The whole point of DC was that it won't be in any state. That was the sole reasoning for creating those 100 square miles. Maryland could take back it's half like Virginia did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocess... , but creating a state out of a piece of land specifically designated as non-state doesn't make sense.
That’s not a reasonable argument for any position. Just because few hundred years ago something was designed differently isn’t a reason not to change it.
Well the parent proposed something perfectly reasonable: retrocession back into Maryland. This would wholly resolve their lack of Congressional representation and Maryland would gain a House seat, or maybe two if they were already on the threshold for another.
DC also can’t force us or the other States to accept it in as a State. So, who blinks first? From where I sit, retrocession is already a massive compromise where Maryland gets its land back, 1 to 2 House seats and a bigger tax base; and the residents of DC get the right to vote for not just Congressional representation but also for a State government.
It's absolutely a no-go. The constitution says that the seat of the US government will not be a US state to prevent favoritism for said state. There are some pitches for greatly reducing "Washington DC" down to the smallest possible constitutionally allowed area, but I don't see that happening. Republicans will not allow another Democratic state into the union anytime soon.
my argument was not that it was done 200 years ago, hence it should stay. My argument was the initial reasoning was to have a neutral ground, which is as valid today as it was 200 years ago.
As a counter-example, the European Parliament is being moved EVERY MONTH between Bruxelles and Strassbourg, because France wanted to have the capitol on their ground at least partially. A neutral city built from scratch at the border would have made more sense in the 1990s just like 200 years ago.
does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022? it has over 700,000 residents and its own school system… since its inception it has struggled time and time again due to its awkward status… the people living there want it overwhelmingly!
> does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022?
Many things in the US political system don't make sense in 2022, especially from an European point of view - mining and water rights, inequality of rural and urban votes because of unproportional representation in the Senate, Presidential votes in "stronghold" states being effectively wasted thanks to the Electoral College, the effective two-party system caused by the effects of FPTP, the fact that the US votes on Tuesday because of farmers going to church on Sunday in Ye Olde Days, the entire gun rights complex (it was reasonable and made sense back in Ye Olde Days that everyone could own a handgun and a hunting rifle, it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war), the fact that "gerrymandering" is not only a thing but actively and maliciously used, the general lack of federal protections for voters, that "union busting" is legal, the weirdness that is how DC and the US Territories are set up... the list is endless, that's just what came up in my mind in five minutes.
The problem is, the US and the UK are the only geopolitically relevant (sorry, Australia and Canada) countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues.
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> The problem is, the US and the UK are the only countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues.
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, and likely a few others I'm forgetting all seem to be doing fine.
Australia is definitely NOT doing fine; our populist demagogues have us by the balls possibly even more so than the US. Ours just make slightly less noise about it.
Isn't Arden's government considered fairly neoliberal? Her and Trudeau are the two that seem to be most frequently praised in legacy media for winning reelection despite the recent surge in populism.
> Switzerland, Sweden, and likely a few others I'm forgetting all seem to be doing fine.
They are distinctly not. Switzerland has a massive problem with the right-wing populist SVP, they are slowly breaking apart from the EU [1] as a result of their specific brand of obstructionism involving the direct-democracy voting mechanism, and in Sweden the right-wing populist SD (which stands for Sweden Democrats, not Social Democrats) has been growing and growing, to a point the established parties are seriously considering cooperating with them [2].
As for Australia, NZ and Canada, there have been enough other replies in this thread.
Back when the Constitution was written there were private citizens who owned weapons of war. Specifically they owned large artillery pieces that were used both on land and on sailing vessels.
The lack of a recent revolution in the US is a feature, not a bug. Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it can be amended and has been many times.
The Senate is entirely vestigial and needs to be dissolved or other wise made to be proportional to population, if we are going to keep an upper house at all.
The House needs to be rid of single member districts, ideally, and move to a multimember party system. Barring that, first-past-the-post should be completely replaced as a voting mechanism.
The Supreme Court should be reformed with term limits of some kind, and/or have a second tier of justices which are appointed unanimously by the politically appointed justices.
The Electoral College needs to be removed entirely, the President should be elected by the people directly. The method of voting should be mandated NOT to be first-past-the-post.
In other words, our national government is fundamentally broken in its representation of the people of this country, and broken in how its members are chosen. At this point, we need a bit of a revolution, though the less blood the better.
EU was founded quite recently. It too has mechanisms to avoid concentrating all the power in the hands of the big ones: Germany and France.
E.g. for the European Parliament, each country has a different level of representation (MPs per capita). Germany has the least representation and Malta has the highest. This way smaller countries also have a voice.
There are other mechanisms as well(agencies HQs, comisioners etc.), but in the end Germany and France still have a lot of weighg in all the major decisions. If it wasn't for at least the current provisions it would have been even worse and probably the EU would have dissolved by now.
US has a similar system of propping up smaller states: for senate and president elections. I don't see this anachronistic at all, the more I learn about it the more impressed I am with the wisdom of the american forefathers. E.g. The Senate does not represent the people, they represent the states. This is very similar to how EU "council of ministers" has one from each state, regardless how large that state is.
The EU and the US are at different levels of integration, though the EU does have free trade and travel.
I should read the details on the implementation of the EU parliament, but I wonder if this "minority voice" equivalent in the EU is able to block essentially any progress or legislation.
I also wonder why the states in the US should have nearly as much say as they have in 2021. We aren't a small band of ragtag cultures stretched across have the universe as we were in 1789.
A lot of legislation is blocked in the EU, yes. The modus operandi of the EU is to compromise until every state is satisfied.
And the US is far from being blocked out of any progress. The gay rights is more advanced than in Europe, infrastructure bills are passing with bipartisan support, COVID relief bills are passing with flying colors and with a much more consistent amount than in Europe. EU struggled to get 700 billions out after a year and a half! And it's still not distributed.
I would say the US now is more diverse than in the 1700s. More diverse states, more diverse ethnicity (80% were white people in 1776, mostly English) and a HUGE population compared to 3 million back then.
And yet we are more interconnected than ever before. Even the most impoverished can travel across the country in 3 days by car or bus. As diverse as our personal cultures are, our administration of state and infrastructure, our economy, is as interwoven as ever. I argue that there are many things which could have been handled by the states in 1800 that cannot now, or otherwise were not issues or responsibilities of the state at all in 1800.
I just gave you examples of EU inner workings. They are also incredibly interconnected, almost as much as the US. Still, they have institutions to give some power to the smaller entities/states. The US institutions are not made the way they are because "people could not travel far enough in a day", they are made as such to provide checks and balances. As an European living in the US, I feel like you have more stable mechanisms that work better than even the modern EU.
The point of the Senate and Electoral College is that states are supposed to have quite a bit of sovereignty, and so more populous states shouldn't be able to run roughshod over less populous ones. Your suggestions completely miss that point.
No, I didn't miss the point. I disagree with it entirely. The EC and the Senate function nothing like they were designed in the 18th century when the goal you mention seemed to matter. The filibuster and the 17th amendment and two centuries of societal advancement have something to say about the "state sovereignty" argument for the Senate.
The fact that the Electoral college allowed the previous President to take office is is an example of its failings from its supposed original intention, as is the fact that most citizens of any party or educational background expect that the President should be democratically elected.
This debate is pretty academic though. Article V is clear that the composition (or existence) of the Senate can't be changed even by amendment without the unanimous consent of the states. Arguably, even a new constitution couldn't (legally) do it.
Of all the things we might possibly ever do to improve the function of government, that alone is not one.
Assuming we wanted to get rid of the Senate but could not do it technically, we could strip it of all meaningful power and responsibility. We could make it an advisory panel for appointments, and an approval committee for war and intelligence operations, and nothing else in terms of legislation.
But yes, there are other things in my incomplete list which need addressed as well - I think the one most critical thing I would do above all others is switch every Single-Member District election from first-past-the-post to ranked choice voting or approval voting.
Everyone knows the reason for the system. There are 50 states now. Hard to form a coalition of states which will be able to run roughshod over other states, but what we do have is a very unfair system where a minority of the country can block the will of the majority.
What is being blocked? States are still sovereign and can largely run their own affairs. If MA wants to, let's say, give people free public healthcare then TX can't do anything to block it. From a legislative standpoint there are only a few areas that are totally under federal control.
There is a compelling argument that with the state of remote work, familial mobility and whatnot, it is not feasible for the states to tackle certain issues without unconstitutionally blocking non-state residents from using those services.
> The lack of a recent revolution in the US is a feature, not a bug. Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it can be amended and has been many times.
The existence of amendments requires bi-partisan cooperation - something that is completely unfeasible for the near future, with Republicans running unprecedented, pure obstructionism going so far as Mitch McConnell filibustering his own fucking bill - and that was in 2012, when the Republicans had moderate people in their ranks. Now, ten years later, half the Republican voter base and more than enough representatives or candidates openly rally behind QAnon.
I can't see a reasonable way for the US to get out of that mess, as all measures that would help bring politics back to reasonable standards (particularly tackling the PAC/Super PAC problem, voter suppression and reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine) would require Congressional majorities.
good bills will pass, look at the recently passed infrastructure bill. Also the Covid relief bills all passed. I think it more or less works as intended, with major bill having to provide something for everyone, like in the infrastructure bill.
As an American I find it absolutely hilarious that you went off half cocked listing a bunch of issues that are of second and third rate importance to most Americans.
Most Americans want the feds to make minor policy tweaks that will make their lives better, more healthcare, federally, minor financial tweaks, fund some things a little more, fund others a little less, minor procedural tweaks on certain government things.
The average American won't get any of the policy tweaks you mention without fixing the most glaring issues of my list since almost everything federal requires at least a full congressional majority.
Reagan and Bush Sr. had none of eight / four years, Clinton two of eight years, Bush Jr. four of eight, Obama two of eight, Trump two of four and Biden at least two of four. And even when the respective Presidents had a majority in Congress, they would usually require not just ordinary majority but filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - and the last president to enjoy that one was Jimmy Carter in 1977-1979.
Every Western country except the US and UK has a system in place that the leader of the government usually has the majority to pass laws in parliament, at least a budget law, without depending on the opposition - we do have some countries that love their minority governments, but even they manage to do just fine. Something like "government shutdowns" resulting out of the legislative chambers being unwilling to do their most basic job of ensuring the government is actually funded is completely unheard of here - and you Americans have had ten of these since 1980 that resulted in furloughs and eight more that did not [1].
The UK does in fact have such a system (unlike the US). We use first-past-the-post voting, like the US, but our Prime Minister is selected by the majority in Parliament (rather than directly). Consequently, we don't have 'cohabitation', where the PM and Parliament are of different parties (which can happen in France and other Presidential systems), and it's quite rare to have minority government, where the PM relies on the support of other parties to govern.
Having said that, our system is like the US in that our parties are strictly oppositional and have no real history of collaboration. So when there is a 'hung parliament' with no majority (like in the run up to 1979, and during the second May administration from 2017-2019) then you tend to get a disintegrating administration rather than the kind of stable coalitions that are the norm in other European countries.
MMP elections, or STV with multi-member districts, result in a broader diversity of parties being elected -- not just two opposing parties.
This allows coalitions to form around shared interests, and results in 1) politics being more representative of what voters want, 2) more moderate politics avoiding wild policy swings, and 3) politics being more constructive.
It really gives a huge quality improvement of politics moving from a binary to a plural system.
As a European, we could have used a neutral zone like the Americans...rather than having the parliament move every week between Bruxelles and Strassbourg because France could not conceive not being the home of the EU capitol. Which one is more absurd? How would it sound if the US congress would move every week between Boston and Philadelphia?
> creating a state out of a piece of land specifically designated as non-state doesn't make sense
I mean, neither does creating a large metropolitan area with no representation after just winning a war over not having representation. Here we are, though.
