How come DC does not have two senators and a house rep.?

[CalebHayes]

Their population is larger than Wyoming. Do they pay the same in taxes? Remember "No taxation with out representation"?

[NoPasaran]

1. It's a district

Only states have senators and congressmen.
I think they have a non-voting delegate in Congress.

[ramapo]

2. Because they're special

DC is not a state so no Senators. Population doesn't matter. The House member is fairly recent (70s or so?). I believe he does not get a vote but that might've changed.

DC is a quirk. No way this will change as the voting population is heavily Democratic. I suppose the Constitution would need to be changed to give DC full representation or make it a state.

This'll happen about the same time the Electoral College is closed down.

[Bertha Venation]

5. DC has a rep in the house but she's not a Representative --

she's a "delegate." When they talk about her on the news, it's not "Congresswoman Norton" or "Representative Norton." It's "Delegate Norton" -- Eleanor Holmes Norton and no, she does not have a vote.

The DC delegate used to have a vote, but the vote was taken away. I'm not sure when -- I believe it may have been after the '94 "sweep."

[DemOutWest]

12. There is

talk about giving DC a Rep. They would add two seats to the House, one to DC and the other to the next stae in line from the 2000 census (Utah). Probably acceptable to both parties as DC will be Democrat and Utah will be repug. Man, I hate living in Utah. Maybe I can run and pull and upset. :)

[CalebHayes]

15. Give it a shoot!

[GOPisEvil]

3. Simple: it's not a state.

Fair? Not really.

[ochazuke]

4. Because of who lives there

I'm sure if a bunch of Republicans lived there, they would have full voting rights in House and Senate. Tom DeLay would demand it.

[CalebHayes]

8. THANK YOU!!

[Buffler]

10. Maybe so

but it would take a constitutional amendment to make it happen.

[MissMarple]

6. They would like to have some representation.

But the rationale has something to do with keeping the seat of federal government out of any particular state. Originally, they thought this would give advantage to that particular state. The founding fathers had no idea Washington would grow to be such a large city. It was originally very swampy and hot and humid. Ha, it still is.

on edit: spellcheck lies.

[Buffler]

9. The Founding Fathers

didn't originally put the capitol in DC.

[MissMarple]

17. But they weren't happy with New York having it, or Philadelphia.

Virginia wanted it, and Virginians thought is was almost a done deal. Apparently it is an interesting story. But I'm not up on the details. God, what if it had stayed in New York?

[punpirate]

7. Check the Constitution...

... the answer is there. I doubt the founders ever expected the district to grow as it has--they likely anticipated a few government buildings and lots of land in between. The Constitution charges Congress and the administration to handle the affairs of the district. In theory, the citizens of DC are represented, though it required the 23rd Amendment to enable them to choose electors in national elections.

They have two, I think, non-voting members who advise Congress on district affairs (one of whom today is Eleanor Holmes Norton--bright lady).

They rarely get all that they want or need, however, out of Congress, and there has been a longstanding attempt for another Constitutional Convention to enable them to have full voting representation in Congress.

[Buffler]

13. They never evnisioned

the federal government growing to its massive size and scope that it is today. When the capitol was moved from NY to DC all of the federal records fit into a couple boxes!

[CalebHayes]

11. I will tell you why...

Because its full of Black people and Republicans (who control congress) hate black people!

[Buffler]

14. thats just stupid

Because its full of Black people and Republicans (who control congress) hate black people!

The why is in the Constitution. Go read it.

[CalebHayes]

16. You know I'm right!

[MissMarple]

20. You may have a point, but that wasn't the original motivation.

It is a problem that really needs to be addressed. And do you have any clue about the DC school system? Just what is happening? Why doesn't it get reconstituted? All I hear are bad things. They have money but the schools are falling down.

[Buffler]

24. You are not right

to claim that DC doesnt have voting senators and reps because "republicans hate black people" is to show your ignorance.

[Gulf Coast J]

19. Republicans didn't always control Congress

But DC didn't become a state when the Democrats ran the show. There are other reasons.

[Gulf Coast J]

18. Quick facts

Let's compare DC to nearby Fairfax County, Virginia

From the census bureau (2001 estimates):

DC
Pop - 571,822
Area - 61 square miles

Fairfax County
Pop - 985,161
Area - 395 square miles


So just because DC has more people than Wyoming, does not merit it being a state. I think DC should have full representation in the House (however many Congressmen its population warrants), but no way should they get two full voting Senators. There just isn't the diversity of people, geography or interests in DC that exists in other states.

[CalebHayes]

21. And Wyoming?

[Gulf Coast J]

25. Quick facts: Wyoming

Pop - 494,423
Area - 97,100 sq. miles

So Wyoming has 15.7% fewer people than DC, but 1591.8 times more land. So it seems fair that Wyoming is a state (potential growth rate is huge) and DC isn't (they are tapped out.)

[Lefty48197]

29. Wyoming IS diverse

all forms of white male rural conservatives are represented in Wyoming.

[Gulf Coast J]

30. Still more diverse than DC

Gore got 60,481 votes (28%) in Wyoming in 2000.
Bush got 17,020 votes (9%) in DC in 2000.

[CalebHayes]

22. And Wyoming?

[apsuman]

23. The answer is...

As has laready been pointed out it is not a state.

The Constitution only allows States to Representatives or Senators. By act of law cetain federally controlled areas get delegates. There were five I believe. DC, Guam, American Somoa (I think), and I can not remember the others.

The delgates were by a matter of rule change given the ability to vote in the "committee of the whole house" or some such crap as that. As I remember it, it is a procedural state that the house must/can enter into for voting for final passage of some (all?) acts. This means that they had no voice in many (most) of the votes the house goes into. Rule changes, speaker, amaendments, etc. they still did not get a vote. This was indeed changed when the republicans took over the house in 94, so now they get no vote, period.

All is not lost for the residents of DC however. Some years ago there was some discussion to reduce the federal district to a footprint that basically included only the grounds of all the federal buildings making all of that land available for something.

Some of those "somethings" included, making it's own state, or being absorbed into Maryland. Note, Virginia and Maryland both ceded land for the creation of the Dictrict, at some point Virginia took it's part back, that's why DC has that jagged edge. Anyway, since Maryland a heavily democratic and so are most of the residents of DC, that plan would probably not encounter much resistance.

But in all of these plans, the loser is always the DC city council. They will lose power no matter what happens. So IMHO until the city council makes up it's collective mind as to what it wants to do, there will be no movement on this issue.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. A few points

As a survivor of D.C.

Five territories/districts get delegates: You left out, Puerto Rico (nonvoting resident commissioner) and the Virgin Islands. Good work though, few folks know that.

Actually, the "Committee of the whole" was one of the things that led to our loss of the House. In effect, our reps changed the Constitution and allowed non-voting members to vote. That really galvanized GOP opposition. It was hubris on our part.

The problem with reducing the footprint is it still requires a major constitutional change. Otherwise, the remaining residents (I recall it would be about 300) in that footprint area would still get 3 electoral votes.

As for Maryland, they don't want D.C. and I can't blame them. It is massively dependent on federal subsidy and lacks the industry all 50 states have. Not only does Maryland not want D.C., but it is trending further away. Demographics are increasing the population in the conservative areas of that state.

I agree massively with your last point. Ain't nothin' happenin' on this for now.

[mb7588a]

26. DC

The federal district was a compromise as I understand it. They didn't want the focus of the government to be on one large city, like it had been in many countries in Europe - Paris, London etc. Other than that, I'm not familiar with the original rationale for the district.

There have been many attempts and plans by DC citizens to get statehood and voting rights. Good histories of those somewhere in the second link below.

The first thing I noticed and liked about DC 2 years ago was their license plates: "No taxation without representation." Bush had them taken off the bubblemobile. Jerk.


Good links on the subject:
http://prorev.com/dcstdfirst.htm
http://www.dcvote.org

[Lefty48197]

28. Because most of the residents of DC are Black

and there just aren't enough people willing to stick up for them and to ensure that they are actually represented. Trust me, if DC were "White", then they'd be a state already.