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

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.

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. 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.
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.
William Hyde