DC statehood referendum passes

[rhubarbodendron]

If people want their own state, they ought to get it. However, the name "New Columbia" lacks originality in my opinion. A unique state should have a unique name. How about naming it after the indigenous inhabitants: Nacotchtank (or anglicised: Anacostia) ? It translates as Trading Village and that would also fit its tradition as a seat of government organisations and and foreign embassies.

 

[B.J.]

The "New Columbia" name dates back to at least the 1982 statehood movement. No idea what the reasoning is behind the name, though.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

They should just call it Columbia.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

In honor of Peter Falk, they should call it New Columbo.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ And the official state motto would be "One more thing..."

 

[Locutus of Bored]

In honor of Peter Falk, they should call it New Columbo.

The "eye" has it. The vote is passed.

 

[RJDiogenes]

If people want their own state, they ought to get it. However, the name "New Columbia" lacks originality in my opinion. A unique state should have a unique name. How about naming it after the indigenous inhabitants: Nacotchtank (or anglicised: Anacostia) ? It translates as Trading Village and that would also fit its tradition as a seat of government organisations and and foreign embassies.

Well, the official name of the place is the District of Columbia. If it became a state, it should be the state of Columbia. I don't know why they added "New."

 

[rhubarbodendron]

Perhaps they'd like to avoid confusion. There are already more than 2 score Columbias including a former supercontinent.
However, the District of Columbia was originally created in seventeenhundred-something because the government thought that all governmental places/authorities/ministeries etc. ought to be assembled in one area that was not under a single state's control but under direct management by the Senate. If there hasn't been any change to the rules and regulations underlying that decision, they would still apply and make it impossible for D.C. to become a state of its own.

 

[Tallguy]

If this is just a Republican problem then why was it never fixed under a Democrat Congress?

It's a problem. I just don't agree with the solution.

 

[Squiggy]

If this is just a Republican problem then why was it never fixed under a Democrat Congress.

Because the Dems (or anyone in Congress) can't just willy-nilly up and make DC a state, it has to come from the people. They just got around to voting on it now.

 

[Smellincoffee]

If people want their own state, they oughta get it? Sure -- if Upstate New York gets a state, and the people in northern Cali and southern Oregon get a state, and west Kansas gets a state, the more the merrier.

Or the fewer the merrier. Let Texas, California, Alaska, Hawaii, and the South go their way. I'm all for self-determination.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If people want their own state, they oughta get it?

Only if it's needed.

Sure -- if Upstate New York gets a state, and the people in northern Cali and southern Oregon get a state, and west Kansas gets a state, the more the merrier.

Remember what I said a few posts earlier. The simple fact is, DC deserves to be a state, it needs to be a state, and there's no reason for it NOT to be a state.

With all those examples you just gave? None of the above reasons apply.

 

[Tenacity]

With all those examples you just gave? None of the above reasons apply.

But isn't the stated reason DC shouldn't become part of Maryland simply that the people of DC don't want to be part of Maryland?

So if other people in the country simply don't want to be a part of the state they're already in, why shouldn't they too have the ability to form a separate state?

Then, just as DC will (likely) send two liberal senators to congress, the conservative parts of current liberal states will be able to flood congress will conservative senators.

if Upstate New York gets a state, and the people in northern Cali and southern Oregon get a state, and west Kansas gets a state,

Going by DC's population, the city of New York could form into about twenty states.

In fact, using 600,000 people as the average, America could have 530 states.

 

[Squiggy]

But isn't the stated reason DC shouldn't become part of Maryland simply that the people of DC don't want to be part of Maryland?

Maryland ALSO doesn't want it. The reason that Republicans have stated they don't want DC to become a state is because the framers didn't intent for the national capitol to be a state (they also didn't intend for year-round government, 600,000 people living in the district, or a standing army but...)

So if other people in the country simply don't want to be a part of the state they're already in, why shouldn't they too have the ability to form a separate state?

They should also have that right provided they have the majority. We're not talking about a few dozen people in the middle of no where who no longer want to be part of Indiana because they don't like paying taxes. They at least have a chance to have an elected representative with their views. DC doesn't have that luxury.

Then, just as DC will (likely) send two liberal senators to congress, the conservative parts of current liberal states will be able to flood congress will conservative senators.

That doesn't even make any sense. States vote for Senators at large.

Going by DC's population, the city of New York could form into about twenty states.

New York is already represented by a dozen Congressmen and two senators.

In fact, using 600,000 people as the average, America could have 530 states.[/QUOTE]
In fact, Congress is made up of 438 Congresspeople and 100 Senators - or 538 elected representatives.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But isn't the stated reason DC shouldn't become part of Maryland simply that the people of DC don't want to be part of Maryland?

No, it's the other way around: Maryland doesn't want DC to be a part of IT.

the framers didn't intent for the national capitol to be a state

In that case, the framers were full of crap.

 

[scotpens]

In fact, Congress is made up of 438 Congresspeople and 100 Senators - or 538 elected representatives.

The number of voting Representatives in the House has been fixed at 435 since 1911 -- unless they added three new seats when I wasn't looking.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

In that case, the framers were full of crap.

It made sense at the time!

The sardonic suggestion that other states break up into smaller states is honestly fine with me. In fact, we've done it before. West Virginia is the most obvious example, but Vermont used to be part of New York, Kentucky came out of Virginia, Tennessee came out of North Carolina, and Maine came out of Massachusetts.

You could probably consolidate Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakotas into a single state, while you're at it.

 

[Squiggy]

The number of voting Representatives in the House has been fixed at 435 since 1911 -- unless they added three new seats when I wasn't looking.

You are correct, I used the total number of electors. My mistake.

In any event, there are about 530 Representatives, or one for every 600,000 people - except DC.

 

[Velocity]

Illinois would probably love to split away from Chicago. "Just outside Chicago, there's a state called Illinois".

 

[USS Triumphant]

My opinion, for what it's worth: The residential areas of DC should be assigned to this state of "New Columbia"... but, the federal buildings, museums, and monuments of the National Mall area should remain Washington, DC, and separate.