Re: (ReacTor) Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession

On 2024-10-16, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

Chris Buckley wrote:

On 2024-10-15, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

Chris Buckley wrote:

On 2024-10-14, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

Chris Buckley wrote:

On 2024-10-11, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 10/10/2024 9:28 AM, William Hyde wrote:

Paul S Person wrote:

I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

>
Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
>

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place.  ;)

>
As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
>
>
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.

>
The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.

>
It certainly was when I lived there.
>

Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

>
Only plans that will never come to fruition.
>
>
>
    but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

to vote that much."  The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

>
Maryland doesn't want them.  That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

>
Baloney!

>
Reality.
>
Look it up.  It's not popular in Maryland.

 
Please give your citations.

 From the Washington Post, in 2019:
>
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new
county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."
>
Other polls can be found supporting this.  It's not hard  to find.

That seems like an insignificant barrier to overcome, given all the
publicity in the previous years was about alternatives (the DC statehood
referendum).  It's pretty close but especially insignificant when
you consider the polls indicate only 20% support for retrocession
among DC residents.  Maryland residents are almost twice as much in
favor of it as DC residents!

I don't understand why you consider Maryland resident support, who don't
get to vote on the issue, is more important than DC resident support, who
do get to vote on the issue.

And note that all of this is about Maryland actually re-annexing DC.
The much more likely proposal (and the one the Republicans keep
suggesting) is for DC residents to be able to vote as Maryland residents,
but otherwise remain separate.

>

First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;

>
Quite irrelevant.

 
The issue is an intensely political issue.

>
>
If we can't rise above politics on an issue of fundamental rights, what
are we?
>
To make my position clear:
>
Reunion with Maryland would be fair.  Whether or not the citizens of DC
want it, it can be done.

??? It can't be done without the citizens of DC approving (and can be
done without the citizens of Maryland approving). And DC citizens
apparently don't value voting rights enough to want it.

They can justly claim equal status with other
cities of  the same size, but not special status.  However, better
special status than continued disenfranchisement.
>
But it cannot be done without the approval of Maryland, which we do not
have.  And given the nature of senatorial representation, I can see why
they do not want to dilute their vote, even if the residents of DC are
fellow democrats, at least for now.

Again, it is DC that has primary approval power, and they don't want
it.  Maryland approves it much more than DC.

My proposal below, which I acknowledged would be difficult to pass, is
merely an example of what could be done without statehood, or reunion.
It is not and does not claim to be the best possible resolution.
Speaking as an outsider, I prefer it to statehood.
>
Actually, I should not be calling it "my" proposal, as I see I have been
anticipated by 220 years:
>
" In 1801, Augustus Woodward, writing under the name Epaminondas, wrote
a series of newspaper articles in the National Intelligencer proposing a
constitutional amendment that would read, "The Territory of Columbia
shall be entitled to one Senator in the Senate of the United States; and
to a number of members in the House of Representatives proportionate to
its population."
>
I think we can agree that since neither the current Democratic or
Republican parties existed in 1801, neither can be faulted for the
failure to act at that time.
>
I do wonder what he meant by that pen name. Epaminondas was the Theban
general who overthrew Spartan power.  I don't see the analogy.
>
The people of Georgetown objected to their losing the franchise in 1800.
  Two hundred and twenty years would seem like time enough to remedy
that complaint.

Yes, I agree.  And the Republicans agree. They want to undo this simple
law (NOT constitutional amendment) that disenfranchised DC residents.
The Democrats disagree. They want something more than voting rights;
they want two more Senators and are willing to hold the voting rights
of DC hostage until they get it.

Chris