On October 27, the Washington, D.C. city council held hearings on PR 21-302, which would authorize the city government to launch a multi-media and petition campaign for statehood for the District of Columbia. See this story. The bill is co-sponsored by a majority of members of the council, so it is likely to pass. The lead author is Councilmember Vincent Orange.
Bills are introduced in every session of Congress for statehood. These bills always specify that the name of the state would be New Columbia. The current bill, by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting representative for D.C. in the House, is HR 317. It has 125 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats.
Some critics claim the bill is unconstitutional, because there are certain parts of the U.S. Constitution that seem to imply that D.C. can’t be a state. On the other hand, critics of the status quo argue that the United States is the only nation in the world in which adult citizens in the national capital have no voting representation in the national legislature.
We have fun because we all love being part of the International Parliament:
http://www.international-parliament.org
It is not uncommon for people to not understand what the International Parliament (IP) does, even after the explanation has been provided.
I will try to explain.
A political entity exists in order to be a part of the government.
Since the IP implies we want to be part of the international government, then you might think we want to be part of the United Nations.
We do want to be part of the UN but we are outsiders in many ways because of the way the UN elects their members and executives.
The best answer may be that we are an international entity that exists outside the UN.
Much like a new political party is outside any nation’s government because they are too small and the threshold for our members being elected into the UN or a nation’s government is too high.
That is like a road block.
So we can exist only on a sub-atomic level, much like a political party with no representation in a government.
A political entity is a free speech word and stacks of ballots marked and shown as proof are able to elect representatives which is needed because not everyone has the time to be part of a decision-making elected entity so representatives who have the time and inclination are elected in their stead.
One of the accomplishments is to register new voters into our system and/or other governments, as a united effort.
The process for working together, voting, thinking and making decisions as a team, is what we do.
Why do we do it? To be part of a governing body (i.e. “elections”) as a peaceful decision-making alternative to force and violence. The alternative is dictatorship or no teamwork to do good things for the good of the whole. Anarchy is good but sometimes we need to make decisions to coordinate and synchronize with each other.
We use pure proportional representation PR, because the fairest way to be inclusive and equal to all is by PR.
In that we have an “edge” or “the juice”.
The juice is the unity that the most mathematically fair voting system known produces.
Believe it or not, the Hagenbach-Bishoff method it so perfect that there hasn’t been a more perfect voting system since it was developed in the early 1900s.
By using that, our team is always united and no person is treated less fair than anyone, and that satisfaction gives us a unique unity psychology like none before.
That unity is just information. And the marked eballots and paper ballots are the proof which guarantees the unity to be sustained.
The unity also produces good feelings and humor. When we have unity then fussing and fighting is a source of humor, not sadness.
A simpler solution is to treat the residents of the District of Columbia as residents of Maryland for federal elections, including the House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency.
It would be better if Congress rotated its meeting place among the States. A State could provide a congressional residential village, similar to a Olympic village.
Yes, but that would take a constitutional amendment, because it conflicts with the 23rd amendment.
No it doesn’t.
The 23rd Amendment doesn’t say anything about residents of the District of Columbia voting in popular elections for any office.
Read what it says.
Congress could provide that one elector be appointed on the basis of the popular vote in Maryland, and one each by the leaders of the two largest party factions in Congress.
Dana Rohrbacher used to propose such legislation on a regular basis.
It says, “The District constituting the seat of Government of the U.S. shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and V-P 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.”
I have to admit I kind of like the “Jimbo Riley Rule.” But let’s try it first on an experimental basis in, oh, let’s say Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota and Wyoming. Maybe for the next four or five presidential elections. One of each state’s electors will get appointed based on the popular vote in Maryland, and their remaining two electors will be appointed, one each by the leaders of the two largest party factions in Congress.