Wikipedia

Talk:District of Columbia federal voting rights/Archive 1

< Talk:District of Columbia federal voting rights
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Beland in topic Unsourced subsection
Archive 1

Last Sentence

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As the article is now, I don't think this clause in the last sentence refers to anything: "...for the partisan reasons cited above." --AnonMoos 01:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a Position Paper

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article is a biased position paper and of course ignores essential facts. The Constitution created a federal district "not exceeding ten miles square" that would be part of no state, and the Constitution makes clear that only states can elect members of Congress. The paragraphs of "Taxation Without Representation" and "Comparisons" are biased talking points that fail to note that DC is not a state and is treated comparably to other territories such as Puerto Rico. A lame attempt to address that obvious point, "However, the current examples are different from the territories of the past in that they are not being prepared for admission as U.S.. states." is utter nonsense. Prepared for admission doesn't mean anything as it's not being prepared for admission, and even if it was being prepared, the entitlements don't happen until you finish getting prepared and are admitted.

The full bias of the article is reflected in the statement, "Because the Democrats do not wish to see Jim Matheson, the only Democrat in Congress from Utah, gerrymandered out of his seat, the new Utah seat is to be at-large (i.e. elected statewide)." The blatant partisan talking point fails to note that such political chicanery would certainly fail Constitutional muster.

As part of a full rewrite, the article should explain why a ten mile square district that's that was created purely to manage and run the federal taxpayer funded federal government should in fact be given full powers consummate with individual States.

While retrocession is discussed, it fails to note the obvious solution of "partial" retrocession as was done in 1846 when D.C. residents living on the Virginia side of the Potomac asked Congress to return their portion of the District to Virginia. This would alleviate the red herring issue of taxation without representation and provide a stable State Government but would also prevent the creation of an artificial 'political' State within the Federal District. Of course, retrocession is not satisfactory for those who want Statehood because it would add only one Congressional Rep for the State of Maryland (a likely Democrat) while the artificial federal taxpayer funded State within the District would get multiple Congressional Reps plus two Senators (most all Democrats)24.27.202.53 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly this needs polishing and work. It's submitted as a start. This issue is a major one to those of us who have a problem with some citizens being more equal than others, but who also love our country enough to want to see its capital functional and well-governed. Ideally the District government would be an example in some ways of what American municipal government should be, with the acknowledgment that the District will always be a special case in that its major employer always has been and always will be a huge tax-exempt operation, the federal government, and will always require a level of subsidization far above that of other cities in order for it to function properly, and that its failure to function properly becomes a tremendous issue of national security and well-being far above and beyond that of any other city. Rlquall 03:35, date unknown (UTC)

I understand you might love your country and have an axe to grind on this issue, but if you read the WP help pages, "WP is not a soapbox, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow the no original research policy and strive for accuracy." 24.27.202.53 05:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In reality, partisanship (on both sides) is clearly involved in the issue of DC representation, and, as such, is arguably eligible for discussion in the article. The discussion should of course be balanced, and inclusive of both side's opinions. One could argue also that partisanship (from a purely theoretical standpoint) has no place in the discussion. Principles that apply to citizens in a representative democracy should be applied equally and evenhandedly ("just power derives from the consent of the governed", for example). If DC government is to be judged on short-term competence or corruption, and DC voting rights acknowledged only if the DC government is found to be competent (by whom?) and not corrupt, then in fairness we should remove (at least temporarily) the voting rights from all states where politicians are convicted of corruption or incompetence, right? No reference source worth reading can avoid controversy, whether it be scientific controversy or political controversy, or any other form of controversy. Knowledge is advanced when all sides to the issue are available for consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.62.20 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a constitutional amendment, similar to the one that granted DC residents the right to vote in presidential elections, is needed to provide for representation in the House of Representatives as a mere statute effectuating this purpose would be blatantly unconstitutional. Leaving the issue of statehood and representation in the Senate out of it would, moreover, create better political prospects for passage. 173.16.198.152 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Commuter tax

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nice article. I'd love to see some mention of the commuter tax issue; the reason DC has to have a 10% sales tax is that so many of the people who work in the city live in MD and VA and pay income tax to those states. There is no mechanism in place to make up for this lost revenue and attempts to fix the problem get shot down by Congress. Thus in regards to providing services, the deck is stacked against the District.

Also, Federal government sites (which make up a large part of the central district) don't have to pay taxes... AnonMoos 01:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The US Federal Government does however give DC some money intended to make up for the loss of income from having so high a percent of the property values owned by the Feds. The effectiveness and desirability of commuter taxes in the cities that have them is itself highly controversial. 168.166.196.40 19:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

DC Sales tax is 5.75%. There is a 10% tax on restaurant food and beverages. (DC Resident)

Home rule?

This article seems to be misnamed. My understanding of the term "home rule" is that it means District residents controlling their own local government to varying degrees. Before the Home Rule Act of 1973, most city functions were handled directly or indirectly by Congress and related committees. No locally elected officials had any say in how the city was run. Home rule is a separate, though related, issue to D.C. representation (what this article seems to be about). I might be wrong, but if I'm not shouldn't this article be moved to something like District of Columbia Congressional representation or something similar? --Polynova 11:22, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the title to District of Columbia voting rights, which I think better describes what the article's about. --Polynova 09:58, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

My removal

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've removed the following:

Arguments in favor of District of Columbia voting rights

American democracy was founded on certain basic principles, such as that all men are created equal, and that just power derives from the consent of the governed; and American democracy has gradually developed other basic concepts along the way, including the concept of universal suffrage. Aside from felons and dependent children under the age of 18, DC residents are the last group of American citizens to lack full suffrage rights. District residents stress that in asking for representation they are in no way demanding special rights, but only suffrage rights equal to those taken for granted by residents of the 50 united states. The current situation has led some to call the District "The Last Colony" and home to "Taxation Without Representation", as District residents are subject to the federal income tax just like other U.S. residents.

In organizational terms, DC is one of the few aspects of the Federal government which do not rely on the system of checks and balances. Congress is given absolute power under the Constitution "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17), and the courts have declined to interfere, even though this means the long-term, continuing disenfranchisement of District residents for no apparent legitimate reason.

Arguments against District of Columbia voting rights

Opponents argue that the District has a very poor history with regard to what little self-government has ever been allowed (though quality of self-government has not been a requirement prior to the franchise being granted to other jurisdictions), and that Congress has a constitutionally-mandated responsibility to make sure that the national capital and seat of the federal government is itself well-governed and functions smoothly. This last argument resonates with overtones of paternalism, and fails to take into account a basic principle of democracy, that legitimate power derives from the consent of the governed.

I feel it to be fairly slanted towards the D.C. statehood POV, and doesn't really add much beyond what's already in the article. As such, I've taken it out. Meelar (talk) 00:30, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Meelar:
The whole issue of Voting rights is a debate that has various points of view. What good is an article about an issue that omits the various points of view. As long as both sides are equally presented, the balance is neutral. If one side or the other feels their point of view is not adequately represented, they are free to augment the points they feel are not well expressed. Deleting both pros and cons completely smacks more of censorship than of neutrality. Who elected you as censor?
This sounds like something you should discuss at his Talk page. According to his above comment, he felt that the material was biased. Do you feel that the removed material was not biased? SMP0328. (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article on District of Columbia Voting Rights at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights

there was a section (actually two) setting out the Pros and Cons on the subject. User Meelar deleted both sections. I feel this is counterproductive. Certainly both sides' views should be represented equally, but there is nothing preventing either side from adding or augmenting their points of view. Deleting BOTH sides exposition of their points of view, however (particularly prior to any discussion) smacks of censorship, vandalism, or maybe both.
Before getting into a post and delete contest, it would be preferable to DISCUSS the issues.
Do you feel that the removed material was fine as it was, or do you want to add new Pro and Con sections? SMP0328. (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Washington or DC

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this about civic voting rights and the need for independence from Congress, or state-type representation in Congress? If the former this should be Voting rights in the District of Columbia, if the later, this is the correct title. The content of the article does not match the first option. 132.205.3.20 21:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why this is so. D.C. and Washington, D.C. refer to the same things. District of Columbia is merely the official legal name. Most people refer to it as Washington, D.C., hence the title of the article. I removed you factual dispute notice until you can explain what you think is wrong with the article. --Polynova 16:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not DC retrocedes to Maryland, or becomes a state, there will be some form of city government regardless. If it retrocedes to Maryland, many of the state-level features of DC will disappear, but the city-level features will remain. If it becomes a state, then the city government and a new state government will be formed, separate (unless this becomes one weird state... hell even counties that occupy the same space as cities have separate "governments") So, this article is about DC not the city known as Washington. 132.205.64.80 18:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
If you're talking about potential statehood, then "District of Columbia" doesn't necessarily make sense because the name of the state would be different. ("New Columbia" has been proposed for a potential state). Nevertheless, "Washington, D.C." and "District of Columbia" are simply two names for the same thing. This has been the case since the end of local government in Georgetown in 1871. "Washington, D.C." is more common and more widely understood, hence the title (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). --Polynova 20:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

So

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is the US a democracy or not? – Kpalion (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No. It's a republic. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
I see this argument often, but it seems to be a logical fallacy (false choice); isn't the U.S. a democratic republic? Or is the argument that the U.S. is a non-democratic republic? RealMontrealer 05:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
In the US, the term "democracy" with no modifiers is usually taken as a synonym for "direct democracy". Thus, the US isn't a democracy (in that sense), it's a republic with democratically elected representatives. It's just an oddity of American English. - Flooey 01:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! That clears it up. - RealMontrealer 19:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article suffers from some serious NPOV problems. As evidenced by the comments above, the majority of this article was written by proponents of DC voting rights. The article therefore advocates more than it educates.

For instance:

"This approach would largely preserve for D.C. governance the fundamental democratic principle that "just power derives from the consent of the governed", while still allowing the national legislature to exercise the last word in cases where the overriding national interest requires, as defined by a supermajority "national consensus" vote in both Houses."

There is not even an attempt to judge this proposal objectively. The Congressional Oversight is also particularly slanted. It cites one example, in the course of over 200 years, as evidence for the lack of effective oversight. The discussion on increased Congressional oversight gives nearly all the credit to the improvements during the 1990's to Norton.

There is not even an explanation why there are no voting rights (a product of the founding fathers, the very ones who coined the Taxation without Representation phrase) nor is there an explanation on why the District was not given those rights. There's no discussion on how much proportional representation DC residents would have with full representation (they would be second only to Wyoming in voting power per citizen).

In short, this article is a great pamphlet for DCVote, but a poor Wikipedia article.

==

If there were/are strong arguments for disenfranchising the denizens of DC, it would be appropriate for those aware of them to ADD them to the article, instead of DELETING legitimate arguments and points with which they may disagree. A fair exchange of views is legitimate. Does NPOV mean "NEUTRAL point of view" or "NO point of view"? Articles which omit any point of view whatsoever will be pretty useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.235.62 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV means "Neutral Point of View." Do you feel that there's relevant information missing from the article? SMP0328. (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

=

In the article on District of Columbia Voting Rights at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights

there was a section (actually two) setting out the Pros and Cons on the subject. User Meelar deleted both sections. I feel this is counterproductive. Certainly both sides' views should be represented equally, but there is nothing preventing either side from adding or augmenting their points of view. Deleting BOTH sides exposition of their points of view, however (particularly prior to any discussion) smacks of censorship, vandalism, or maybe both.

Before getting into a post and delete contest, it would be preferable to DISCUSS the issues.

[edit] == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.235.62 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge Statehood page

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The page on D.C. Statehood is short, and represents a subset of the subect matter of Voting rights in Washington, D.C. I am proposing a merger of the two, retaining the name of the latter. Any objections? --BlueMoonlet 15:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed Joncnunn 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

excess wordage in paragraph in the oversight section

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"A compromise may even be reached which would allow the District's delegate to Congress to be raised to the status of a full voting member of the U.S. House but still leave the District unrepresented in the Senate, where the Senators are supposed to represent states, which the District is not; most legal experts believe that even this compromise would require a constitutional amendment." Too duplicative of the proposals section. 168.166.196.40 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Response 1. Your proposed merger would be highly misleading. Some advocate statehood (and thereby 2 senators, 1 representation); others favor congressional legislation (or amendment) to treat the District as a state for purposes of representation in the House and see the District Clause (primarily the purpose behind it) as incongruous with the historical evidence of the framers' intent. Still others seek middle ground between the two by revisiting some of the issues anew (anticipating legislation or amendment if an acceptable agreement is reached). Finally your observation that "most legal experts believe that even this compromise would require a constitutional amendment" is by no means established (though I think it likely). In fact, there are relatively few in the legal profession who have conducted sufficient researched and written on these issues to merit being called an "expert."

Proposals to retrocede D.C. to Maryland

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm pretty sure Congress has the power to retrocede DC without Maryland's consent. (Probably wouldn't be politically plausible to do so without backing of Maryland though.) The other proposals [counting DC residents as residents of Maryland for purpose of drawing congressional lines / voting in the house with or without the senate] would require a constitutional amendment. Joncnunn 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Congressional Law scholars would probably argue about this point on both sides, but in general, Congress cannot unilaterally abolish something that is set out in the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that Congress shall have exclusive control over whatever territory is agreed upon to constitute the "Seat of the Government of the United States." In order to abolish that seat of government and retrocede it all to Maryland, you'd probably have to amend the Constitution. Of course, if they retroceded all but a small portion where the White House, Capitol, etc. is and just called that the official Seat of Government, that would probably be more feasible. It also brings up an interesting legal question of how this issue would be handled if D.C. did ever become an actual state. --Jhortman 03:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Present-Day DC Land

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"All the land in present-day D.C. was once part of Maryland"- National Airport is in Washington, DC (zip code 20001) as is Dulles (20041). I'm changing this to "most all". --Patrickneil 15:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither Reagan National Airport [1] nor Dulles Airport [2] is in the District of Columbia. Both are in Virginia. The Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority explains at both airports' websites: "When the federal government operated Reagan National and Dulles prior to 1987, both Airports had Washington, D.C. postal addresses. To continue identifying the service area more easily for travelers, the Authority did not change the addresses." Virginia gave the portions of the original DC south of the Potomac, and she took all of them back [3], indeed meaning "All the land in present-day D.C. was once part of Maryland." 72.75.107.129 00:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind merging Statehood, split off Home Rule

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've finally carried out the minor overhaul of this page that I've been planning. I found the previous text to be very confused, going back and forth between the issues of representation in Congress and control over local affairs. I see these as two separate issues, though they are related and both would be addressed by statehood for D.C. Thus, I have split off District of Columbia home rule, formerly redirected to this page, and put there the former sections of this article that pertain to that subject. I have also changed my mind on merging D.C. Statehood, since it can lead the reader either to voting rights or to home rule; instead, I spruced up that page as well. Comments? Objections? --BlueMoonlet 04:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Australia

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Why is Australia mentioned in this article? Even if somewhat related to DC voting rights it should not be a part of this article. What do you think? --Noetic Sage 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a really good question. Considering the title is District of Columbia voting rights, I find the inclusion of Australia completely random. I think it should go. Natalie 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as it's completely irrelevant to the article. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 17:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I see Australia has returned to the article. The obvious reason is that the constitution of Australia is closely based on the US constitution and the Australian government has an relationship to the Australian Capital Territory identical to the relationship the US government has to the District of Columbia.Alan 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Taxation Without Representation

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In 2001, then incumbent President Bush raised eyebrows when he ordered that the "Taxation Without Representation" license plates on the presidential limousines were to be replaced with blank Washington, D.C. plates. This coming after President Clinton had requested the new special plates be placed on the limousines, just one month prior.

The presidential limousines are federal vehicles, no? Shouldn't they have had federal license plates all along, not DC license plates? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Quacks Like a Duck 14:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://sudc.blogspot.com/ is there for a link to a PDF file, but you can't download the PDF file without turning Javascript on and hoping that the javascript code happens to work in your browser, and the site where the PDF file is hosted uses pop-up ads. I consider this manner of referring to a PDF file to be somewhat problematic, and will eventually remove the external link if this problem isn't fixed... AnonMoos 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Waited?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the claim that Clinton waited until the last weeks of he was in office to order the plates which is not support by the reference. The reference says the plates were ordered last month (i.e. December 2000). The plates were only introduced in November 2000 according to the same article. Therefore the idea that he waited is pretty silly nor does the article say anything about Clinton waiting to his last weeks (instead it just says when he ordered them nothing about him waiting). The change I made is here [4] Nil Einne 18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image debate

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I readded the "no taxation without representation" image. I think images make reading a wikipedia article more interesting and that we should strive to have as many images as possible. I do understand that having two images with "no taxation without representation" does over represent one side of the issue, but I think we should error on the side of having more images than less. If someone was to find another image they liked more, than I could support taking the image down. The license plate image is actually seen on other pages anyways.User:calbear22 06:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The "no taxation without representation" image is nothing but propaganda. D.C. is not a "plantation" and saying so is an insult to those who were slaves on plantations. The image of the license plate is fine. SMP0328. 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. A user who did not sign their post (which was appropriate) asked for a 3rd opinion regarding the over use of photos in District of Columbia voting rights. Beyond what is explicitly stated, can any other information be provided in a short, succinct, and neutral manner here? Thanks. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Also I'm joining in response to the third opinion request. I see no reason to limit the number of pictures in an article; however, this poster in the lead section is confusing and I'd agree it could be offensive. It might be better to make the lead photo more neutral, or a collage of pro and con. But the plantation reference is obscure to outsiders, though it may have some local meaning. I'm happy to help with a collage or any other photo editing. Good luck. --Kevin Murray 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

House representation section citation needed

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The "Proposals to grant voting representation only in the House" section had a request for citation that was written as part of the sentence. It was:

President George W. Bush has threatened to veto this bill on Constitutional grounds (see Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution constitution doesn't support this position -- need cite indicating reason for cite to constitution as not at all apparent.).

I replaced the inline citation request with a citation needed tag, and am moving the previous text here so people understand the reasoning the citation was requested. — Matthew0028 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to an article referring to the threatened Presidential veto based on Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia removed

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed the Taxation without representation section. It said:

While the District's official motto is Justitia omnibus (Justice to All), the words "Taxation Without Representation", echoing the Revolutionary slogan, "No taxation without representation!", were added to D.C. license plates in 2000 (although alternative plates featuring the D.C. website URL are available on request), and there was briefly a movement to add the words "No Taxation Without Representation" to the D.C. flag. Advocates who have supported these changes have said that they are intended as a protest and to raise awareness in the rest of the country. These measures in particular were chosen because the D.C. flag is one of the few things under direct local control without requiring approval from the Congress. In January 2001, President Bush ordered the removal of the "Taxation Without Representation" license plates on the presidential limousines, replacing them with blank Washington, D.C., plates. This came shortly after President Bill Clinton had placed the new license plates on the limousines.[1]

This section was clearly trivia. It is not relevant to D.C.'s voting rights status what is, or isn't, on the President's license plate. That's why I removed it from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ New York Times Article on January 19, 2001.

Bias in Arguments section

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Arguments for and against section consists almost exclusively of proponent arguments. Opponent arguments are few and far between. The section doesn't even mention one of the main arguments made by opponents, which is that Congressional representation for D.C. would be Unconstitutional (unless done by Constitutional amendment). Instead the section dismissively refers to arguments "that are not derived out of legal complications". That section is in disparate of balance. SMP0328. (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I will go ahead and add more against arguments. I only add information once I have reliable sources to back it up. I happened to have the pro-voting rights sources handy, so I inserted those. Once I have other sources, I'll get them included as well. Many of the constitutional considerations would be made clear in the expanded "Proposals for change" section, once merged from District of Columbia vote in the United States House of Representatives, but I will be sure to say more about the constitutional problems in this section as well. Best, epicAdam(talk) 06:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The addition of the Constitutional provisions subsection balances that section. Good job. SMP0328. (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Now that the overhaul is pretty much complete, is there anything else that should be included? Any suggestions on images? Thanks, epicAdam(talk) 17:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Any suggestions for a lead image? Apparently the license plate isn't going to work, but I'm not sure I can think of another image that would represent the article. -epicAdam(talk) 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What about an image of a DC map? SMP0328. (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Like the one I just added? Or did you have something else in mind? Best, epicAdam(talk) 22:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem here. It's a relevant image which doesn't favor any POV. SMP0328. (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"However, proponents of voting rights point out that Wyoming has a smaller population than the District, yet has the same number of Senators as California, the most populous state." This statement, although a true opinion of some, ignores the Connecticut Compromise and the reason for the Senate making it not very relevant. Recommended for deletion. 69.149.152.227 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel what is being ignored should be in the article, and you can provide reliable sourcing, then add that material. Added that material would be better than removing the material you quoted. SMP0328. (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SMP0328. The information you quoted is not opinion, they are all true statements of fact. The information serves only to bolster the thinking behind the Connecticut Compromise. Best, epicAdam(talk) 04:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous?

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The Constitution says: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States." Does this belong in the article? Ferrylodge (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed that material, because that section already refers to Article I, Section 2. SMP0328. (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It's from the 14th Amendment, not Article I. There is similar language in Article I.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
For the most part, it's a restatement of what Article I says, but I'll restore that quote with wording clearly stating it comes from in the Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Seems like the easiest thing is to just add it to the initial blockquote. I did that.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I added it right after that quote. SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hepburn and Tidewater

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In 1805, the Court said in Hepburn that "this is a subject for legislative, not for judicial, consideration." In Tidewater, the Court commented: "The latter sentence, to which much importance is attached, is somewhat ambiguous, because constitutional amendment, as well as statutory revision, is for legislative, not judicial, consideration." So, I don't think this Wikipedia article should assert that Hepburn gave a green light to Congress.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sixteenth Amendment

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Sixteenth Amendment is a potential constitutional argument for (or against) DC statehood, and while it was not the focus on Senator Leahy's statement, is discussed in it. It seems to me that it should remain in the Constitutional provisions section since, contrary to SMP0328.'s assertion, is not covered elsewhere on the page. -- Autopilot (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Sixteenth Amendment applies the same to the District of Columbia, the territories and the States. The reference to the "several States" is in the part of the amendment which overruled Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.. The fact that DC is not a State in no way limits the Congress's authority to "lay and collect" income taxes within DC. Because DC's non-State status is irrelevant to the Sixteenth Amendment, the Sixteenth Amendment is irrelevant to this article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Order of Proposed Reforms section

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:Justicelovespeace had reordered the Proposed Reforms section to list Statehood first and Legislative action last. I have reversed this change for the following reasons:

  1. I think it makes sense to order information so the most timely information is presented first.
  2. The current order has a logical cascading effect. In essence, each section describes the proposed reform, then the solution, and why it doesn't work. The next section then logically answers the problem of the first, and so on.
  3. Related to the issue above, the sections are currently written to be read in this order. For example, the amendment section refers to proposed legislation mentioned in the section above, and the statehood section refers to the amendment process, etc. If we were to reorder the sections, we would run into problems of duplicating information. For example, explaining what the DC Voting Rights Amendment was in the statehood section only to refer to it again in the Amendment section.

In any event, I have opened this issue up for discussion just to explain my reasoning. Best, epicAdam(talk) 13:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have an additional reason. The current order goes from the smallest (legislation granting one Representative) to the greatest change (Statehood). That's preferable to having it in greatest to smallest order. SMP0328. (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

POV redactions of NPOV fact checked history... bias anyone? How do we resolve this?

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I am deeply concerned that fact checked NPOV History and information is being removed. It is sad. Question: Why is the District of Columbia alienated from United States Constitutionally guaranteed Rights? Answer: We don't know because the POV of editors such as SMP0328., require that person to delete the answer.

This space is supposed to support the facts. The vague terminology on the page and absence of the key history is (or was) quite striking. I have tried to correct it and add the key facts, but find that bias and POV of other editors requires them to delete the key events. The Individual Rights, States Rights, and access to Federal Rights are Central to this issue and this Wikipedia page, and how they were extinguished by Congress is the question here. The POV redactions and vandalism by SMP0328 of US Constitutional Rights abolished by Congress are breath taking.

The page was very long, used vague words, and ignored the central problem, Congresses exclusive interpretation of "Exclusive" and how it abrogated Rights and Checks and Balance in this place. Without this fact checked history of Congress, the motive for the District of Columbia asking for restoration of Rights is lost. Deleting factual history and present day News makes this entire page Anti-Rights Astroturf again.

Given the importance of rights, such "Freedom of Speech" as applied from the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and is central to the existence of Wikipedia, suggests that the redaction of United Constitution and Amendment citations in this Wikipedia article is shockingly bad. Particularly when they are at the introduction. How do we address this pattern of POV redactions, deletions and fact checked content removal, and stop wasting the reputation of Wikipedia.

The only good news about the biased deletions by SMP0328, is that I got to read the Fourteenth Amendment Again.

Can anyone find one fact that is incorrect in this paste of my effort to remove the POV of those opposed to Voting and Civil Rights? Please point it out to us all to assure NPOV, and not just delete what does not match your own bias.

The United States Congress repealed, extinguished, and alienated almost all Voting rights of Citizens in the District of Columbia, from Maryland, starting about 1801. The United States Congress treats Citizens of Washington, D.C. as "Separate and Unequal" from other United States Citizens, because the United States Congress controls both the States Rights of this District, and most Federal Rights of this District. United States Congress, interprets Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution as unsupervised "Exclusive" Congressional Legislative Powers superior to any guarantee of most Individual Rights, States Rights, and Federal Rights of Citizens of the Washington, D.C., as described in the US Constitution, such as the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Citizens of the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) have asked for restoration of some or all nationally standard Civil Rights, Voting Rights, States Rights, and access to Federal Rights, to and for the Citizens of the District of Columbia.

Congress partitioned ("cession"ed) the Citizens of Georgetown, Maryland and District of Columbia from the State of Maryland, between 1790 and 1801, (and a part of Virginia until 1846, but returned to protect slavery). Maryland signed the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution, and the Maryland Constitution of 1776, and those laws applied to all of Maryland, including the District of Columbia until US Congressional take over of Georgetown, Maryland and the larger county of Washington, D.C. in 1801. The United States Congress established "Exclusive" legislative power over the District of Columbia. Congress extinguished all States Rights and Federal Rights, and many Individual Voting Rights of the Citizens of the District of Columbia and Georgetown, Maryland.

Washington, D.C., and its Citizens, were stripped and are denied by Congress in perpetuity of its Statehood, State Constitution, State Governor, State Legislature, County Sheriff's Department, United States Senators elected from this place, full voting membership in the United States House of Representatives elected from this place, nomination as well as unfettered "Advice and Consent" during appointment of its own Local, County and State Judges, and any binding "Advice and Consent" through the US Senate during appointment of any Federal Judge with Jurisdiction that includes the District of Columbia. Congress became the unquestioned Fiduciary and Custodian of States Rights and access to Federal Rights for the District of Columbia.

Most the United States Constitution does not apply to the District of Columbia because of ambiguity of Congress's "Exclusive" interpretation (unchecked and unbalanced) of Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. Therefore most of Articles One, Three, Four, Five, Six, of the United States Constitution have been barred from these United States Citizens, due to their Citizenship in the District of Columbia, previously bestowed by Maryland. Congressional interpretation of "Exclusive" also undermines Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24, and 26. Congress can move the seat of national government to any place in these United States and repeat the District of Columbia rights alienation precedent through simple Federal law of Congress such as the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, based on powers from Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.

Starting with 1964 Presidential Election, the first Presidential Election since 1804 (or possibly as early as 1796) permitted in Washington, D.C. by the Many States, through the Twenty Third Amendment of the United States Constitution, D.C. Citizens were allowed Voting Rights for electing the United States President, and voted. Twenty Third Amendment of the United States Constitution permits Washington D.C. Citizens electoral votes but only equal to the smallest other State, so only three, but not full voting Members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate. The Twenty Third Amendment partially reapplies Article Two of the United States Constitution and also permits Amendments 15, 19, 24, 26, to apply to the District of Columbia for US Presidential Elections starting with 1964. In the U.S. House of Representatives, the District is entitled to a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the floor of the House, but can vote on procedural matters and in House committees.

There are almost 600,000 citizens of the District of Columbia. Some residents of the District of Columbia are not citizens, such as full voting members of the US House of Representatives, members of the United States Senate, the President of the United States, the Vice-President of the United States, are all conferred State Citizenship from where they were elected, and formerly resided. Foreign Diplomats retain their foreign citizenship when residing in the District of Columbia. Critics of DC Voting and Civil Rights often confusingly refer to District of Columbia Citizens as merely residents, to down-play questions involving State Citizenship rights, Individual Rights, access to States Rights, and access to Federal Rights. The term "reside" and "Citizen" are central to the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The United States is the only NATO country (a military alliance of democratic and market based nations) and the only OECD country (30 wealthiest, market based, and democratic nations) that denies citizens of its national capital full voting representation in its national legislature. No State Capital denies voting rights to its citizens, even Montpelier, Vermont has full Civil and Voting Rights. The only State to bar most Constitutional Rights, is run "Exclusive"ly by the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives who are Fiduciary and Custodian of the States Rights of the District of Columbia. No one has identified a judge with jurisdiction over this place, that was appointed since 1801, that was appointed by and had "advice and consent" from the Citizens of this place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.146.226 (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged the article as being in violation of NPOV, because of the replacement of the old Introduction with a rant by 207.172.146.226 Npendleton. This anon Npendleton is certainly entitled to his/her opinion, but Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be used as bully pulpits. The Introduction should be returned to the way it was before today. I would do this myself, but I have already reverted this anon multiple times and believe that if I continue to do so I risk being blocked on 3RR grounds. So, instead I added the POV tag. SMP0328. (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I fully stand by my work be it by IP address or jumping through login hoops. Find something that is factually inaccurate, I and will help you make this long history and process more precise. Your POV is the problem here. Dispute the facts. Not just delete willy nilly. I would enjoy a reply to this thread. Also who has overwrite permission for the update summaries. I wrote to you SMP0328 'Stop removing correct and powerful legal terms like citizen! POV using "residents" is wrong' but I find instead 'Stop removing correct and powerful legal terms like citizen POV using "residents" if wrong'. Dispute one fact and I can work with you. Using your POV to destroy NPOV is wrong. Find one, and I will help you. Npendleton talk Npendleton (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
So no one can discuss the merits, just hide behind spin and punitive rule application to Delete all NPOV material, so you can hide behind your own POV, call it neutral, and you don't contribute one helpful fact, or admit that you just deleted the key facts and questions.Npendleton (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Please explain how your Introduction is consistent with this. SMP0328. (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Laughing Out Loud. Your help has to help, don't use your POV as an excuse to summarily delete NPOV facts. Still not one actual factual thing that you can dispute, nor would you, because you can't. So delete away, we will restore "Justice for All" in Wikipedia.Npendleton (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
As you are the editor attempting to include the material, the burden of proof is yours. See WP:BURDEN. I looked through the material you included above, and every single link I checked were links to other Wikipedia articles...which, as any college or university professor would be happy to tell you, is NOT an accepted, reliable, verifiable source.
Further, your assertions are what a reasonable reader with similar education and experience would consider "extraordinary." As such, you will need to provide absolutely airtight sources for your material. See WP:REDFLAG.
It would appear to be time, and past time, to put this page on the RfC list. --Alan (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
ETA: This discussion is now listed on the WP:3 page. --Alan (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for making that listing. Hopefully, it will help. SMP0328. (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry first fact issue, the link I wrote the Declaration of Independence points to all, not US, now fixed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npendleton (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in political reasons subsection?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Npendleton -- some of the issues you raised may be valid, but this article is really not the place to unload a long laundry list of generalized grievances. It's for issues fairly directly and immediately connected with the topic of DC voting rights... AnonMoos (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-serving

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

"The Democrats have therefore been accused of supporting increased D.C. representation in Congress for purely self-serving reasons" Wouldn't the Republicans have been accused of the same then for opposing increasing DC representation? This seems a pit POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.232.115 (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That sentence is about a belief some hold as to why the Democrats support D.C. Congressional representation. The Republicans have been accused of being self-serving in their opposition to D.C. representation. Feel free to add a reliably sourced sentence about the Republicans being self-serving. SMP0328. (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the article should certainly point out that both Democrats and Republicans currently have a vested, politicized interest in advocating and opposing (respectively) statehood or increased voting rights. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I added a link discussing the Democratic response to that accusation - adding a seat to Utah so as to not upset the balance of power, but it was removed. It seems germane to me. --Jcmurphy72 (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed it. The fact that the recent proposal would have added a Utah seat does not change anything. The Utah seat would only have been Utah's seat until 3 January 2013. A few years of what might be a Republican seat does not really counter the argument that Democrats want a DC seat because it would be an automatic Democratic seat for the foreseeable future. The true response is what Comet Tuttle said: Republicans' opposition is equally self-serving. The Utah proposal is already discussed in the article, as I pointed out, and mentioning it again as though it simply refutes the argument is misleading and unnecessary. -Rrius (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The citation I provided specifically mentions that the Utah proposal was designed to refute the argument. Your personal judgment of the success of the refutation seems beside the point.
Why Utah? Utah is a historically Republican state. The District of Columbia has historically voted Democratic. Thus, the bill is viewed as politically neutral, vote-neutral and bipartisan, not favoring one political party over another. --Jcmurphy72 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Weird line removed

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just removed this line:

Additionally, opponents argue that District residents have chosen to live in the city and are therefore fully aware of the political situation in the capital; however, voting rights advocates claim that the majority of Washingtonians have lived in the District for 20 or more years.[1]

The citation doesn't discuss the latter point, and the latter point seems totally irrelevant, anyway; I removed the statement. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Racial and political issues

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It seems like the article doesn’t mention the fact that parts of the American establishment rejected voting rights for DC because it is a majority-African-American city that would tend to vote almost exclusively Democrat representatives for the Congress.--MaGioZal (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Under "Political Considerations" it says: "In modern times, all elections held in the district have been overwhelmingly won by the Democratic Party.[28] The Democrats have therefore been accused of supporting increased D.C. representation in Congress for purely self-serving reasons.[16]" Best, epicAdam(talk) 13:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Inter American Commission on Human Right report

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Inter American Commission on Human Right - Organization of American States REPORT Nº 98/03* CASE 11.204

The Inter American Commission on Human Right of the Organization of American States on the report No. 98/03 concluded that the United States Government is responsible for violations of the Petitioners’ rights under Articles II and XX of the American Declaration by denying the Petitioners, the District of Columbia Citizens, an effective opportunity to participate in their federal legislature. In my opinion this information is pertinent to this article.

Reference:

Inter American Commission on Human Right - Organization of American States REPORT Nº 98/03* CASE 11.204

On April 1, 1993, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission”) received a petition from Timothy Cooper on behalf of the Statehood Solidarity Committee (the “Petitioners”) against the Government of the United States (the “State” or “United States”). The petition indicated that it was presented on behalf of the members of the Statehood Solidarity Committee and all other US citizens resident in the District of Columbia.

The petition alleged that all efforts to invoke available internal remedies had failed, that all domestic remedies had been exhausted, and therefore that the petition was admissible. The petition also alleged that the United States was responsible for violations of Articles II (right to equality before law) and XX (right to vote and to participate in government) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man in connection with the inability of citizens of the District of Colombia to vote for and elect members of the U.S. Congress.

The State has contended that the Petitioners’ petition is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies before the courts in the United States. It also argues that the complaint fails to state claim under Articles II or XX the American Declaration. According to the State, the special status given to the District of Columbia was based on geography alone rather than any individual characteristics such as race, gender, creed and the like, and therefore does not constitute a human rights violation. The State also contends that the residents of the District of Columbia are not excluded from the political process in the United States, and that the inability of District of Columbia residents to select voting members of Congress involves issues of constitutional law and federal structure that should be left in the realm of political debate and decision-making.

As set forth in this report, having examined the information and arguments provided by the parties on the question of admissibility, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission decided to admit the present petition in respect of Articles II and XX of the American Declaration. In addition, after having examined the merits of the Petitioners’ claims, the Commission concluded that the State is responsible for violations of the Petitioners’ rights under Articles II and XX of the American Declaration by denying the Petitioners an effective opportunity to participate in their federal legislature.

Reference: Inter American Commission on Human Right - Organization of American States REPORT Nº 98/03* CASE 11.204

Inter American Commission on Human RightREPORT Nº 98/03*

--Seablade (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is principally about the District's voting rights via the U.S. Constitution and federal law. This report at most deserves a single sentence reference in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional Info of the report:

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS REITERATES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES:

119. Provide the Petitioners with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislative or other measures necessary to guarantee to the Petitioners the effective right to participate, directly or through freely chosen representatives and in general conditions of equality, in their national legislature.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:District of Columbia federal voting rights/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
In reality, partisanship (on both sides) is clearly involved in the issue of DC representation, and, as such, is arguably eligible for discussion in the article. The discussion should of course be balanced, and inclusive of both side's opinions. One could argue also that partisanship (from a purely theoretical standpoint) has no place in the discussion. Principles that apply to citizens in a representative democracy should be applied equally and even-handedly ("just power derives from the consent of the governed", for example). If DC government is to be judged on short-term competence or corruption, and DC voting rights acknowledged only if the DC government is found to be competent (by whom?) and not corrupt, then in fairness we should remove (at least temporarily) the voting rights from all states where politicians are convicted of corruption or incompetence, right? No reference source worth reading can avoid controversy, whether it be scientific controversy or political controversy, or any other form of controversy. Knowedge is advanced when all sides to the issue are available for consideration.

Last edited at 17:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on District of Columbia voting rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on District of Columbia voting rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on District of Columbia voting rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrocession

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added... Alexandria, VA and Arlington, VA leaving the state of Virginia and being restored into the District and a new state. 73.85.207.155 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, because the District can be retroceded only to Maryland as that is the State that gave away all the land that constitute the current District. The land that came from Virginia was retroceded to Virginia in 1847. SMP0328. (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly Democratic

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

DC is overwhelmingly Democratic, and its local assembly could easily have no Republican members. This is the fate of assemblies with First past the post voting, and single member constituencies. I cannot quote the source, but I seem to remember that two seats in this assembly elect members not of the majority party. Two members are needed so that one can second the other one's proposals. ----MountVic127 (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you want that added to the article? If so, where? SMP0328. (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest some paragraphs called "Avoiding wipeouts" and place it before "See also". But not yet, as the proposed text is not yet verified.
Suggest writing this section as a Draft: ----MountVic127 (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced subsection

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Other cities subsection of the Comparison with other federal capitals section is unsourced. It has been cite tagged for eight months, but no sourcing has been added. This material can be restored if reliable sourcing is included. This is the material at issue:

Other cities

Ottawa, the capital of Canada, is not located in a separate territory or district. It instead is within the province of Ontario, of which Toronto is the capital. In the bicameral Parliament, Ottawa is represented by eight Members of Parliament in the House of Commons and is collectively represented with the rest of the province by Ontario's 24 appointed senators in the Senate. As part of Ontario, Ottawa also elects eight Members of Provincial Parliament to the unicameral Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Bern, the de facto capital of Switzerland, is part of the Canton of Bern, of which it is also capital, and of Bern-Mittelland, of which Ostermundigen is the capital. In the Federal Assembly, it is represented by 25 members in the National Council and two in the Council of States. As part of the Canton of Bern, Bern is represented in the Grand Council.

Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, is not located in a special district and is instead part of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, of which it is also seat. The Federal National Council is half elected and half appointed by the respective Rulers, with the Emirate of Abu Dhabi being allocated 4 elected seats, which is the highest number and on par with the Emirate of Dubai. Due to having the largest oil revenue, the Ruler of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi is also President of the United Arab Emirates, while the Ruler of the Emirate of Dubai is Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates.

SMP0328. (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Added back with citations. -- Beland (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference dcvote was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:District_of_Columbia_federal_voting_rights/Archive_1&oldid=1162422133"