1. DC as the 51st state = bad idea.

   Give part of DC back to Maryland would be a better idea.

   Even better, make DC its own country, and therefore separate it from the 50 states.

2. Why is granting Statehood to D.C. a bad idea?

3. DC was specifically not granted statehood, because they did not want a federal city gaining too much power.

   I favor putting more restriction on who can vote. I would like to see voting “rights” stripped away from anyone who works for or contracts with government, or who receives welfare handouts from government (includes corporate welfare; I would at least like to see the boards of corporations who receive handouts from the state barred from voting). I would also like to see the aforementioned groups barred from donating to political campaigns.

   Why? Because these are all people with a conflict of interest. People with conflicts of interests in a court case are already barred from being on juries (and note that jurors vote on whether or not a person is guilty), so it is really not a stretch to suggest that people who have a vested interest in growing the size and power of the state should be barred from voting or donating to political campaigns. Is government the servant or the master? If government is supposed to be the servant of the people, instead of the master, it is not going to remain that way for very long if the supposed “servants” in government are allowed to vote or donate to political campaigns.

   So under my proposal, many of the people who inhabit the cesspool of corruption on the Potomic, known as Washington DC, or the District of Columbia (or perhaps more appropriately, the District of Corruption, or the District of Criminals), would not be allowed to vote, or donate to political campaigns.

4. Congress and the Supreme Court should each move around the country, and the area along the mall made a national historical park. The remainder of DC should be returned to Maryland.

5. Great idea, Jim!

6. Not a bad idea, Jim.

7. Toss in repealing the cap on the number of members of the House of Representatives and that would make for real progress in restoring America!

8. Under Andy’s proposal all senior citizens would lose the right to vote since they receive social security and medicare; and before anyone says something, everyone gets medicare regardless of whether they paid in or not. It is a government welfare program.

9. Also, all military personnel, anyone who’s received federal student loans, all elected officials, the list goes on.

10. Andy’s first comment was right. After that, as Brandon has already noted, he went off the rails.

    ==

    Casual Observer: Let’s get some “National” level Representatives elected on a PR basis. Hell, let’s get some national-level Senators elected that way, too. (Each state would still have its own “equal vote” so, IMO, could not object.

11. Brandon, first of all, there is a difference between general welfare, and specific welfare. General welfare is something everyone case use, like a road, or a sidewalk, whereas specific welfare only benefits a particular individual, or group.

    Second of all, we would not be in tbe mess that we are in today if my proposal for restrictions on voting had been put in place a long time ago. If I had been a delegate to the constitutional convention, I’d have pushed for adding this to tbe Constitution.

    I would also like to see another restriction on voting, whereas in order to vote, one has to pass a test on the Constitution. People who are too lazy to bother to know what the Constitution says, or who are too stupid to know what the Constitution says, should have no business voting.

    Democracy and freedom are not the same thing. Pure democracy is actually dangerous, because it leads to mob rule and tyranny of the majority, and you end up with various special interest groups all battling for who gets to plunder and control the rest of the population. It is a contest between which group of liars and parasites get to loot the public treasury in order to benefit themselves and their cronies, at the expense of everyone else.

    So yes, weeding out parasites and the ignorant from voting would be an improvement over the present system. Think of an election free from the Teacher’s Union, the Police Union, the Prison Guard’s Union, defense contractors, bankers, welfare leeches, and others who feed at the public trough. This would create an electorate where libertarian and constitutionalist type people could actually win.

12. But, wait. If they make most of DC a state, does that mean that the small portion that remains, presumably with a tiny resident population, gets to keep their 3 electoral votes??

13. A FEDERAL govt for the States >>> a FEDERAL Capitol — NOT under the Control of any State.

    See Federalist.

    Uniform Definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA.

    ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND SENATE.

    PR and AppV and TOTSOP.

    —-
    PR would quickly show the NET tax getters/LOOTERS vs NET tax payers/SLAVES.

14. SocraticGadfly- I have no objection to alternative voting systems but my suggestion does not require a constitutional amendment. By merely repealing a piece of legislation and returning to the Founders’ intent for the “People’s House” to actually represent the people. The House would expand to one representative for every 50,000 or even 100,000 people. That would mean 6600 or 3300 representatives. It would be very difficult for special interests to own that many folks. With today’s technology it shouldn’t be that difficult to meet virtually or even have half a dozen locations around the country and still meet virtually. This concept would tie in nicely with Jim Riley’s idea above of having Congress and the Supreme Court actually meet in different parts of the country on a regular basis.

15. CO-

    Since when does ANY law need a mob scene to enact it ???

    PR = MAJORITY RULE —

    TO E-N-D THE CURRENT NONSTOP ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE REGIMES –

    USA CONGRESS, ALL STATE LEGISLATURES, MANY LOCAL REGIMES.

16. What Andy said. Plus, require passing the basic citizenship test for voter registration, along with a 5-year (same as for drivers licenses) voter registration renewal / address verification.

17. @ CO:

    IMO,the Wyoming plan is the simplest way to expand the House of Reps to the minimum size necessary to maintain proportionality. And, it’s probably the least contentious way to do it.

18. Abolish ALL the low pop States — unless each pays the same USA taxes as the largest State.

    PR and AppV and TOTSOP.

19. WALTER ZIOBRO- if I understand the Wyoming plan that would still only expand the number of representatives by a hundred and forty or so. I favor the House to be truly the democratic part of the national government which means many more reps directly elected by a much smaller number that 575,000 citizens per representative.

20. DC was created by taking land from Virginia and Maryland. Virginia took their section back, it is only fitting Maryland does the same (minus federal buildings and The Mall). The non voting rep becomes a voting rep from Maryland, and the federal government is still not in a state.

    As to whether the DC electoral college votes are removed, that may require amending the Constitution; I am not sure. It would only be a net loss of two, since Maryland gains one.

21. Just give it all back to Maryland, including the capitol and Mall, if they are willing to take it. Maybe even pay them to take it back.

    There are already important federal buildings scattered all over VA and MD, and for that matter the rest of the country – NIH in Maryland, CDC in Georgia, Pentagon in Virginia, among many others. Somehow they worked it all out with payments in lieu of taxes, arrangements with the local police, etc. No one seriously worries anymore that Virginia will seize control of the DoD.

22. @WZ,

    HR 51 would permit residents of residual District of Columbia to vote in their State of last residence, It would repeal the statutes implementing the 23rd Amendment. There is no penalty for not appointing electors, and a majority is based on the number of electors appointed.

    The new state would be known as “State of Washington, Douglas Commonwealth”

23. Why not the new ***DONKEY Communism*** State ???

    — keep olde DC snail mail zip codes.

24. Should elect NONPARTISAN exec ombudspersons in smaller districts

    — USA [and colonies] and all States.

25. WZ – ANOTHER OPTION

    HAVE ZERO HUMAN RESIDENTS IN DC.

    REPEAL 23 AMDT.

26. Fixations with ANTI-Democracy *founders*

    —
    1. esp SLAVERY
    2. esp USA Senate – AREA fixation
    3. ESP USA Electoral College – AREA fixation

    aka *compromises* with the DEVIL.

    1. down/out the very hard way
    2 and 3 yet to be wiped out.
    —
    PR and AppV and TOTSOP

27. What about a constitutional amendment that repeals the 23rd, and declares that residents of DC are citizens of the state that ceded the territory? (Sort of an addendum to the 14th amendment.)

28. Just to clarify my above statement in regard to why government employees (including those receiving pensions), contractors, and welfare recipients (including corporate welfare, at least the board of directors), should not be abke to vote, or donate to political campaigns, I do not mean to indicate that I think that they are all bad people. I do think that some of them are bad people, while others among them just needed a job, or got thrust into a bad set of circumstances, or have been miseducated (as have most people), or are just “going with the flow”. I know that a small handful, probably a very small handful, are even libertarians, or are libertarian leaning. My point here is that the incentives when these people vote and donate to campaigns are bad, because the incentive is fir them to support policies which expand their own wealth and power,
    and when you examine the voting patterns, and the campaign donation patterns, of these people, the results are clearly skewed in favor of an ever expanding government. Like I said above, people with conflicts of interest are already barred from being jurors on cases where the conflict of interest occurs, so I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that those with conflucts of interest because they derive their living and/orreceive special handouts from the state, should be barred from voting or donating to political campaigns.

    If this provision had been put in place in this country, Ibet that we’d have a more free, peaceful, and prosperous society right now.

29. Andy –

    6,000 plus years

    NET tax getters [GOVT LOOTERS] vs NET tax payers [TAX SLAVES].

    By Nov 2020 ALL USA/States/Locals debt will be about a mere

    $ 40 TRILLION

    4 and a mere 13 unlucky zeroes

    means ZERO to such LOOTERS — my estimate about 35-40 pct of USA population —

    who esp vote in gerrymander left/right primaries to keep the LOOT coming.
    —-
    REDUCE LOOTING

    PR and AppV and TOTSOP

30. Andy- I’m sure you mean well but you are only going to get wet when that stuff comes back down the rope!

31. Consti Lib, I am not involved in this stuff to tell everybody what they want to hear, I am here to speak the truth.

32. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-cant-handle-the-truth

    The Truth –
    ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders CONTROL the USA since 4 July 1776 –

    ie a SMALL number of top hack MONSTER CONTROL FREAK monarchs/oligarchs.

    —
    PR and AppV and TOTSOP

33. Andy, you’re on to something with this conflict of interest. But we also need to be aware of the many ways people can have conflicts of interest that aren’t an obvious paycheck.

    We also need to deny a vote to property owners who could win or lose specific benefits through zoning regulations. They often vote to increase their own property value by limiting land available for development or restricting their neighbors.

    Also people who work in licensed professions or in lines of business requiring a permit: we don’t want them voting to prohibit competition. Also people working in industries affected by unionization since they could vote to have the NLRB make their employers give them a pay raise. Just to be safe, any industry potentially affected by unionization.

    You also have a good point about understanding the constitution. Voting should also be restricted to those who can show that they understand election law.

    What it boils down to: the right to vote should be restricted to non-real-estate-owning people who are self-employed in the unregulated gig economy, and are also experts in constitutional and election law.

    Did I describe you accurately? Wouldn’t want to disenfranchise you or anything….

34. Sorry – right to vote for all folks due to chances for WARS and rebellions – esp TAX rebellions

    — along with *normal* major changes in status.

35. I could see prohibiting people from voting on certain ballot questions if they have a conflict of interest, even if they are not otherwise prohibited from voting.

    Keep in mind that if my restrictions on voting proposals had been put in place a long time ago, a lot of the government programs and regulations in place today would likely not exist.

36. “Keep in mind that if my restrictions on voting proposals had been put in place a long time ago, a lot of the government programs and regulations in place today would likely not exist.”

    That’s certainly true, but we don’t know what other programs and regulations your preferred voters would have enacted and whether they’d be better or worse.

    Seriously, places with relatively restricted franchise (e.g. the Southern US) didn’t end up relatively more libertarian. I think the evidence is against you.

    The focus should be on limiting the scope of government, not limiting who can vote. In case you didn’t get it my previous comment was intended to be sarcastic.

37. I disagree. Your example of blacks not being able to vote in the old South does not take anything away from what I said. Blacks could not vote anywhere in this country until after a constitutional amendment was passed after the Civil War, and even then, it was only black men who could vote, as women could not vote until several decades later. Also, slave owners used the government, as the government sanctioned slavery, and the government’s police and courts enforced slavery. So if anything, your example actually provided reasons for slave owners to have not been able to vote, or donate to political campaigns.

    If one is serious about reducing government, you are not going to be successful unless you recognize that pure democracy is bad, democracy (in general) and freedom are not the same thing, and there are various groups of people who have a vested interest in an ever expanding state, and/or who have a predisposition that favors an ever expanding state, and that if these people are allowed to participate in politics, they will use it to their advantage, and overwhelm those who want little or no coercive government, and this is exactly what is happening right now, and has been happening for a long time in this country. One of tbe reasons the US Constitution has failed to reign in government is due to the lack of defense mechanisms in place in the Constitution. The US Constitution left too many loopholes for the ill intentioned to exploit. No mechanism to weed out parasites and the ignorant from taking part in politics was one of them.

38. I’d be willing to bet that everyone who objects to my assertion that government employees, contractors, and welfare recipients be barred from voting or donating to political campaigns, due to them having a conflict of interest, would throw a hissy fit if they were facing a jury trial, and there was one or more persons on the jury that had a conflict of interest in the case that went against them, and that they would call to remove the person or persons with the conflict of interest from the jury. Keep in mind that jurors vote, so by removing a juror due to have a conflict of interest, you are disenfranching them from voting on the trial.

39. “The US Constitution left too many loopholes for the ill intentioned to exploit.” – Andy

    Like swearing an oath to it and then not actually following through. Proposal: Rule number one… you will follow through on your oath to the Constitution or you will be shot! We will need no rule number two. 😉

40. Consti Lib, that is not a bad idea. I had an idea awhile ago for a constitutional amendment whereas any citizens could take it upon themselves to punish any government official at any level who violates any section of the Constitution. I would call it the Vigilante Justice Amendment. The way it would work would be that such incidents would go to a jury trial (and of course government employees and contractors would be barred from serving on the jury, as would anyone else with a conflict of interest), and if the citizen vigilante could prove that the government official violated any section of the Constitution, the citizen vigilante would be found Not Guilty.

41. Limited Voters = one more gang of oligarchs —

    exploiting the non-voters — as in the 1878-1964 olde rotted ex-slave States.

    Too many political-history MORONS on this list to count.

42. Was it a conflict of interest for USA folks in 8 Dec 1941 to 14 Aug 1945 to make loans to the USA regime for WAR bonds to finance the defeat the killers/enslavers in the Axis Powers —

    and then to have taxes imposed to pay the interest on such WAR bonds ???

    Oldest USA debt NOT paid off ??? — before / during / after 1861 [Civil WAR I] ???

43. Andy, you’d lose the bet on the jury. I think there are already way tool many exclusions from juries, which leads to non-libertarian stuff like 150 people being placed in the custody of a bailiff for days while the lawyers question them and try find 12 out of the 150 without a “conflict of interest”. It ought to be a random pick with each side allowed maybe one exclusion for cause.

    Conflict of interest is like the Kevin Bacon game. You can always find CoI if you want to.

    And in any case you’ve got it backwards. People vote BECAUSE they have an interest in the outcome, not because they don’t. Using your logic, we ought to let Zambians pick our president because they’re completed unbiased and have no stake it the output.

44. An edit feature would be really great on this site.

    Tool -> too
    it the output -> in the outcome

45. Federalist No. 43 [Madison] Misc Powers — DC item 2

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.