Tangential, but instead of making DC into a new state, why not just absorb it into Maryland? Virginia already absorbed the part of DC rhombus west of the Potomac.
DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state).
National Democrats would also like two more Senate seats (and both DC and Maryland are predominantly Democratic, DC absurdly so) while national Republicans are happy enough with the status quo, giving DC no voting representation in Congress at all. So there's no strong momentum for movement on any side except DC's (who don't have the power to do anything about it by themselves).
By these arguments nearly every sizable city in the country should be its own state.
>DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state).
> By these arguments nearly every sizable city in the country should be its own state.
I think that's worth considering. It would get rid of a lot of the left/right gridlock at state levels. Cities would be mostly free to do as they wish without rural areas holding them back and rural areas would be free to do as they wish without cities holding them back. This would also greatly reduce the amount of BS that needs to get done at the federal level because a ton of that stuff is not interstate issues but an end run around the fact that the blue team and the red team can't do what they want at the state level so they try and get the feds to do it to the whole country.
And before anyone says "but money" I would like to remind them that freedom isn't free.
I mean, maybe? Bremen, Hamburg, and Berlin are Länder (the German equivalent of states). You could certainly make an argument for, say, NYC being its own state; it'd be bigger than Delaware. But a lot of these things are historical accidents: West Virginia only exists because of the Civil War, California would certainly not be one state if founded now, while DC isn't a state at all. And given that the boundaries of the states are entrenched by the constitution there's a heavy status quo bias as to what might happen in the future.
Berlin is a state because (esp West-)Berlin kind of had to be one in the restructuring after WW2.
Bremen and Hamburg both were Free Cities in the Holy Roman Empire. More importantly, they were among the very few Free Cities that retained this status until and past the end of the HRE (1806). Being in the Hanseatic League helped establish their importance, but the League wasn't actually a major concern at that time anymore, and hadn't been for over a century, but they certainly played to that history (and e.g. added "Hansestadt" to their names, long after)
I think honestly when the 3 largest cities in the us each have more people than the entire United States did at independence it is worth asking what sort of political reforms are possible
Which strikes me as a good idea. Particularly since DC retrocession and merging low population states (also elegant) have no legs.
Every metro with population above median or average of existing US states should have the option of forming a new state. Seems to work for Berlin/Bremen/Hamburg in Germany, and various metros in other countries.
China treats its major cities (and the nearby area) at the province level: Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing. So it's not unprecedented among governing systems. And given the size of those areas, it is a pragmatic approach.
And the other party doesn't want people having representation at all.
For the record, the popular vote percentages for the Democrats in the past 3 senate elections were: 53.0%, 58.2%, and 47.0%. That averages 52.7%, so gaining an extra two senate seats would still mean the Democrats were under-represented.
(I know that the purpose of the senate is not to represent each citizen equally, I just thought it was worth pointing out which parts of the country have the most grounds for complaint).
The senate exists because 13 formerly independent, sovereign political units decided to form a United federal superstructure above them. Some of these states had land claims that went out to Pacific Ocean at the time and it wouldn’t have made any sense to enter into a union with states that would be wildly out of proportion in potentially a very short time.
Since then 37 more states have joined, almost all carved out of territory formerly owned by the federal government itself, settled largely by people from other states and immigrants under the direction of said federal government. They were never independently sovereign units yet we all live under the political bargains that were struck to reach an agreement with the original 13.
The system was not designed with this reality in mind, it was a pragmatic decision dressed up with the political theory of the time. If “protecting minority interests” were that important, there are much better systems designs that actually are tailored to fit the political realities of America in 2021.
I mean, it isn't? If DC voted Republican then they'd be totally in favour of making it a state. It's not a secret that is the reason why DC statehood has no traction in Congress. You can make a case for retrocession, but the other arguments are understood by everyone to be a fig leaf.
The same was true in the past: Alaska and Hawaii were admitted essentially as a two-for-one deal because Alaska was reliably Republican and Hawaii reliably Democrat. If both had been one or the other they might have had to wait a long time. And the arguments would have been facially plausible (but not real) here too: the importance of territorial contiguity, the low population of Alaska, the difficulties of establishing effective transportation links, whatever.
The number of people who are for (small-d) democratic advances regardless of whether they benefit their own party is (in my view depressingly) low.
> and that majority interests don’t trample minority interests.
By ensuring (by overrepresenting the same interests overrepresented in the House by a smaller margin, and in the electoral college by a margin in between that of the two Houses of Congress) that a particular minority will reliably be able to trample the interests of the opposing majority.
Rhode Island is a small state, it isn’t rural. Hawaii is a small state, above average population density. Small and large on an electoral basis refer to population size.
Most of the people living in DC work for the federal government either directly or indirectly. That represents a huge conflict of interest, and was the reason DC was created in the first place. No one lived in DC before it was created, so the people that have put down roots there did so knowing they wouldn't have representation in the federal government.
