Discusses how people, politics, the Web, and Social Networks interact with each other. Some entries are also personal opinions and throughts.
Published on August 26, 2004 By acohen843 In Politics

Which United State's city is not in a state? It is located within the continental United States. It is on the East coast. It is the capital of the United States. Yes, it is Washington D.C.

Washingtonians have a mayor but have no governor or Senate representation. They have one member in the House of Representatives, Eleanor Holmes Norton. Thomas Jefferson selected their first mayor in 1802.

This city consists of 69 square miles of land that was originally part of Virginia and Maryland. George Washington chose this area as a compromise to the Northern and Southern states. It is one of the few cities in the world that was specifically planned and built to be the capital of a country.

Many believe that this city deserves statehood. Others do not.

I believe Washingtonians deserve full and complete representation. Therefore this city should become a state. However, can the capital be neutral? Does statehood give this city a greater allegiance to itself above the country?

No. We have 100 senators. Two senators from D.C. will not make our capital partial or unable to act as our capital. The majority party may change but this can be the result of any election.

Is size the issue? In terms of square miles, Rhode Island is much larger than Washington D.C. However, in terms of population, Rhode Island is only twice as large (Rhode Island 2000 est. pop. 1,048,319, Washington D.C. 2002 est. pop. 570,898).

Wyoming's population is less than D.C's. (2000 est. pop. 493,782), while the following states have less than twice D.C's. population:

  • North Dakota (2000 est. pop. 642,200),
  • South Dakota (2000 est. pop. 754,844), and
  • Montana (2000 est. pop. 902,195).
Obviously statehood is a complex issue. My arguments are minor; they serve just to get people to think about this issue.

Please share your thoughts with me.

Comments
on Aug 26, 2004
I believe one of the inherent problems with statehood for DC is its inherently transient population. While the majority of citizens are full time residents there, there are still many who come and go with different administrations. Giving DC full statehood would encourage carpetbagging by the president in power; many senators' staffers and sympathetic voters from surrounding states that already take up part time residence in DC would be likely to make DC their legal primary residence for the purpose of political control. This could have a tremendous impact on a narrowly divided Senate.

One of the other things that make a state a state is that there is some diversity within the state itself; even Rhode Island has some rural areas. DC does not have this, it is basically built to the max.

Finally, statehood would give DC an unfair economic advantage on the rest of the nation, as certain funding initiatives that are based on state by state distribution would give DC a disproportionate amount of funding because of its land-to-resident ratio. DC schools, for instance, would be given funding based on the number of residents, and because of the size of the city, the funding would give them more of an allowance on a per building basis than a number of rural schools.

Your arguments for statehood are very good; however, I do believe that the tradition founded in DC remaining politically "neutral" is a tradition that should continue.

Insightful post.
on Aug 27, 2004
Great post, great info. I remember this being an issue in the mid-90's when D.C. was asking for another bailout from the government....
on Aug 27, 2004
DC will never become a state because it would add 2 automatically Democratic Senators.