The Big Trouble if DC Becomes the 51st State 

Not gonna be a fun conversation at the dinner table on Pennsylvania Avenue

I believe that it could set up a serious paradox come election time, especially if there are not enough members of that district who are not holding a public office to be appointed as electors. (This means that the President can not be his own elector.)

There is argument that certain former presidents actually didn't want to win. It was originally set up to scam money.

@@davegreenlaw5654 that’s an excellent point! Though the Constitution doesn’t say the electors of a state or the federal district must be residents of that state or the district. It says the state’s legislatures will choose the method and likewise that Congress will choose the method for the district. Though currently all states have laws that state they must be residents and Congress likewise has established that the electors of the federal district must be residents so it is indeed setting up such a paradox if Congress didn’t change any statutes.

That would give the president and his family more voting power than the Royal Family of many countries.

That being the case, what would happen to DC’s 3 electors?

DC is the most woke city in the US.. Burn it to the ground!

@@loganiushere they would get thrown out likely

If they change their voter registration to DC they're in.

@@loganiushere Good question. The President is also able to change their residency remember Trump entered as a NY resident, but in 2020 voted as a FL resident. That means that the President could choose DC residency.

at the next census yes, but until the census of 2030, it would be 436.

​@@ThornesOddWorldWtf are you talking about?

@@Vortex1988 by law, congressional reapportionment can only happen after a census, however if a new state is admitted to the Union, they must have at least one representative. so the number would temporarily change to 436 to allow for representation then after the next census, go back to 435

​@Vortex1988 he's not wrong

There's nothing to say that law has to remain in place. It's a really stupid law, too. It *should* be repealed, and the size of the House of Representatives significantly increased.

Nah. DC should be its own state. If Wyoming can be a state, DC can.

@@patpat8727 but in this context, it's showing that people won't allow it. If I were a resident in DC (I live nearby but not in it) I would want an assurance of full representation now and not a pie-in-the-sky dream of statement that will likely never come in my lifetime. (edit for grammar)

​@patpat8727 Wyoming is massive, states are not just based on population its a compromise between land and people with the ultimate aim to placate/prevent secession.

This, except the Virginia land was already returned. It should simply be part of Maryland

no it shouldn't. DC has been administered and governed independently for more than 200 years. There has never been a political state or district just disappeared in this country.@@homuraakemi9556

Wait you mean not everyone knows that?

Wait, people don’t know that, granted I live in Arlington so

That is technically true, but Pantagon have Washington DC mailing address.

@@bababababababa6124 well yeah not everyone lives in America

that isn't a fun fact. More like an obvious fact

you do know that you live on a military base it was federalize during ww2

@@scruf153 that doesn’t change anything they’ve said

Too bad. DC was not meant to be lived in. Allowing DC to be a state opens it up to partisan politics and you don't want the capitol to be influenced by either party

@@oecw124 half of the capital was given to Virginia so idk what you by the capital will be influenced by an individual party if it was split properly like the map in the video showed multiple times; that you obviously did not pay attention to

@@oecw124 ok and? It doesn't matter what it was "intended to be". What matters is how it is now and we have a larger population that 2 states.

Facts. No reason for DC to be separated

That's correct. Although the non-vote Resident Commissioner and the non-voting Delegates can vote in Committee meetings if they're a member of said committee.

they're effectively colonies

I heard was very pro Trump. So unlikely they will be ever allowed to vote.

Those areas are all colonized by the us.

Important fact is that they dont pay taxes

Wendover makes mistakes in a surprising amount of videos but we still love him

Walter Washington entered office as Mayor-Commissioner of DC on November 7, 1967. Carl B Stokes took office as mayor of Cleveland on November 13 six days later. Both tremendous achievements

@@RealLifeLore hi

@Patrick Hudson It's a major American city, due to population. It's just not a relevant, popular, or desirable city to live in.

🤔@@MarvinPowell1tell me you've never been to Cleveland without saying it, oh wait, you just did

LOL

It would be funny asl if DC lost statehood again

I hear both republican FL senators support their statehood just so they won’t have to continue their ongoing exodus to Miami

Tbh, I've always wondered WHY we never made Puerto Rico the 51st state. I would definitely be interested in seeing a similar video about Puerto Rico as this one about Wash DC.

@SteamCat Thank you for the clarification and explanation. I appreciate it 👍🏻

Puerto Rico has way too many issues to become a state. Corruption is off the charts. My favorite story is the warehouse of equipment locked up for one of their hurricanes to make Trump look bad. Let them become their own country if they want.

Puerto Rico is one of 7 US territories, including Guam, Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, etc

I don’t think Cleveland is a major city in most people’s eyes.

Which Cleveland are you talking about?

@@ChrisAn5 They had roughly the same number of people as DC did in 67

@@ChrisAn5 trade on Lake Erie and had canals and railways

@@ChrisAn5 Uhmm...ok.

Yes, we would have to carve out an evenly proportioned conservative state from the east of California.

51 is a prime number though. United, indivisable with liberty and justice for all yada yada.

@@erkl8823Or the liberal sections of every state?

@@huy1k995 Do you even know what prime number means? Apparently not.

We would need new flags. A lot of new flags.

Yeah, except that is a terrible idea.

@@calvinhobbes6646 Agreed. This country is already divided enough as is. If this was truly about representation then becoming part of Maryland is a solution but no...they want to tip the scales democrat, that is the goal. NOT representation.

@@Psycho-go5yr If you cared about representation you'd get rid of of the electoral college. Don't pretend like you care about democracy. You care about winning.

@@sickrantorum693 your absolutely right I don't care about the democracy. I care about the Republic as the founders intended. People should have their say but mob rule is just as awful a prospect as an absolute dictatorship. People can be fooled into making absolutely terrible decisions in mass. World War II should be a clear example of that. The scary mustached man was voted in. As for losing, I absolutely can take a lose as long as it came about fairly. This crap about packing the courts, and adding new states to get more senators, and repealing the electoral college because it doesn't serve your needs is all about winning. Stop projecting your flaws onto me.

@@Psycho-go5yr If the only thing that mattered was the position taken by the national Democratic Party then yes, it would be about political power. But the actual people of D.C want their own state. They just happen to lean Democrat. If it was the other way around, the Republican Party would support statehood while Democrats would oppose it. Because of this, to create a logical solution, the political implications should be ignored and D.C should become its own state simply because the voters want it and there's no moral justification to keep the status quo while the residents pay federal taxes. Unless you want to exempt D.C taxpayers from paying federal taxes, which is another discussion.

Originally the vote to pass a law was the same as a filibuster but during the 1st Obama term this was changed to a simple majority

@@jetheotaku Wish they had kept it that way, but never had the filibuster. If anything, one would have expected the filibuster to be an easier bar to entry, not hard, or the same.

It makes a little sense tbh. What is to stop a senator from talking non-stop thereby preventing legislation from coming to a vote? What if everyone in the Senate wanted to hear what he has to say?

Its because the US is a republic, it has democratic elements but they are used in conjunction with three diffent branches of government with checks and balances to secure individual rights of it citizens, some of which is the idea of minority rights so a slim majority can't oppress a slim minority

​​@@wissamkadamaniIreland had a lad who did that back in the 19th century Charles Stewart Parnell had a seat in the house of commons in England as England was dismissive of his attempts to secure home rule for Ireland he just spent days opening up random books and reading them for hours aloud and nobody could stop him.

They could put a Batman on the flag to represent DC

Virginia already had their land returned to them.

@@JamesRea2so only Maryland would be gaining then. That wouldn’t be such an issue. The fact that Maryland wants nothing to do with absorbing DC residents tells you all you need to know about those who live in DC. There’s no reason a single city needs 3 electoral votes in a presidential election.

Most capitals in the Eastern US followed the same principle of not being a major economic center and therefore not the largest city.

@@Jtzkb yeah, I really don't get it. This is the obvious solution... you want representation? Go to a place where you get representation! I did see a comment that said that this idea was stupid because they don't want to be part of those states, but I really don't understand that perspective. If you see the solution, but don't take the solution, you can't get mad when you don't get what you want. Thats like saying that you want a sand castle, but when I hand you a shovel and bucket you throw a tantrum.

@@Jtzkb it also is the headquarters for many, many large organizations. If you're a large ngo, you have a DC office. If you're a large labor organization, you have a DC office. Religious group? DC office. Etc etc. It's definitely not just federal employees based there, a lot of other bodies have to be based there to help with federal partnerships and other functions. And beyond that, you still need all the usual things associated with a city. There's a ton of arts and culture organizations here, food and hospitality, etc. Plus blue collar workers of all occupations to keep the lights on. A lot of the folks coming in with hot takes about DC clearly have never visited or only spent like two days here as a tourist. Stripping it down to "just federal employees and a few grocery stores" is ridiculous when the bulk of residents are not fed employees to begin with.

@@roflcopterIII It's only 10 miles squared. I board the DC metro at freaking Vienna. My Dad boards the VRE at Manassas. You can work in DC without living in DC. People can move if they want to solve the problem. Or, they can stop wanting to have their cake and eat it too and join Maryland. They're stuck in an awkward position, but they don't want a solution. They want to exploit it for political power.

@@Jtzkb “let’s move 700,000 people from their homes and leave an entire city abandoned to rot away, that’s a good idea”.

Great observation!

That wasn’t how it worked bud 💀

Washington in Washington!

President Johnson forced mayor Washington on the city

@@CopyandPaste101 its called a meme ☠️☠️☠️☠️💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀

Very much so. Goes to show that the founding fathers of the Constitution were far from infallible. At the time it was probably fine since so few people lived there and it was built from the ground up. If someone decided to move to DC then they knew what they were in for. In addition, voting was only for land-owning white men anyways. Senators originally couldn't even represent their own states.

Like, 100x100 feet would've been nice(r)...

It's like the framers got some stuff wrong (a lot of stuff wrong) and we should fix it. But we don't fix any of it bc they made a lot of it very hard to fix without breaking the whole system (which is what we should do).

@@patpat8727 If any of what you said happened it would spell a hundred dictatorships consuming what was once the Us like what happened to the soviet union after they fell. it would be overall negative for you and everyone who has to actually live here

@@juwebles4352 literally none of what you said makes sense.

That’s fascinating.

Yeah I don't get why the US finds it so hard. Aus has the same thing; Canberra is in the Australian Capital Territory, which isn't a state. They still vote. You don't need to become a fully fledged state to be able to vote, at the very least federally.

@@hashbrown777 you can vote federally in DC. If by federally you mean for president

I see DC having that same issue if it becomes a state. Perhaps we can cut off the city from Federal funds apart from the fed government buildings in exchange for it becoming a state.

@@hashbrown777 making DC a state is the right and fair thing to do. Everybody knows this, but the problem is politics. As he showed us on the charts, granting DC statehood is a very partisan issue. I predict it will only happen when and if Democrats have enough of a majority in Congress to pass the bill and avoid a Republican filibuster. There would also need to be a Democratic president so that the bill was not vetoed.

There are over 700k people. What are you talking about.

​@@mrbrainbob5320he lives in 10th century

I think he meant to comment on another video but auto play messed it up.

That's right.... Most videos like this have many mistakes.

@David Bishop Yes, and comments are there to help provide corrections or additional information. One person can only give one perspective with so much knowledge. Thousands to Millions of people coming to a video provide many perspectives in the comments with even more information

Cleveland shouldn't count. We set a river on fire.

@@samreddig8819 😂

@@samreddig8819 A fellow Reddig, we are a rare breed my friend

On the Virginia side, you can definitely see the old borders of DC before the Civil War with how the cities are.

@@kosjeyr The Arlington County line follows the original DC border. The city of Alexandria grew over and obliterated part of that.

Exactly. Yet it has become a bastion of leftist ideology.

Correct. You know more about American civics than most Americans

Yes, however the population was never expected to be as large as it is.

There you go understanding history and stuff.

@@ohari1 What's your point?

A relative majority then. the effect is still the same.

I think the percentage is actually 44.5%. I guess the right term would be largest demographic.

Unless the other half is not a solid single group too, like percentages of other ethnic groups.

One point it was over 80%

🤓

Correct

This was due to something in 1929 no?

This needs to change.

@@DrBeauHightower Your content is an absolute bruh moment.

Meant to say that it would temporarily increase to 436 until the 2030 census, where the seats would then be re-apportioned

I know! why can't people understand this concept? Did they not learn this in school? Let me guess no one learns anything about government in modern school Washington DC was borrowed from two separate states. The concept of the United States being 50 individual states is lost in the 2020s

@@bananafoneable It's a failure of our educational system that people don't know about such a niche and inconsequential fact.

I'm trying to figure out your point.

@@Kozvickinconsequential as much as hearing about this every year for the last 100 years. No one's going to do anything about it. But it does drive voters. 🙄🤷‍♂️

We don't need a president nor congress or much Of any of that totalitarian, authoritarian bullsheet.

Oh wow I forgot about the census 🤦‍♂️, good job on pointing it out!! 😁

Yes at which point either California or New York would have to surrender a seat to the new state. Basically a democratic congressmen subtracted from one and added to the other. So no net gain nor loss for the house. The big difference would be the addition of two senate seats both of which almost certainly would be Democrats which is most likely the biggest reason the Republicans will fight this tooth and nail.

@nunya biznez No, there's no telling what state that Rep would be deducted from. It would be one that was either losing population or gaining population by the smallest amount. Where I live, Michigan, despite gaining a small amount of people, nonetheless lost a Representative for I believe the third straight Census. In 1999, we had 3 more Reps than we have today. The House is mandated to stay at 435. The odds are decent that a Blue State will lose that Rep, but not guarateed.

Or how about we repeal the apportionment act and then just maybe we would actually have a chance of seeing our representative at the local gas station, grocery store or soccer game and wouldn't need to attend a $1000 a plate dinner to redress our grievances. After which maybe we can talk about the 17th amendment while we are at it.

I should add that Congress has generally preferred keeping the membership of the HoR at an odd number so there is no chance of a tie (if every rep. actually votes). They would probably change the number in the event that a new state were added, if that would lead to an even number (and they would probably increase the number of reps. so as to solve the issue of a state loosing at least one rep.)

DC isn't getting admitted to anything. There would need to be a whole lot of "fortification" of states that otherwise have fair, first world elections. And plus, the powers that be don't want blood in the streets because a civil war is hard to have such power over as they enjoy today.

The DC admission act proposes more seats on the cap

@@St0ckwell Honestly expanding the seats in the House is long overdue. The House is supposed to be closer to the people, it's hard to do that when House districts now have more than 700,000 people.

@@St0ckwell based

@@1C3CR34M, oh, neat. Thanks!

Puerto rico independent

Like we wanted two more Liberal states. Counter proposal if we ate taking wishful thinking - split up NY and Michigans from the large cities and give it statehood in exchange for DC giving statehood.

Of the things you mentioned, only the Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery are in the portion of DC that was retroceded to Virginia - that part is now called Arlington County and the City of Alexandria. The land that CIA, Fort Belvoir, and NGA HQ sit on is all in Fairfax County and was never part of the district. There are almost 400,000 people living in those two areas. But you're right about the MD and DC borders extending all the way across the Potomac (to the low tide line on the far side, anyway.)

Ironic that this stance one day facilitated the president preventing military assistance on January 6th

@@ClementWilliamstheoneandonly Actually, it was the Speaker of the House that prevented the military assistance.

@@ninmastnunyabiz9404 odd considering only the president can deploy the national guard

@@Gavin79746 Yes, and he offered, but the speaker has the right to refuse, the same way as any governor. In this case, Nancy Pelosi refused the offer of military assistance.

@@ninmastnunyabiz9404 No such right exists. Stop getting your information from right-wing propaganda. The President is the commander-in-chief of the US Military. The Speaker has no rank

D.C. is a real shit hole...

In terms of drivers, DC and MD are indistinguishable.

lol well I'm sure their Dem mayor and Dem city council are working hard to make the peoples lives better :P

@@MrBoneFishie Doing their best with Republicans in Congress and sometimes a Republican president getting in the way. Did you watch the video?

That’s how I tell when I’m entering Michigan from Ohio 😂

And how long is that gonna last?

@@randomperson9732 Indefinitely. The District is so small that there's no real reason for anyone to live there. Those who work there can easily commute.

@@markhagerman3072 But right now you're denying reality. People do indeed live there, and as you said, your plan will last indefinitely, so people will basically live there forever. Without appropriate representation. That's unfair to those people.

@@randomperson9732 Just living that close to the seat of power gives them more "representation" than anyone should have. Here's another alternative; move the national capital to a different city every ten years.

@@markhagerman3072 Lmaoooo, that gives them literally nothing, what is this cope?? And moving the capital city? Do you have a single brain cell?

And such weird emphasis on certain words snd syllables.

And such weird emphasis on certain words snd syllables.

@@DanCooper404 percccCENT mmmMAssive

You might say his use of the word unprecedented is, unprecedented

@@DanCooper404 CAWN-(griss)

Yeah, there's way too many people in that tiny state. A large portion of my family is from the Westerly/Pawcatuck area, and I'm always amazed at how built up it is there.

Wyoming may be big in area but it is very sparsely populated.

We are the second most dense state only behind New Jersey

Population density in the NE is crazy. Something like a quarter of the country lives in the NE but is split up by states in a weird way.

@@swimmingmide And there's going to be more as the west dries out.

Likewise, Berlin is a state of Germany - Bremen and Hamburg are also their own states so the capital isn't a special case in that regard

I believe the house changes seats and districts according to population often. Senators however stay static at two per state.

@@nickbrown4696No, he’s right. It happened when Hawaii and Alaska became states. The overall number of representatives grew by 2 for a single term, and then after that two larger states gave up a seat for hawaii and alaska to have it. tye number of representatives wouldn’t change

@@kennynava7441 This is all true but, to be fair, the Congressional seat limit isn't actually Constitutional law, so it would be theoretically simple to amend. If you're going to convince enough of Congress to give statehood to DC, it's probably trivial to convince them to expand Congress by some token amount, comparatively speaking. (Which is to say, it probably won't happen in any of our lifetimes, but it's still more likely than getting everyone on the same page regarding DC representation/statehood.)

@@nickbrown4696 you are wrong.

@@DieselRamcharger nope you are. Senators are 2 per state. And 50 states. 2 per state..

once it become very populous and leans in one direction politically it will suddenly "want" statehood

@brian stoll really? Are you one of the predominantly GOP MAGA crowd who sincerely believes left leaning people shouldn't be allowed to vote in an election? Or to be able to have a say about how their home city is managed. Here in Australia the ACT government is equivalent to the Ipswich City Council or the Brisbane City Council or the Dalrymple Shire Council. Pick an equivalent city or county anywhere in the US. In other words the ACT government is A LOCAL government. Not state or federal. As I said Canberra residents are represented in both those parliaments as well. Might I politely suggest you pull you head in and actually use that grey matter God put between your ears for the purpose for which it was intended - THINKING ABOUT STUFF.

@@brianestoll suddenly? Such discussions have been going on politcaly since the late 1800s

Thus the Government ( workers ) gets to vote itself more money and power.. Do I want to give me money?.Yes please.

@Mark Sisto uuum - you do know that NOT everyone who lives in DC or the ACT or whatever the region round Ottawa is called actually work for the national governments - right? They're in ancillary jobs the serve the needs of the people working in national government jobs. They work in the shops that sell stuff to those people, drive taxis/user, they could be employed by the states of Virginia, NSW & Ontario as teachers & health care staff ( as well as working in those fields privately - private schools, medical practices), work in the tourism/hospitality sector. Honestly Mericans - you gotta get OFF this "government is the devil incarnate & shouldn't be trusted at all" kick. Government was, is and should be the body that keeps those who would infringe you basic civil and human rights in check via legislation and sanctions, can provide you with civic infrastructure like roads to drive on, public transport to use if you don't have a car/can't drive for whatever reason, bring you water & electricity and get rid of your body waste, provide education & health care, probably put up those early telegraph lines that became telephone lines then fibre optical cables that now also give you access to the internet AND allow you to communicate with peeps in other countries - like me in Australia. ALL this stuff was done either government itself at numerous levels OR by government owned & operated corporations AND designed to benefit ALL. Which - I think, anyway - is your problem - namely that government protects and supports people you don't wanna acknowledge have a right to exist in the first place - the LGBTIQ community, people with disability and their carers and people from non- white, English speaking Christian backgrounds. My advice to you is please sir - kindly go screw yourself. Thankyou.

And just for those who don't like that, ACT rules can still be overruled federally eg voluntary euthanasia (for around... 20 years??)

Not "less", because it's not a state. The constitution defines rights that original states have that may be higher than other additions. If you want to talk about dudded locations, talk about Jervis Bay, which is a much closer analogue to Washington DC

I was going to say this but you beat me to it and you put it much more eloquently as well!

@@AndyViant maybe size but population wise?

The states actually have senators based on population. NSW has far more senators than Tasmania. Iirc TAS has 3 senators

They would still have no government of their own as congress could still repeal laws they passes

So would DC have its own representation in Congress, then?

So essentially it shouldn't have been a problem. But it was made a problem

@@patpat8727 It would have representation in Maryland, not a separate delegation.

that's the problem@@ZAUN3694

I have a feeling that whichever party lost an election would demand it be repealed, until they win the next one and they support it while the other party wants to repeal it.

Unless its convenient for your federal party much like the whole support behind it becoming a state anyways.

Unless your party is currently in power. Every election is current climate. Hardly anyone thinks of the future when the other party is in power. Case in point, the nuclear option in Congress that came back to bite the DNC in the ass when the GOP took power.

@@MemeMan42069 Facts!!!!

@@MemeMan42069 Except the Presidency changes party every few years. It wouldn't be something you could count on.

You're right except it wasn't called Arlington County, DC, it was Alexandria County. It wouldn't become Arlington until 1870 when Virginia decided that Alexandria City would separate from the county. Which is pretty common in Virginia. Once a city hits a certain size it separates from the surrounding county.

@@johngolden3714 Wouldn't that by definition mean that a bunch of counties become Democrat due to Progressives overwhelmingly preferring cities

The way I understand it - the District of Columbia was the whole 10 by 10 mile area originally laid out. So, similar to a state, all the sections within it would be referred to as part of the District of Columbia - like we do today (for example, Baltimore, Maryland). The District of Columbia was composed of Washington City (the seat of Government - one of the boundaries was Florida Avenue (then called Boundary Street), Georgetown and Alexandria which were already there as colonial port towns, and the rest of the area was called Washington County on the MD side of the Potomac and Alexandria County on the VA site. There were also a few small villages, settlements within the 10 mile square area. So originally Washington City was naturally called Washington, DC. Over time the VA part was retroceded to VA and the MD side unified as it was settled into one larger city. This means, at time went on they had to change a lot of local street names in places like Georgetown and Anacostia (for example, in Anacostia in about 1908 Harrison Street became Good Hope Road). So the name Washington, DC makes sense as it would be confused with a lot of other places if it was just "Washington" without the "state" designation. Make sense?

@@jameslandolt5835 Yeah, that's correct. Organic Act of 1801 is what created those counties and put DC under Congress's control. The Organic Act of 1871 consolidated Georgetown, Washington City, and Washington County into one entity.

Why would you say "um actually" and then say "I'm not entirely sure"?

Ngl, plenty of others have covered the topic. Then there is the fact yall have voted on that in PR a few times before. Yeah somethings def awry

Yes definitely let these territories become states with all the protections that come with it!

@@tunatofu63 nope, last thing I want is to give my political rival more political influence and guaranteed victory spots!

Viva Puerto Rico Libre y Soberana. Long Live Puerto Rico Free from American Imperialism.

Thank you!! I was waiting for someone to comment this

Unfortunately it can not as Maryland rejected the idea for certain reasons.

@@Darthiya Thank you for sharing that. Hummmm.... and I thought that was my original idea. :)

I mean, it is unfair because they have no representation. No taxation without represenatation.

Not being able to use money you raise is unfair…

@@TheDCGuitar13 by that logic we need to get rid of income taxes as a whole

They chose to live in DC. You get MASSIVE benefits by living In the nation's capital (higher wages, massive amounts of government jobs, and political influence). If you chose to live in a place they was specifically designed around NOT being a state, them that's your choice.

@@spartanx9293 I don’t even care about being a state tbh. I just wish we didn’t have to tug uncle Sam’s pant legs to be able to do basic city maintenance when we raise more than a big chunk of states. The fed gov has bigger fish to fry and treats as such.

Yeah I thought that was a bit strange myself considering they are non permanent residence.

Like how Oz can run in Pennsylvania even though he lives in New Jersey

@@blakekaveny that’s it’s own can of worms

Yeah and I also think that congress would be pretty quick to repeal the 23rd if DC became a state since the president having that much power would benefit nobody.

The entire area should just be absorbed into Maryland.

Correct, they live their specifically because it is the seat of government power. They just want more of it.

1. Rights do not rely on "what sounds nice" 2. You shouldn't need to move for a right to representation.

Dude, 64 square miles. The country is massive. It was not set up as a state for clear and obvious reasons. Nobody is forced to live their. And if it means so much, give the land back to Maryland.

@@GenericCommenter1 we have done many things that "weren't intended" for the country. And also, you shouldn't need to move to access a right. Plus, Maryland doesn't want it, nor does that part of DC want to be annexed. Nice job ignoring popular sovereignty while also appealing to dead authority.

@@delanceysamuel4770 move 5 miles in any direction lol

Yeah sounds like a propagandist

@@dougwade1332 so humor is propaganda now? lmao lighten up

He slanted more than a few facts in this video.

@@alexrogers777 my brother in Christ, he was just saying that it sounded propraganda-like

Are you not an Indian my dear 🤔

Exactly what I said. That would make too much sense and crooked politicians wouldn't be able to use or attempt to use the situation to their advantage as easily.

Since Virginia took back the land it donated, it is only land given by Maryland that exists in DC. Therefore they should all be given Maryland State Citizenship, and be allowed to vote in Maryland's elections, with the understanding that Maryland's Govner has no power in the DC area.

@@deathsheir2035 Problem is they don’t want to be part of Maryland and Maryland citizens don’t want them back They shouldn’t be forced into being part of a state that they nor the state wants just because Republicans are scared shitless of not having power

@@deathsheir2035 I fully agree We’re not giving the leftist scum two more senators, never If they want to MERGE DC into Maryland, fine 🤷🏼‍♂️

@@deathsheir2035 Problem is that opinion polls have consistently indicated that DC doesn't want to be thrown back into Maryland for representation purposes, and Maryland doesn't want to represent DC. The two places have been culturally and politically distinct for well over two centuries now, and it's frankly not fair to either to ignore that. It would be no different, fundamentally, than telling North and South Carolina that they had to recombine. And, more to the point, it's not actually legal. You can ignore DC because it's not a state and doesn't have any sovereign rights under the Constitution, but Maryland does. If Maryland doesn't agree to take on DC representation, there is no way for the federal government to force the issue. And there's honestly little reason for Maryland to agree to it even if they were actually getting the land itself, let alone telling them that they have to represent the citizens of DC while not having any power over the area inhabited by them.

Last I heard, Puerto Rico wasn't a state and probably the only place in the entire world an American can live and not pay Federal income taxes.

puerto rico has voted no on statehood, thus they were offered representation and rejected it, D.C refused to return to maryland see? they don't want representation, they consent to this

@@jds1275 what drugs are you on you imperialist?

​@@jds1275 It is weird you can live in a US territory and not pay taxes, but go to another country and you must still pay US taxes (unless they have an agreement with the other country)

Puerto Rico hasn't ever voted in majority approval to apply for statehood until 2020. Though let's be honest there... Puerto Rico would face even more opposition in congress to statehood than DC. Partially due to racism, but even more would be the same partisanship. Not only would Puerto Rico be another strongly Democratic state, adding two more Democratic senators, but it would also have a higher population than 20 existing state, would would add several more Democratic representatives to The House. But if it can be processed through the House if/when the filibuster issue can be addressed (possibly even after the middterms this year) its admission could make it even easier for DC to be admitted, or vice versa.

The ERA for example remains there up for aproval since the 1970s,

This comment should have been pinned😆

+

@@TransportSimulatorNationTSN no it really shouldn't, there's a very good reason none of these things have happened, and they never will... too much power at stake

@@finish_my_projects exactly, republicans would start losing more and they simply won't allow that

It also has a government building that looks like a breakfast table, so don't go nutzoid about how awesome Brasilia is.

@@tomshea8382 I didn´t say Brasilia is awesome I said that unlike Washington DC people in Brasilia can choose their representatives in fact many capitals around the world can do the same

literally 🤓

🤓

🤓

Yall are losers, this dude offered a fact that is both correct and interesting, i definitely learned something because of it. The nerd isnt him, its you guys

nobody gives a shit

Too bad the godamn vote doesn't matter. Exampled just today in Arizona for governor seat announced TWELVE DAYS BEFORE ELECTION. And George W. Bush term 2 election - he was inaugurated before the Florida vote was counted, held back by Florida governor, Jeb bush, Little George's brother.

Problem is neither them nor the og states want that and how do you handle it if someone is born in DC

@@Maya-ls3ky I think Pat is specifically talking about the president and other elected officials not the residents of DC

@@KaitouKaiju I think they're talking about if the President was from DC originally. I think in that case they'd just vote in DC - presuming that their residence (prior to becoming President) was DC.

It's always bugged me how like 90% of politicians aren't from the states they represent and sometimes only moved there not long before running for office. I saw an old interview once where among other questions the journalist asked a retired politician "what made you move here?" And the guy said "the last politician was retiring and tapped me as a successor so I moved before his term was up, worked under him, then ran for his office." At the same time they always claim to understand the locals desires and pretend to be just like them even if it's an NYC politician running for the mayor of Houston.

I certainly don’t want that to happen here!

Russia?

@@Labyrinth6000 ?

Isn’t that the VPs Residence?

Considering that the City of London is built roughly where Roman Londinium was, I don't get why it's not just called "Borough of Londinium". We love reusing ancient names in the UK, why not make it less confusing at the same time?

I would love to see that happen. The City of London is a fascinating, enigmatic subject that not enough if us understand, especially here in the US. My thinking is that it's a combination of the Federal Reserve and Wall Street with some extras, including that cool parade. ✌️😎🍀

@@erinmac4750 More or less it's like Wall Street but with more quaint British traditional stuff. Perhaps its most defining characteristic is its unique mixture of old and new - representing the old, there are still a few surviving fragments of Roman walls dotted about; while representing the new, you've got iconic skyscrapers like The Gherkin.

Because the 51st state would only be a blue state. Every other state switches between republican and Democrat. Back in the 90s democrats were moderate, now they are leftists.

Half of Democrats were still Dixiecrats until the mid to late 90s

People gloss over stuff like that alot. They'll focus on most democrats or most Republicans voting a certain way but gloss over when a party is split. In 93 nearly half the democrats voted against it as well, not just the Republicans. This reasoning really only adds to the partisanship problem in America since the focus is ALWAYS on highly partisan issues and everyone is always making every issue a partisan issue. It's a big reason why the COVID laws were so fucked up, Republicans were focused on opposing rules and relief while democrats were focused on supporting the laws and relief regardless of how they felt individually. Just look at the anti vaxxer issue: before covid became so partisan there was a decent mix of democrats and Republicans being against vaccines with if anything a Democrat majority, then covid happened and Trump became an anti vaxxer so now suddenly the Democrat anti vaxxers shut up or became wholehearted vaccinatera

Probably because it’s still unconstitutional

The problem is the president would gain 3 seats, and will be able to vote for himself.

@@HopeRock425 Presidents already vote for themselves because they are not residents of D.C.

@@FMFF_ so what's the problem?

This. Republicans would never allow DC to have electoral votes. They already consistently lose the popular vote. It’s only because of the way electoral votes work that they ever win. DC would be free Electoral votes for the Democratic candidate, virtually ensuring they always win.

@@HopeRock425 That would only be possible if instead of D.C. becoming a state, the land joined back in with Maryland (like the portion of land in Virginia) and then the district would be only that small area of land, the only residents being the president, and the president's family... And they would technically be under sole control of that district. If D.C. became a state that wouldn't happen, D.C. is the district with voting power, just because it gains statehood does not mean that that power that the new federal district has will be the same as D.C. I think they would account for that.

What you said, and all of the local and state taxes the rest of us pay, are actually counted as federal taxes in DC. So while his comment in the video is 100% accurate, it is misleading. A spin game to drive a biased point.

I don't get your point. Yes a huge amount of jobs in DC are federal jobs, but those employees pay the same rates in federal taxes as the rest of us

I'm not even sure what your point is. Federal employees still pay federal taxes. The fact that they have federal jobs (which isn't true for every resident) doesn't change the fact that they're taxed without any say in how much they're taxed and how their tax dollars are spent. A federal job isn't charity.

Most people that live in DC work in the private sector bro.

@@VanceWorldTravel naw, DC residents have to pay local taxes tooo. DC has a local income tax on top of your federal income tax.