The citizens of the District of Columbia, comprising 680,000 people, pay more Federal income tax than 22 other states. Notwithstanding that, they have no voting member of Congress at all. Eleanor Holmes Norton has been in Congress, representing the District, for many years, but only as an observer.
What is the second- most priority of the new Rupublican majority in Congress ( after trying to suppress ethics investigations into their affairs)? Why, confirming that Ms. Holmes Norton will continue to have no vote, and that an entity with a higher population than some Western states, will remain unrepresented. A single vote, of course, is not going to decide anything very much, but that is not the point. Giving the District a single vote would have been a small act of reconciliation after a brutal election, an act of goodwill, costing nothing really and in no way threatening Republican control.
What this does confirm is the flimsy commitment of the Republican party to democracy. “Embrace it when it suits you” does not seem to be in the spirit of “American exceptionalism”, but it is part of the whole idea that you get away with what you can get away with. Epicurus always warned us about politics. I guess what goes around comes around. Nothing is forever.
The arguments against D.C statehood are all totally absurd and partisan. Firstly, we get the traditionalists, who argue that D.C was never meant to be a state because it would be populated mostly by government bureaucrats. That may have been the case at the city’s creation, but it certainly isn’t the case now. Today, D.C is populated by all sorts of people, but disproportionately black people and young graduates- hardly an elite. It also has a lot of important companies based there, not just the federal government. They deserve a voice as much as anyone else.
Then there’s the argument made by Roger Pilon of the CATO institute, that a D.C state would exert disproportionate influence on the government. That may be true to an extent, but it would serve to offset the disproportionate influence rural areas have due to the electoral college, the way each state gets two senators regardless of population, and the fact that current House districts favour rural areas. A D.C state would only get one Congressman and two senators, which is hardly a big deal considering that Vermont and Wyoming also have two senators but a smaller population than D.C.
There are practical arguments for D.C statehood too. Having a state government of its own is far more efficient than being run by the federal government: it makes the government cheaper to run and state governments are always going to be more responsive to the needs of their citizens than a federal government with bigger priorities.
American democracy is a total sham, and in dire need of reform. Some Republicans called for the electoral college to be scrapped following Obama’s re-election in 2012, they were right then and they are right now. The power of the President and the Senate should be reduced, and the power of the House should increase. The Supreme Court must also reduce in power. I don’t think its necessary for the House to be elected every two years, four years should be fine. There should also be term limits on Congressmen the way there is for the President.
Couldn’t agree with you more! Extraordinary how some people agitate about the mote in the eyes of other, distant people and are in denial about the outdated state of their own politics.