Let’s Choose our Voters
“Oh can’t you see, you belong to me.” — Gordon Sumner
Most of you know Sumner by a different name. There are those that consider this song one of the more romantic songs in history. I worry about them. I worry if they believe in the same type of ownership that the subject of this song does. More than anything, I wonder if Democrats and Republicans think of their voters the same way.
Check that, I really don’t wonder about Republicans. As vile as many of them are, at least they don’t try to hide it anymore. Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a bill to make Washington D.C. a state. The GOP response was equal kinds predictable and indicative of where they are as a party.
To be perfectly fair, the Democrats know how to read numbers just as easily. Over 90 percent of residents voted for Joe Biden in the last election. The district has been Democratic for years. So, one could forgive the Democratically controlled House for having a sense of urgency here.
Then again, we must remember not to count our chickens before they hatch. Just because someone votes Democratic now doesn’t mean they will always vote Democratic. The South used to be in the bag for Democrats up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When you move past regional patterns you will find all kinds of demographic groups where the battle still wages.
Yet, that’s the mindset of the modern Republican party. They don’t believe in competing for votes. They don’t believe in competing in the marketplace of ideas. Their voters belong to them and not the other way around. Republican representatives accused Democrats of a partisan grab as if that has any bearing on whether the district deserves to be its own state.
Even if the barbs are true, that’s not the point. The point is you have a group of people (Puerto Rico as well) that do not have adequate representation. They have more people in DC than several states already admitted to the union. If we are going to fly down the “why should they be a state” rabbit hole we would immediately ask ourselves why we need two Dakotas, Wyoming, and Idaho.
It’s really a simple proposition. The answer is two-fold. First, our system has always been skewed towards land. In the beginning, you could only vote if you owned land. From there, we attempted to balance the needs and desires of small states with bigger states. They did this by giving Wyoming the same number of senators as California. Seems perfectly fair and reasonable when you think about it.
The second proposition is that those states have the right voters. That’s why a 50/50 split Senate sees Democrats represent 41 million more people. Instead of battling in the marketplace of ideas we are trying to kidnap our own voters and keep everyone else on the outside looking in. So, voices on the floor complained about a socialist agenda and a sinister plot to get it through. Let’s ignore that if there was such a thing, that thing is highly popular amongst those surveyed.
The movement in state legislatures is proof that they aren’t trying to convince people that their ideas are better. They are trying to limit the number of people that could possibly choose that agenda. That’s not sufficient enough reason to deny the people of DC statehood. The same goes for Puerto Rico as well.
I do not agree that the Republicans do not operate in the marketplace of ideas. Opposition to Roe is competing in a very hot market. Ditto guns. Ditto low taxes.
The whole culture war thing is competition between ideas.
One of the reasons that division is so bitter is that, for the most part, the stakes are so small (like they say about condominium board battles).
The US settled the huge disputes 100 to 150 years ago: paper money, national bank, public education, slavery, women’s vote, civil service, standing army. And more.
1Ever since I graduated college and worked on JFK’s campaign locally I have been voting Democrat. My father was a Democrat largely because of FDR. Dad told me stories of what he witnessed during the Depression and they were double damn scary. When approached by anyone who thinks I’m crazy because of my political affiliation, I have found it a good idea to convince them that I am the sole member of the Irish cart kicking pony party and ask them to join me just for the fun of it. That gets rid of the aggressive ones and the brainless, all in one swoop. It has worked especially well during the Trump destruction.
2Regarding Puerto Rico and Statehood. it isn’t at all clear that they want Statehood. They also have the option of complete independence, something DC doesn’t have. The people of DC have been clamoring for Statehood since forever and there isn’t even a debate here about it.
3I’m not enough of a legal scholar to be sure of this, but one argument against statehood is the 23rd Amendment. (Personally, I think the argument is BS, but it is out there and needs to be addressed.)
“The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.”
The argument goes like this – if all of DC except for the area comprising the White House, the Capitol and the so-called Federal Triangle (that’s the Federal buildings running along both sides of the Mall) becomes a state, then the area described in the 23rd Amendment would just be the aforementioned area, “[t]he District constituting the seat of Government of the United States …” Since this area has no residents, the Amendment becomes moot.
A side effect of statehood, one I have not seen mentioned, is that Congress would no longer be able to interfere in the day-to-day operation of the new state’s government. Their only power would be over that small, unpopulated area described above.
4As BarbinDC says, it’s not clear Puerto Rico is interested in statehood. We should also be careful what we wish for. While the people of PR despise he who shall remain unnamed, in general they are conservative voters.
5I suppose that’s true on both counts Halster. The question from my end is whether they would be better served being a state with full representation. In reference to El Jefe’s previous post, would they have gotten their aid faster with voting members in the House and Senate? It’s a fair question.
Naturally, they get to decide if they want to become a state and no one should ever assume anyone would vote any particular way. Furthermore, it is dangerous to push for statehood based on expected turnouts anyway.
6One question on Puerto Rico that I don’t think is at all clear: who gets to vote on whether they ought to remain a territory/commonwealth, petition to be a state, or declare independence?
All the people who are there?
7Those who are there PLUS those who own property? Or pay taxes in PR?
What about those who were made refugees by the hurricane & Trump’s Sad!-ministration messing with recovery?
Those who think of themselves as Puerto Ricans, even if they have jobs and residences on the mainland?
Anyone who was born on the islands?
Anyone willing to travel to the islands to vote?