difference between Bush and Obama. actually Obama has thus far done less damage. The patriot act was bar none the biggest affront to american ideals to date.


On this we agree.
 
2010-05-14 09:17:12 PM  
DjangoStonereaver: I've always found it laughable when DC tries to justify a commuter tax by saying 'You use our roads and services! WHARBL!'

I've worked in DC for over 10 years and have never needed any city services, and if I did I am sure the fees and taxes they stick my employer with more than covers them.

DC will never get voting rights. To many people benefit from things as they are.


I would like to echo the sentiment of those who suggest that those living in D.C. who want equal representation should move out by stating that you should work elsewhere.
 
2010-05-14 09:24:20 PM  
gstefan: DC can't function without the money showered on them from the Feds. SO statehood is not an option. But I am in favor of shutting down the transportation system if it keeps the human fecal matter at the capital from meeting and passing more dumbass laws.

THE FECAL MATTER IS YOURS, you vote for it and ship it here, you are the ones who vote for these politicians, WE CAN'T VOTE FOR ANYONE IN CONGRESS. Please stop sending it here, where your lowlife scumbags that I didn't vote for are allowed to tell me what to do.

The people in DC are the only ones who have no say over what happens in DC
 
2010-05-14 09:27:51 PM  
logruszed: DjangoStonereaver: I've always found it laughable when DC tries to justify a commuter tax by saying 'You use our roads and services! WHARBL!'

I've worked in DC for over 10 years and have never needed any city services, and if I did I am sure the fees and taxes they stick my employer with more than covers them.

DC will never get voting rights. To many people benefit from things as they are.

I would like to echo the sentiment of those who suggest that those living in D.C. who want equal representation should move out by stating that you should work elsewhere.


so, you think that the best idea is to have the capital of the United States be a big empty, echoing ghost town rather than grant American citizens their rights? Have you really thought that all the way through? We're actually real people, you know, who are born and live and die here, not props.
 
2010-05-14 09:28:44 PM  
quoting logrusized:

I would like to echo the sentiment of those who suggest that those living in D.C. who want equal representation should move out by stating that you should work elsewhere.

I would like nothing better,but you're just being a troll.
 
2010-05-14 09:36:26 PM  
SharkInfested: logruszed: DjangoStonereaver: I've always found it laughable when DC tries to justify a commuter tax by saying 'You use our roads and services! WHARBL!'

I've worked in DC for over 10 years and have never needed any city services, and if I did I am sure the fees and taxes they stick my employer with more than covers them.

DC will never get voting rights. To many people benefit from things as they are.

I would like to echo the sentiment of those who suggest that those living in D.C. who want equal representation should move out by stating that you should work elsewhere.

so, you think that the best idea is to have the capital of the United States be a big empty, echoing ghost town rather than grant American citizens their rights? Have you really thought that all the way through? We're actually real people, you know, who are born and live and die here, not props.


No dude, I'm throwing back the notion people keep mentioning to D.C. residents that they "should just move" should apply to people who work there and are biatching about surcharges.

them: "You should move away from D.C. if you have a problem. I work in D.C. and I have a problem with paying a tax because I work there."

me: "So people who live there should just move rather than change the system, but you do support changing the system in matters relating to you instead of working elsewhere?"
 
2010-05-14 09:39:16 PM  
DjangoStonereaver: quoting logrusized:

I would like to echo the sentiment of those who suggest that those living in D.C. who want equal representation should move out by stating that you should work elsewhere.

I would like nothing better,but you're just being a troll.


No, I'm not. You're calling me a troll because you either don't get the hypocrisy I'm pointing towards or you think calling someone a troll relieves you of an obligation to address the potential ethical inequity of siding with the idea that "they should just move" while biatching about a job nobody forced on you.
 
2010-05-14 09:41:18 PM  
The framers wanted the seat of the nation to be a federal territory. We have State legislatures, you have congress. We have governors, you have the president.

You seem to be wildly missing the point: you are allowed to vote for your state legislature - we are NOT allowed to vote for Congress. You have Governors, we've only in the last few decades been allowed to vote for President - either way, he's got as much to do with running this city as he does with running yours.

I can only assume you're a troll or a fascist
 
2010-05-14 09:42:51 PM  
DjangoStonereaver: I've always found it laughable when DC tries to justify a commuter tax by saying 'You use our roads and services! WHARBL!'

I've worked in DC for over 10 years and have never needed any city services, and if I did I am sure the fees and taxes they stick my employer with more than covers them.


Um, roads ARE a city service - someone has to fix them, and plow them in the winter, etc. All of that costs money..money that commuters like you don't pay into the system because you pay taxes to another state.

DC will never get voting rights. To many people benefit from things as they are.

This is sadly pretty true.

Also what sharkinfested said.
 
2010-05-14 09:49:58 PM  
Thank you subby, for reminding us why we don't want to take D.C. politicians seriously.
 
2010-05-14 10:05:57 PM  
DjangoStonereaver: quoting logrusized:

I would like to echo the sentiment of those who suggest that those living in D.C. who want equal representation should move out by stating that you should work elsewhere.

I would like nothing better,but you're just being a troll.

me: "So people who live there should just move rather than change the system, but you do support changing the system in matters relating to you instead of working elsewhere?"


Yes, that's kind of our point. We'd like to change things. Nice to know you're on our side
 
2010-05-14 10:24:56 PM  
/please make this happen asap
//also make sure that nobody can get out
///could give two shiats less about DC
 
2010-05-14 10:37:04 PM  
Let them vote in Maryland state elections for senators and congressmen but take away home rule of the city and return it to the congress. They should have done that when the subway was constructed or when the dirtbags elected Marion Barry.

photos.upi.com

NO YOU CAN'T

And while we're on the subject Michigan should revoke the city charter for Detroit too and California the city charter for LA since they're all incompetently run and going under shortly.
 
2010-05-14 10:44:59 PM  
Why in the hell are people living in D.C. to begin with?
 
2010-05-14 11:01:32 PM  
SharkInfested: DjangoStonereaver: quoting logrusized:

I would like to echo the sentiment of those who suggest that those living in D.C. who want equal representation should move out by stating that you should work elsewhere.

I would like nothing better,but you're just being a troll.

me: "So people who live there should just move rather than change the system, but you do support changing the system in matters relating to you instead of working elsewhere?"

Yes, that's kind of our point. We'd like to change things. Nice to know you're on our side


Every law-abiding citizen deserves an equal voice, this whole "you shouldn't live there" bullshiat is a farking dodge used by privileged racists who never will understand that most of the affected folks have no financial ability to move to another city even if it was their obligation to do so.

We're talking primarily about the descendants of servants from reconstruction period who were allowed to live near their employer's homes because those employers never intended for them to have the right to vote in the first place.
 
2010-05-14 11:14:46 PM  
CommonFilmz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOvMvc2mayY

Thank god for the ignore button. Spammer.
 
2010-05-14 11:15:21 PM  
WTF is wrong with you idiots in favor of this?

No one is arguing that they shouldn't have a voice or vote.
The argument is that they shouldn't be a state. It makes perfect sense to give them back to Maryland.

Stop with the strawman arguments already, sheesh.
 
2010-05-14 11:15:50 PM  
ritalinchild 54: A Fark Handle: what is this? madagascar?



/hot like a fever

?


what? they want to shut down every point of entry (sounds like some women).

/sorry if it wasn't clear... thought it was.
 
2010-05-14 11:51:27 PM  
A Fark Handle: ritalinchild 54: A Fark Handle: what is this? madagascar?



/hot like a fever

?

what? they want to shut down every point of entry (sounds like some women).

/sorry if it wasn't clear... thought it was.


Fret not mate. I laughed.

/The internet
// Not everyone
/// Gets your flarzzspamburgerlamyamyamJamz-man
 
2010-05-15 12:18:33 AM  
The_Six_Fingered_Man: farkityfarker: logruszed: but aren't all citizens supposed to be guaranteed equal representation, or at least the illusion of equal representation?

No. If that were the case, neither the Electoral College or the United States Senate would exist.

How is the Senate an example of unequal representation? Each State gets two, no matter the size or population.


Oh Lord, how STUPID can you get?

"Imagine a situation in which your vote for your representative is counted as one while the vote of a friend in a neighboring town is counted as 17. Suppose for some reason that you and your friend each change your job and residence. As a result of your new job, you move to your friend's town. For the same reason, your friend moves to your town. Presto! To your immense gratification you now discover that by simply moving, you have acquired 16 more votes. Your friend however, has lost 16. Pretty ridiculous, is it not?

Yet this is what would happen if you lived on the western shore of Lake Tahoe in California and moved less than 50 miles East to Carson City, Nevada, while a friend in Carson City moved to your community on Lake Tahoe. As we all know, both states are equally represented in the U.S. Senate. With a population in 2000 of nearly 34 million, California had 2 senators. But so did Nevada, with only 2 million residents. Because the votes of US Senators are counted equally, in 2000 the vote of a Nevada resident for the U.S. Senate was, in effect, worth about 17 times the vote of a California resident. A Californian who moved to Alaska might lose some points on climate, but she would stand to gain a vote worth about fifty-four times as much as her vote in California. Whether this trade-off would be worth the move is not for me to say. But surely the inequality in representation it reveals is a profound violation of the democratic idea of political equality amongst all citizens." (Dahl 49)

As Richard Dahl so easily says it, the Senate vote is designed to fark people in the big states. It really was designed that way. There is no semblance of equality in the Senate, and there was never meant to be any. In the House of Representatives, representation is equal. In the Senate, Wyoming and Alaska are kings.

Works Cited
Dahl, Richard. How Democratic is the American Constitution? New Haven: Yale University Press. 2003.
 
2010-05-15 01:20:57 AM  
fastbow: As Richard Dahl so easily says it, the Senate vote is designed to fark people in the big states. It really was designed that way. There is no semblance of equality in the Senate, and there was never meant to be any. In the House of Representatives, representation is equal. In the Senate, Wyoming and Alaska are kings.

It's called "tyranny of the majority", and thank God the founding fathers were smarter than the majority of farkers when they set it up that way.
 
2010-05-15 01:37:25 AM  
FubarBDilligaf: fastbow: As Richard Dahl so easily says it, the Senate vote is designed to fark people in the big states. It really was designed that way. There is no semblance of equality in the Senate, and there was never meant to be any. In the House of Representatives, representation is equal. In the Senate, Wyoming and Alaska are kings.

It's called "tyranny of the majority", and thank God the founding fathers were smarter than the majority of farkers when they set it up that way.


I'm not necessarially against it. The House of Rep, on the same coin, was designed to fark the small states. Back in 1787, if Rhode Island gets its way, we have Senate and Senate only in two houses. If Virginia gets its way, we have HoR in both houses. Personally, I find little to disagree with the founders on in any of the foundations of this document, unlike Dahl whom I cited. But I am also well aware that this nation is NOT a democracy, nor was it founded as a democratic republic. In reality, it is an aristocratic republic aspiring to a democratic republic, and it has always been so, save for the brief periods when all or part of it was a confederacy.
 
2010-05-15 02:57:05 AM  
TsukasaK: Disallowing 500k US citizens to vote because of where they live is the most farking retarded thing I've ever heard of in my life.

They can vote. Who told you they couldn't?
 
2010-05-15 03:01:55 AM  
SharkInfested: THE FECAL MATTER IS YOURS, you vote for it and ship it here, you are the ones who vote for these politicians, WE CAN'T VOTE FOR ANYONE IN CONGRESS. Please stop sending it here, where your lowlife scumbags that I didn't vote for are allowed to tell me what to do.

Welcome to the party pal. I only get to vote for one lonely Congressman and yet I get the other 434 "lowlife scumbags" getting together and telling me what to do and I don't get to vote for them either.
 
2010-05-15 03:04:10 AM  
SharkInfested: You seem to be wildly missing the point: you are allowed to vote for your state legislature - we are NOT allowed to vote for Congress

Then who the h*ll is Eleanor Holmes Norton?
 
2010-05-15 04:14:50 AM  
fastbow: The_Six_Fingered_Man: farkityfarker: logruszed: but aren't all citizens supposed to be guaranteed equal representation, or at least the illusion of equal representation?

No. If that were the case, neither the Electoral College or the United States Senate would exist.

How is the Senate an example of unequal representation? Each State gets two, no matter the size or population.

Oh Lord, how STUPID can you get?

"Imagine a situation in which your vote for your representative is counted as one while the vote of a friend in a neighboring town is counted as 17. Suppose for some reason that you and your friend each change your job and residence. As a result of your new job, you move to your friend's town. For the same reason, your friend moves to your town. Presto! To your immense gratification you now discover that by simply moving, you have acquired 16 more votes. Your friend however, has lost 16. Pretty ridiculous, is it not?

Yet this is what would happen if you lived on the western shore of Lake Tahoe in California and moved less than 50 miles East to Carson City, Nevada, while a friend in Carson City moved to your community on Lake Tahoe. As we all know, both states are equally represented in the U.S. Senate. With a population in 2000 of nearly 34 million, California had 2 senators. But so did Nevada, with only 2 million residents. Because the votes of US Senators are counted equally, in 2000 the vote of a Nevada resident for the U.S. Senate was, in effect, worth about 17 times the vote of a California resident. A Californian who moved to Alaska might lose some points on climate, but she would stand to gain a vote worth about fifty-four times as much as her vote in California. Whether this trade-off would be worth the move is not for me to say. But surely the inequality in representation it reveals is a profound violation of the democratic idea of political equality amongst all citizens." (Dahl 49)

As Richard Dahl so easily says it, the Senate vote is designed to fark people in the big states. It really was designed that way. There is no semblance of equality in the Senate, and there was never meant to be any. In the House of Representatives, representation is equal. In the Senate, Wyoming and Alaska are kings.

Works Cited
Dahl, Richard. How Democratic is the American Constitution? New Haven: Yale University Press. 2003.


bingo.
 
2010-05-15 08:41:45 AM  
Give DC to VA so our next president can open carry on the steps of Congress
i.imgur.com
 
2010-05-15 09:50:37 AM  
Okay. I have to ask, and I apologize for any ignorance, but couldn't this entire issues be resolved by zoning only Federal buildings as the District of Columbia and keeping all commercial and residential areas as part of a state? This still allows the entire thing zoned as a city, those living and owning businesses there can have state representation, and the federal portion stays separate.
 
2010-05-15 10:01:26 AM  
The problem is that the founders were held hostage in Philly. Disgruntled Colonial troops marched on Philly, and Pennsylvania did not heed the calls for assistance, eventually forcing the congress to escape.

The founders don't want the federal government held hostage by a state. If say DC was part of Maryland, and it passed a law that the Maryland governor didn't like, he could shut down all the roads heading into DC, holding the city hostage. But since the federal government is in charge of DC, it bows to no State.

No one forced anyone to live there. Don't like it, move.
 
2010-05-15 11:01:50 AM  
The whole argument that DC was never meant to have inhabitants is idiotic, considering Georgetown, Alexandria, and what's now Captiol Hill were all functioning towns at the time of DC's founding. So, we were meant to live here and be governed by the Congress. The latter is what DC would like to change.

The objections to retroceding us to MD are not all on the DC side. As I mentioned upthread, most of MD does not want DC because we'd upset the historical power balance in MD between the rural interests and Baltimore. Adding DC would tip the balance in favor of the urban interests for things like social issues and development/zoning stuff.

There have been moves to carve out a "Federal City" from the Mall, Fed buildings, white house, capitol, etc. and make that DC. What would happen to the actual city part is unclear, but it kind of makes sense.

As to commuters who have never used city services, please get over yourself. You've never washed your hands or taken a dump at work? If you did, you used a city service. You've never driven on the streets? If you did, you used a city service. Saying your company pays taxes and that makes up for it may be true, but in the vast majority of cases in DC it isn't, because there's an overabundance of tax-exempt companies like associations, universities, etc., that don't pay. This is why we need a commuter tax, which has been falsely portrayed as taking money away from commuters. In practice, commuters wouldn't pay more, just a small portion of what they do pay to their states would go instead to help DC and the rest of us residents fund your comfortable commutes.
 
2010-05-15 12:12:16 PM  
What's interesting is that the US Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down laws on the state level basing representation in either house of the state legislature on anything other than population as violations of the "one man, one vote" principle. Thus, for example, a state can't let each county elect two representatives to its state senate without regard to the population of the counties.

But the US Supreme Court has to uphold the violations of the "one man, one vote" pricinple on the Federal level as they're written into the Constitution.
 
2010-05-15 12:25:04 PM  
MedMan:
As to commuters who have never used city services, please get over yourself. You've never washed your hands or taken a dump at work? If you did, you used a city service. You've never driven on the streets? If you did, you used a city service. Saying your company pays taxes and that makes up for it may be true, but in the vast majority of cases in DC it isn't, because there's an overabundance of tax-exempt companies like associations, universities, etc., that don't pay. This is why we need a commuter tax, which has been falsely portrayed as taking money away from commuters. In practice, commuters wouldn't pay more, just a small portion of what they do pay to their states would go instead to help DC and the rest of us residents fund your comfortable commutes.


Perhaps so, but the federal government gives DC more money per capita than any other locality, and by something like an order of magnitude more. DC isn't getting screwed.
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report