Gov. Pedro Pierluisi: ‘Puerto Rico will be the first truly Hispanic state’

[GMDino]

(03-09-2021, 09:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Good thing Republicans never klet the partisan nature of an issue effect them.

Since the GOP officially supported satehood for Puerto Rico in 2016 then they will certainly still welcome and support it today

Republican Party Platform on Puerto Rico (pr51st.com)

Kind of rare for both sides to agree on an issue like this.

(03-09-2021, 09:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They didn't change their party platform in 2020, so their official stance would still be to support statehood.

I quoted these to talk about this:

(03-09-2021, 10:26 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: ^^^That was from my first post in this thread

Hyper partisanship can be quite destructive and self defeating, even on internet message boards.

What we have on the board very often are people defending their positions and often doing if accusations about "the other side" and what "they " say.  Too often those accusations are more opinions based on our own interpretations than the actual stances of the other side.  I can be guilty too which why I am such a stickler for links and sources.  

Its good to see actual facts and sources to help ease these disagreements.

Although I doubt if you asked rank and file members of the gop if they favored PR statehood many would, or that they would even know that is official party stance based on their 2016/2020 platform.

But even if the gop is in favor it still comes down to if the citizens want it and that will take a clear referendum and lot of other steps before this ever happens. 

[Dill]

(03-09-2021, 08:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, I'm in favor of allowing states to secede. The reason I am in favor of the citizens of these territories having the say in it is because they are the ones that have been living in this territorial situation for so long. I think they should be given the opportunity to choose the destiny of their land. Technically speaking, the states would have their say if the legislation were passed.

Of course you are, Virginian.

But we're not letting you do that again.

But seriously, I am somewhat surprised you'd favor that "right," given the constant instability the U.S. experienced during its first 80 years because of threats of secession from both northern and southern states. And then the Great War of Northern Aggression.

(03-09-2021, 08:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, easiest isn't necessarily accurate. There is a lot of nuance there that complicates things. Honestly, even statehood for the city itself is a less than appealing thing, to me. I'm in favor of them having congressional representation, but I want more of a federal hand in the governance of the area than is typically seen with a state.

As for any other states, all for it. Change it all up. Imaginary lines running along mountain ridges, rivers, or just drawn on flat earth are arbitrary, anyway.

I think the original impetus for a special district was to keep states from squabbling over North vs South "ownership."

Perhaps that is a dead issue now. 

I don't want to think of the District as another state, and I don't want it absorbed into Maryland. (If anything, make VA give back Alexandria county.) Retain fed control maybe, but give them two senators and keep the three electors.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-09-2021, 10:26 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: ^^^That was from my first post in this thread

My apologies for missing that.

Quote:Hyper partisanship can be quite destructive and self defeating, even on internet message boards.

Indeed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-10-2021, 12:03 AM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not naive. Of course it's in their heads, as I said. I believe you Schumer said it out loud, which well, was not so smart. This guy at times is not that smart.
I just feel democrats have no chance with you on any issue as soon as said issue might benefit them in any way, and I find that a bit too narrow a view. You call it naked power grab and all that time and again. But it might also just be the right thing to do.

Here's the thing though, say PR has a vote and votes no, which, as pointed out, has already happened five times in the past.  How many times do we go through this process?  Will we have a vote every time the Dems feel like they need two extra senators?  It's rather like Scottish independence or Brexit.  Have your vote and abide by the result.  I'd be fine with a time limit between votes, as of course attitudes and positions shift over time.  But there needs to be a set time frame that is abided by.

Quote:Just to illustrate, outside of Puerto Rico for once: Making election ballots accessible for more people probably helps democrats, as does refuting the latest round of GOP laws regarding forbidding giving beverages to people standing in line or not allowing them to sit and whatnot, or older issues like having too few voting booths in largely democratic areas or hindering mail-in voting etc.
But now, whenever a democrat says he is in favor of more voting booths, or of allowing people to sit while standing in line, or broad access to mail-in ballots - you can always call that a naked power grab as well, for it will help democrats; and the democrat who is an favor of these things will know that too, making him an ultrapartisan actor. And with that mindset, you can take issue with being against voter suppression of any kind. I don't consider that the right angle, or the most relevant angle, to look at these things.

I don't think you can call allowing US citizens to vote a "power grab".  I think advocating for some avenues of voting can be, and I, personally, would have zero issue with requiring a free government issued ID be presented to vote.  If I have to fill out a form every time  to exercise my Constitutional right to buy a firearm and be subjected to a NICS check then a person can be bothered to present an ID to vote.  Like I said, make the ID completely free and easy to get.

Quote:While I'm at it, I might also mention that I can just as well accuse every GOP member that is against PR statehood of a naked power conservation move. Which it would be just as much as wanting change would be a naked power grab.

Absolutely.  Just as Dems would be against northern CA breaking off into the state of Jefferson.  It's all partisan.  What I fear is that this will set off a round of near balkanization, in which states splinter into more and more pieces.  For example, rural CA is heavily red and consists of millions of people.  Those people, not wanting to be dictated to by the three major population centers in the state, could make the case that there views are entirely ignored, necessitating a break off from the rest of the state.

Quote:Aside from that, the senate already tilts the GOP way the way it's set up anyway. So it would imho not create any unfair advantage for democrats to have two Puerto Rican senators.

It tilts that way due to most states being largely rural outside the coasts.

Quote:But sure, mainly, party politics should not really matter here. But as I said, I'm not naive.

Indeed, which is why I'd be fine with the process if the results were binding for "X" time.

Quote:Right, but the most recent referendum painted another picture and the new referendum imho superseeds the older and ancient ones.

It would depend how the referendum was worded.

Quote:It's not disingenuous to me. I consider it to be amongst the most fundamental rights of every citizen to vote for his nation's leader and be represented in this nation's parliament. If one denies them this right, I see that as citizenship light, or however to put it, a restricted one. That's just my principled take on this.
Having several commodities is not a replacement for that right. And voting for their own, widely autonomous government is not a replacement for that right. As US citizens, they should have the right to vote for US president and be in the US chambers. US being the key. And it's not like every important decision for them is decided within Puerto Rico by their local goernment anyway; there's quite a lot affecting or potentially affecting Puerto Ricans that is decided in Washington. War and Peace comes to mind, but of course a whole lot of other issues as well.

I think a very good argument could be made that voting for your own government is not a replacement for that right, it is the right itself.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-10-2021, 01:02 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't want to think of the District as another state, and I don't want it absorbed into Maryland. (If anything, make VA give back Alexandria county.) Retain fed control maybe, but give them two senators and keep the three electors.

This is kind of an odd statement.  You don't want D.C. to be a state but you want it to get all the representation of one?  Also, why the objection to absorption into Maryland?  They instantly have representation and Maryland would add some HoR seats.  Problem solved on every level.

[hollodero]

(03-10-2021, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the thing though, say PR has a vote and votes no, which, as pointed out, has already happened five times in the past.  How many times do we go through this process?  Will we have a vote every time the Dems feel like they need two extra senators?  It's rather like Scottish independence or Brexit.  Have your vote and abide by the result.  I'd be fine with a time limit between votes, as of course attitudes and positions shift over time.  But there needs to be a set time frame that is abided by.

Before 2020, there never was a straight up "statehood, yes or no" referendum.
The 2017 one doesn't count (it also resulted in over 95% in favor of statehood, but as I said, this was worthless)
The 2012 one was weird, they first asked keeping the status quo or no, with a majority going "no"; of those no votes a 2/3 majority was for statehood. I don't think that counts as a relevant referendum either, and the result is inconclusive at best.
In 1998, a "none of the above" option gathered 50,5%, statehood as one of the above options gathered 46,6%. One can read that as rejecting the statehood idea. But this, as I said, was the last more or less conclusive referendum on that, and it was over 20 years ago. I feel 22 years is a long enough period of time to bring up that question again.

- Then there are even older referendums, I would consider none of those particulartly relevant in 2021, many also were quite inconclusive, and none of those ever addressed statehood in a yes or no fashion.

(03-10-2021, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think you can call allowing US citizens to vote a "power grab". 

Well.... allowing the Puerto Rican citizens to vote was described by you as just that. I know you rather addressed the two additional senators idea by saying so, and I get that. But in doing so, you also imho deny US citizens the right to vote, as they are now denied that right.
This is my main issue, the statehood thing is just tied to that so it ends up being about the statehood question.

And yeah I agree, you can't call allowing US citizens to vote a power grab. But it does help democrats. And accusing democrats of power grabs just on the basis that it would help them could just as well be applied to voter suppression laws. Which is why I find this perspective too narrow and flawed in the first place, that's what I was trying to get at.

(03-10-2021, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think advocating for some avenues of voting can be, and I, personally, would have zero issue with requiring a free government issued ID be presented to vote.  If I have to fill out a form every time  to exercise my Constitutional right to buy a firearm and be subjected to a NICS check then a person can be bothered to present an ID to vote.  Like I said, make the ID completely free and easy to get.

Oh yeah, that is my take on this as well and I had a debate a few years back taking that exact position.
We all have to present IDs to vote, it makes perfect sense to me and I find it weird that the US handles this differently. Ojwei, that will be controversial.

(03-10-2021, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely.  Just as Dems would be against northern CA breaking off into the state of Jefferson.  It's all partisan.  What I fear is that this will set off a round of near balkanization, in which states splinter into more and more pieces.  For example, rural CA is heavily red and consists of millions of people.  Those people, not wanting to be dictated to by the three major population centers in the state, could make the case that there views are entirely ignored, necessitating a break off from the rest of the state.

I don't see Puerto Rico statehood as a slippery slope leading to California splintering up.

(03-10-2021, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It tilts that way due to most states being largely rural outside the coasts.

I know why it tilts that way. It's just an argument why two Puerto Rican senators that potentially are blue imho is not a power grab, in the sense that it would not result in an overall advantage. If anything, it would narrow the overall advantage the GOP has.

(03-10-2021, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It would depend how the referendum was worded.

Well, the 2020 one was worded "Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?" I'd think that's fine.
And given that the question was never posed in that manner and that the last at least somewhat conclusive result dates back to 1998, I'd consider it fine to accept that result - or at least use it as basis for a binding referendum a la Brexit.

(03-10-2021, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think a very good argument could be made that voting for your own government is not a replacement for that right, it is the right itself.

Well, summarizing all I've said to that, I don't think so.
I don't believe any other mainland US citizen would be fine with just voting for their local government either, even if the powers of said government were enhanced to Puerto Rico levels (and from what I understand, a normal US states' authority is not that far less that Puerto Rico's). AS US citizen, you want your representation in Washington and you want a say in presidential elections. I deem that basic.

[Dill]

(03-10-2021, 03:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is kind of an odd statement.  You don't want D.C. to be a state but you want it to get all the representation of one?  Also, why the objection to absorption into Maryland?  They instantly have representation and Maryland would add some HoR seats.  Problem solved on every level.

And not surprisingly.

I haven't thought through my contradictory impulses here--

1) I want the people of DC to have the same level of representation as other citizens.

2) But keep the District separate from any state, as a symbolically "national" territory.

I don't know how Marylanders would feel about the "absorption." I doubt MD Republicans would think "problem solved."

Giving them two senators and a voting rep is also problem solved, as far as 1) goes.

Were I a DC resident,* I'm not sure how I'd feel, suddenly subsumed under Maryland political administration. Capitol in Annapolis, etc.


*Actually, I was a DC resident from '93-96. I don't think I'd have wanted to be part of Maryland. That would look like a whole new layer of politics and administration I'd have to get to know.

[Dill]

(03-10-2021, 03:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, the 2020 one was worded "Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?" I'd think that's fine.
And given that the question was never posed in that manner and that the last at least somewhat conclusive result dates back to 1998, I'd consider it fine to accept that result - or at least use it as basis for a binding referendum a la Brexit.

Well, summarizing all I've said to that, I don't think so.
I don't believe any other mainland US citizen would be fine with just voting for their local government either, even if the powers of said government were enhanced to Puerto Rico levels (and from what I understand, a normal US states' authority is not that far less that Puerto Rico's). AS US citizen, you want your representation in Washington and you want a say in presidential elections. I deem that basic.

PREXIT?

Speaking for all mainland citizens, I'd say your basic deem is correct.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-10-2021, 04:47 PM)Dill Wrote: And not surprisingly.

I haven't thought through my contradictory impulses here--

1) I want the people of DC to have the same level of representation as other citizens.

2) But keep the District separate from any state, as a symbolically "national" territory.

Or, i.e., statehood. 

Quote:I don't know how Marylanders would feel about the "absorption." I doubt MD Republicans would think "problem solved."

I guarantee you they'd prefer it to D.C. statehood.

Quote:Giving them two senators and a voting rep is also problem solved, as far as 1) goes.

True, but it's also the far more radical action.

Quote:Were I a DC resident, I'm not sure how I'd feel, suddenly subsumed under Maryland political administration. Capitol in Annapolis, etc.

Their complaint is lack of representation, which I get.  Absorption into an existing state completely rectifies this issue.  It's also a far simpler action.  I don't think the residents of D.C. get to both voice their concern and arbitrarily get to be the only people who decide how that concern is resolved.  The repercussions of this would be nationwide.  Essentially, they voiced a valid concern, that doesn't mean they get to decide how that concern is resolved as long as it is resolved.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-10-2021, 03:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't see Puerto Rico statehood as a slippery slope leading to California splintering up.

Essentially it would trigger a tit for tat scenario.  Rural CA has expressed immense frustration with being dictated to by the cities for numerous decades.  This isn't a new argument and Puerto Rican statehood would only reawaken it, with a vengeance IMO.

Quote:I know why it tilts that way. It's just an argument why two Puerto Rican senators that potentially are blue imho is not a power grab, in the sense that it would not result in an overall advantage. If anything, it would narrow the overall advantage the GOP has.

It is if the people advocating for it are the ones benefitting from it.  If the Dems saw Puerto Rico as politically purple then they wouldn't be advocating for it.

Quote:Well, the 2020 one was worded "Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?" I'd think that's fine.
And given that the question was never posed in that manner and that the last at least somewhat conclusive result dates back to 1998, I'd consider it fine to accept that result - or at least use it as basis for a binding referendum a la Brexit.

I'd disagree.  The referendum should clearly delineate what Puerto Rico will lose and what it will gain via statehood.  Presenting people with a choice without explaining the consequences of said choice, both for and against, is dishonest (not the same as lying btw   ).

Quote:Well, summarizing all I've said to that, I don't think so.
I don't believe any other mainland US citizen would be fine with just voting for their local government either, even if the powers of said government were enhanced to Puerto Rico levels (and from what I understand, a normal US states' authority is not that far less that Puerto Rico's). AS US citizen, you want your representation in Washington and you want a say in presidential elections. I deem that basic.

Sure, and I would be interested in your thoughts on a time limit between such referendums.  Also, forgive me for not addressing every point you made in this post.  I felt that on some of the topics we were both repeating ourselves, so I confined my response to areas where I thought future discussion would engender some progress.

[hollodero]

(03-10-2021, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Essentially it would trigger a tit for tat scenario.  Rural CA has expressed immense frustration with being dictated to by the cities for numerous decades.  This isn't a new argument and Puerto Rican statehood would only reawaken it, with a vengeance IMO.

I apparently know too little about that.
I find it hard to explain to Puerto Ricans that if they wished for statehood and/or their basic voting rights to be enacted, they are in bad luck because of something going on in California that might intensify. I find this a tough reason to deny Puerto Ricans basic civic rights, that, as often said, consist of [...] (you know what's following)

(03-10-2021, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is if the people advocating for it are the ones benefitting from it.  If the Dems saw Puerto Rico as politically purple then they wouldn't be advocating for it.

Well, this again goes for voter suppression laws as well. Democrats, as far as everyone including Democrats and Republicans believe, benefit from more people voting too. I don't find that a valid reason to not address voter suppression laws, and I wouldn't accuse Democrats of naked power grabs if they were advocating against voter suppression laws. I'd also not muse about their fictional alternative stance if more people being able to vote would not help them. I reiterate that because that's what I feel you're doing regarding the somewhat analogous Puerto Rico question.
I don't care what it means for democrats or what their openly stated or allegedly hidden motives are, and I think it should not matter all that much. This isn't about democrats, it's about the right thing to do.

(03-10-2021, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd disagree.  The referendum should clearly delineate what Puerto Rico will lose and what it will gain via statehood.  Presenting people with a choice without explaining the consequences of said choice, both for and against, is dishonest (not the same as lying btw   ).

Not the same... agreed.
But I wonder how consistent your position on that is. If it were consistent, you'd have to demand the Brexit referendum to be disregarded as well. Where people also were just asked remain or leave. They were presented with that choice, while not much was laid out, people were actually lied to constantly, and no one really could know what a final deal with the EU even would look like or if there even were any such deal to be had. Still people had to vote on it, and still the result was binding to this day.

Sure, a new binding referendum would probably be in order before declaring the will of the Puerto Ricans decided, but the lack of explanation or information is a murky counterargument to me. On the grounds that hardly any election comes with a plethora of objective information to begin with. It's democracy, it ain't ever perfect.

(03-10-2021, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, and I would be interested in your thoughts on a time limit between such referendums.  Also, forgive me for not addressing every point you made in this post.  I felt that on some of the topics we were both repeating ourselves, so I confined my response to areas where I thought future discussion would engender some progress.

Well, I don't really know the ideal timeframe. I'd agree having such a referendum every five years or so would be too eager, but this to me is not the case in Puerto Rico. Where I'd rather say there was no such referendum ever, or maybe 22 years back. 22 years, that I find a very acceptable timeframe, there's a whole new generation of Puerto Ricans and at some point, they have the right to make their own decisions instead of being bound by their parents' and grandparents' decision forever.

And I'm more than fine with leaving stuff out. These exchanges tend to lengthen in time, cutting it down is good.

[fredtoast]

(03-10-2021, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  What I fear is that this will set off a round of near balkanization, in which states splinter into more and more pieces.  For example, rural CA is heavily red and consists of millions of people.  Those people, not wanting to be dictated to by the three major population centers in the state, could make the case that there views are entirely ignored, necessitating a break off from the rest of the state.

This is an absurd slipper slope argument.

If people in rural California wanted to split up the state then Puerto Rico would not have any influence on their decision.  Rural conservatives have had a much smaller portion of seats in the Senate and House very recently and there was not even a hint of California splitting into multiple states.  Adding another left leaning state would still not put them in as bad of a place as they were just a few years ago.

[Belsnickel]

(03-10-2021, 01:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Of course you are, Virginian.

But we're not letting you do that again.

But seriously, I am somewhat surprised you'd favor that "right," given the constant instability the U.S. experienced during its first 80 years because of threats of secession from both northern and southern states. And then the Great War of Northern Aggression.

Maybe it is my Virginian ways, but I've always been in favor of a state's right to secede, even as someone that really hates seeing all the Confederate bullshit around me. But, I've always been a big supporter of states' rights all around. You know, the actual argument for states' rights, not the bullshit excuse for trying to keep slavery around.

(03-10-2021, 01:02 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the original impetus for a special district was to keep states from squabbling over North vs South "ownership."

Perhaps that is a dead issue now. 

I don't want to think of the District as another state, and I don't want it absorbed into Maryland. (If anything, make VA give back Alexandria county.) Retain fed control maybe, but give them two senators and keep the three electors.

Do you know how excited some people in Virginia would be to give back Alexandria/Arlington County? Hell, they'd like to throw in Loudon, Fairfax, Prince William, Fauquier, and Stafford Counties.

But yeah, it is a dead issue, now. It's no longer North v. South. It's not Big States and Small States or Urban v. Rural. It's all just partisan.

[Dill]

(03-10-2021, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Or, i.e., statehood. 

I guarantee you they'd prefer it to D.C. statehood.

True, but it's also the far more radical action.

Their complaint is lack of representation, which I get.  Absorption into an existing state completely rectifies this issue.  It's also a far simpler action.  I don't think the residents of D.C. get to both voice their concern and arbitrarily get to be the only people who decide how that concern is resolved.  The repercussions of this would be nationwide.  Essentially, they voiced a valid concern, that doesn't mean they get to decide how that concern is resolved as long as it is resolved.

I think absorption rectifies the issue for the national GOP.

I can't say anything substantive on the issue, beyond what I already have, until

DC residents and MD residents poll and debate the issue, then debate each other,

then, if there is a will to change anything, bring their data and arguments to Congress for a final debate.

Until something like that happens, we can't know what the concerned parties really want, 

or what "unknown unknowns" might yet come out. 

[Dill]

(03-10-2021, 07:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Maybe it is my Virginian ways, but I've always been in favor of a state's right to secede, even as someone that really hates seeing all the Confederate bullshit around me. But, I've always been a big supporter of states' rights all around. You know, the actual argument for states' rights, not the bullshit excuse for trying to keep slavery around.

Do you know how excited some people in Virginia would be to give back Alexandria/Arlington County? Hell, they'd like to throw in Loudon, Fairfax, Prince William, Fauquier, and Stafford Counties.

But yeah, it is a dead issue, now. It's no longer North v. South. It's not Big States and Small States or Urban v. Rural. It's all just partisan.

There have been other secession movements as well, not just you confeds.--e.g. Massachusetts, CT and RI wanted to during the War of 1812, but the war was over when their emissaries arrived in Congress. Abolitionists were proposing "northern" secession as well (e.g. Garrison's first issue of The Liberator). Then there was a proposal of southern states to join with Texas, while it was a Republic, and separate from the union. Almost forgot Burr and Tennessee/Kentucky/Louisiana. What a mess. Didn't stop till after '65.

The possibility that all those old issues of "nullification" and secession could revive in this time of division worries me a bit. 

2nd bolded: I see what you mean--a return to the original district might flip VA Red, for sure with Fairfax and Loudon. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-10-2021, 11:58 PM)Dill Wrote: I think absorption rectifies the issue for the national GOP.

It actually solves it for everyone.  The stated grievance from D.C. is that they lack federal representation.  Absorption into an exiting state resolves that issue entirely.

Quote:I can't say anything substantive on the issue, beyond what I already have, until

DC residents and MD residents poll and debate the issue, then debate each other,

then, if there is a will to change anything, bring their data and arguments to Congress for a final debate.

Until something like that happens, we can't know what the concerned parties really want, 

or what "unknown unknowns" might yet come out. 

The residents of D.C. have stated they want representation in the Federal government.  This is a legitimate concern.  That said, how they achieve that representation is very much not for them to solely decide.  In essence the stated solution will tell anyone paying attention what the real goal is.  If that goal is, as stated, proper representation, then absorption into a different state would perfectly resolve their stated grievance.  If the proposed solution is statehood for D.C. then the goal is not actually representation, it's increased political power.  Absorption is easily the simplest solution (D.C. could even maintain autonomy from the state government in some ways) and would give the area more HoR seats as well.  Of course we know the Dems will push for statehood because representation is not their real concern, expanding their power is. 

[Dill]

(03-11-2021, 11:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It actually solves it for everyone.  The stated grievance from D.C. is that they lack federal representation.  Absorption into an exiting state resolves that issue entirely.

The residents of D.C. have stated they want representation in the Federal government.  This is a legitimate concern.  That said, how they achieve that representation is very much not for them to solely decide.  In essence the stated solution will tell anyone paying attention what the real goal is.  If that goal is, as stated, proper representation, then absorption into a different state would perfectly resolve their stated grievance.  If the proposed solution is statehood for D.C. then the goal is not actually representation, it's increased political power.  Absorption is easily the simplest solution (D.C. could even maintain autonomy from the state government in some ways) and would give the area more HoR seats as well.  Of course we know the Dems will push for statehood because representation is not their real concern, expanding their power is. 

As I said. Easiest solution for the National GOP. 

It is not clear how people who don't have representation can get it without expanding real, effective power somewhere. I don't see why wanting "increased political power" is a bad thing for people who have not had it, for representation and power are the same thing in politics. E.g., it wouldn't make sense to say that when women pushed for the vote in 1919, their goal was only "representation," not increased political power. Increased political power is always the goal of representation. 

Absorption into an existing state doesn't resolve the issue entirely unless administration from Annapolis is the representation people of DC want, and the people of MD want to suddenly share power with, and responsibility for, a large new voting block.

The debates I alluded to above would generate the knowledge needed to make informed choices likely to work for all parties. Until they occur, and reach sufficient length, I am not prepared to decide for those people what is the "simplest solution" for them. 

Short of this knowledge, absorption is the "simplest solution" only for those trying to keep DC representation/voting power limited.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-11-2021, 12:17 PM)Dill Wrote: As I said. Easiest solution for the National GOP.

As I said, easiest solution for everyone.

Quote:It is not clear how people who don't have representation can get it without expanding real, effective power somewhere. I don't see why wanting "increased political power" is a bad thing for people who have not had it, for representation and power are the same thing in politics. E.g., it wouldn't make sense to say that when women pushed for the vote in 1919, their goal was only "representation," not increased political power. Increased political power is always the goal of representation. 

Correct, the state absorbing D.C. will increase their political power.  Just like any other state that increases in population from the previous census.

Quote:Absorption into an existing state doesn't resolve the issue entirely unless administration from Annapolis is the representation people of DC want, and the people of MD want to suddenly share power with, and responsibility for, a large new voting block.

They said they want representation, they'd get it that way.

Quote:The debates I alluded to above would generate the knowledge needed to make informed choices likely to work for all parties. Until they occur, and reach sufficient length, I am not prepared to decide for those people what is the "simplest solution" for them. 

If you say so.  I don't see this as a problem that requires a lot of debate.  D.C. wants representation, so give it to them.  If they want two senators of their very own then their primary concern is not representation, it's outsized political power.  All the debate in the world doesn't change that.

Quote:Short of this knowledge, absorption is the "simplest solution" only for those trying to keep DC representation/voting power limited.

Limited?  If by limited you mean the exact same as every other single city in the entire United States. 

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2021, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you say so.  I don't see this as a problem that requires a lot of debate.  D.C. wants representation, so give it to them.  If they want two senators of their very own then their primary concern is not representation, it's outsized political power.  All the debate in the world doesn't change that.

How would it be outsized political power?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-11-2021, 02:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How would it be outsized political power?

Name another city that has two Senators.