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

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. Surely if this is the major obstacle in the
way of DC getting the vote then it's been extensively studied with the
goal of making an effort to change public opinion.

First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;

>
Quite irrelevant.

The issue is an intensely political issue. There is almost universal
agreement that DC residents should have voting rights in Congress, but
there is political disagreement on the mechanism.  A constitutional
amendment giving them voting rights was approved by Congress in the
1970s, but was only ratified by 16 states and thus failed.

The proposal that DC residents vote with Maryland is one of the only
proposals that probably doesn't require a constitutional amendment
(Retrocession of the land is possibly another).  For the first years
after DC was established, DC residents did vote with Maryland (and
Virginia back then), but then Congress passed a law against that in
1800.  Congress should be able to undo that law, and Republicans have
proposed bills doing so (eg bill HR3709 introduced in 2004, 2005,
2007, 2009, 2011,2013; dying in committee), but Democrats have been
firmly against it. The Democrats won't accept any solution that
doesn't give them 2 additional (Democratic) Senators.  Voting
representation is not the issue.

The voters of Maryland do not want to share their
senators with the people of DC.

Give your citations. The people of Maryland have not been asked about
sharing Senators as far as I know for hundreds of years (they might
have been in 1800).  And they don't have a direct say in any case,
using historical precedent (Virginia). Even giving back DC to Maryland
doesn't require the Maryland population to approve, just the Maryland
legislature and, of course, the DC population.

If we come to the point where Maryland accepts the deal, but DC does
not, then there's an end of it as far as I am concerned.  But as the
people of DC have been without legislative representation for over 200
years, I don't think they should be required to wait until MD changes
it's mind.

I've lived in a DC suburb for 28 years now, you are literally the first
person I have ever heard saying that Maryland approval is the obstacle.
DC residents do NOT want to vote with Maryland.

There's no reason DC has to be a state.  It's just that making it a
state or joining it with MD would not require a constitutional amendment.

Making it a state almost certainly requires a constitutional amendment.
That was the entire purpose of Maryland and Virginia giving up land to DC!
Congress has exclusive legislative power over that land (Constitution)

But it would be easy to formulate, if not pass, another solution.  The
district will have voting house members in proportion to its population
(one at the moment and probably forever) and one senator.

Again, requires an amendment. Why would this succeed when the last
amendment failed?

Nothing would change in the US except that the people of DC would have
some voting power, albeit less than the people of Vermont or Wyoming,
both with smaller populations.  But then the senate is inherently
undemocratic anyway.  Not nearly as undemocratic as ours, but
undemocratic all the same.

Checks and balances.

Once again: Republicans keep offering a path for voting representation
(giving more power to Democrats in the House) and Democrats are saying
no, and are in control of DC and Maryland.  The Democrats are going
after even more political power at the expense of voting
representation.

Chris