Utah likely to get another Electoral Vote

[Padfoot]

Why don't they just make D.C. a state and settle this thing once and for all?

Doggone, everyone. If I was from D.C., I'd be really, really, REALLY mad right about now about never having proper representation in Congress or the Electoral College.

I don't think it even requires a constitutional amendment to make D.C. a state.

It does in fact require a Constitutional Ammendment as was attemted on August 22, 1978 when the District of Columbia Voting Rights Ammendment was passed by Congress.  However it failed to be added to the Constitution because it had only been approved by 16 state legislatures when the 7 year deadline for ratification expired.  The states that ratified the ammendment were: New Jersey on September 11, 1978; Michigan on December 12, 1978; Ohio on December 21, 1978; Minnesota on March 19, 1979; Massachusetts on March 19, 1979; Connecticut on April 11, 1979; Wisconsin on November 1, 1979; Maryland on March 19, 1980; Hawaii on April 17, 1980; Oregon on July 6, 1981; Maine on February 16, 1983; West Virginia on February 23, 1983; Rhode Island on May 13, 1983; Iowa on January 19, 1984; Louisiana on June 24, 1984; and Delaware on June 28, 1984. 

Can you imagine the disappointment in DC when after a year of being up for consideration only 6 states had ratified the ammendment?  It boggles my mind how the state legislatures could have let this go by.  Maybe now that the Dems control a majority of them DC will have a chance again.

It appears unlikely that 109th will get to the current voting rights act but Democratic leaders have indicated it will be a top priority in the 110th.

[Padfoot]

Maybe now that the Dems control a majority of them DC will have a chance again.

And we shall fight it to the death.

(unless we can work out a few more EV's for Utah to balance it out)

Newsflash.  DC already has 3 EVs and has had them for over 40 years so there is nothing to balance out there.   Try reading the 23rd amendment.  The question of balance only comes into play when you consider congressional representation.  Its fairly obvious that the addition of DC as a state or any granting of full representation to the District would add two Democratic Senators and one Democratic Representative to Congress.  Another issue that arises is that unless the size of the House is increased, one state would be losing a seat in order for DC to gain one.  I beleive the currently proposed bill to grant both Utah and DC a new seat would permanantly increase the size of the house by two.

IMO the size of the House is too small.  No single Representative can accurately represent the wishes of over 750,000 people.  Montana, Delaware, and South Dakota all deserve to have another representative under that assertion.  Either that or the method of apportionment should be changed so that the state with the highest population to representative ratio receives the next seat.  Using that method the 2000 apportionment would change as follows:
CA: -2 instead of +1
CT: -0 instead of -1
DE: +1 instead of +0
FL: +1 instead of +2
MS: -0 instead of -1
MT: +1 instead of +0
NY: -3 instead of -2
NC: +0 instead of +1
OH: -2 instead of -1
OK: -0 instead of -1
OR: +1 instead of +0
SD: +1 instead of +0
TX: +1 instead of +2
UT: +1 instead of +0

If these totals had been in affect during 2004 Kerry gets one less electoral vote so this has little affect in major shifts as far as party power goes.  It just shifts the power slightly in favor of smaller states as evidenced by their gains in my scenario.

[Padfoot]

Newsflash.  DC already has 3 EVs and has had them for over 40 years so there is nothing to balance out there.   Try reading the 23rd amendment.  The question of balance only comes into play when you consider congressional representation.

Welcome, rude new person.  If we added more members of Congress to Utah or another GOP state, then I'd be just plum delighted to add 2 new Senators and a voting rep for DC - hence adding more EV's.

The fact that you would hold ransom the voting rights of over half a million tax paying American citizens just so your party can gain a few extra votes for itself is disgusting.  Although I support the current compromise bill I still find it repulsive that we have to resort to such measures to give DC residents the simple right to vote.  DC should have been granted equal congressional representation back when the 23rd amendment was passed.  They at least should have gotten it in 1978.

[Padfoot]

What precedent?  Congress did not assume sovereignty over the District until it was ready to move there in 1800. Until that happened, that territory still belonged to Virgina and Maryland.  I agree that retrocession would be a desirable course of action.  However that gets complicated by the 23rd Amendment.  If you remove all the residents of D.C., who gets to decide who those 3 electors D.C. has under the 23rd are?  Does Congress get to pick them?

I think it would require a new Constitutional Amendment to retrocede DC to Maryland because the 23rd Amendment would have to be undone.  I don't think Maryland or DC have any desire to reunite though.  We shouldn't force it on them either.  I think a better course for those who favor the retrocession option would be to give DC its own Congressional District, allow DC residents to vote and run for office as Maryland Senators, and maintain its current 3EVs. 

[Padfoot]

Yeah you'd like that wouldn't you.... that way you get 3 Dem EV's instead of just basically adding 1 to Maryland (which is about all that the population of DC would be entitled to)

Well I suppose we could use your preferred method of equalization.  If your willing to force North and South Dakota together I'll gladly force DC and Maryland together.  I'm sure neither of those parties will mind us forcing them together at all.

[Padfoot]

Jesus has spoken and his word is true and good.  LOL

[Padfoot]

Even if Maryland was willing to take back DC I doubt that DC residents are ready to give up their fight for complete autonomy and representation.  Especially not since they've been so close to gaining some of their major goals in recent years.