Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
The US system makes sense in the context of non-centralised powerful state government. However the power of the federal government in the modern age makes the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college pretty stark.
In 2020 there wasn't much discrepancy, in fact if anything it was for Biden.
Biden won 56% of EC votes but only 51.3% of the popular vote
You're missing the point, as usual. The point is that a tiny number of voters in the context of the whole election can swing the entire result, regardless of the overall popular vote.
The size of victory in the EC is irrelevant to the result.
Well so what, neither Clinton nor Gore got over 50% of the popular vote unlike Biden.
If there is no clear popular vote mandate, the EC ensures the winner reflects the view of the majority of US states, not just what the most populous coasts think
What usually matters in a democracy is the view of the majority of people, not arbitrary lines on a map.
The Founding Fathers were also seeking to reduce the risk of civil war or the breakup of the Union, which if smaller states get consistently ignored would be a stronger possibility.
Most democracies are also representative not direct democracies, otherwise majority opinions on the death penalty and high taxes on the rich would get more weight
It was really more about protecting states' rights than protecting the union. This was the compromise to get the states into a union in the first place. It was never really about making the union durable. The Federalists fared extremely poorly after the old Adams' first term.
Andy_JS asked: "Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?"
"In his Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788, James Madison argued that the new federal government would need authority over a national capital to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[21] The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, emphasized the need for the national government not to rely on any state for its own security." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
(I favor reducing the federal district to the smallest practical size, by returning almost all of the district to Maryland.)
I do like that the answer appears to basically be about lack of trust and cobbling together solutions. Given how robust the nation and its identity became, it would be easy to forget how big a gamble the whole business of nation building can be!
The US system makes sense in the context of non-centralised powerful state government. However the power of the federal government in the modern age makes the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college pretty stark.
In 2020 there wasn't much discrepancy, in fact if anything it was for Biden.
Biden won 56% of EC votes but only 51.3% of the popular vote
You're missing the point, as usual. The point is that a tiny number of voters in the context of the whole election can swing the entire result, regardless of the overall popular vote.
The size of victory in the EC is irrelevant to the result.
Well so what, neither Clinton nor Gore got over 50% of the popular vote unlike Biden.
If there is no clear popular vote mandate, the EC ensures the winner reflects the view of the majority of US states, not just what the most populous coasts think
What usually matters in a democracy is the view of the majority of people, not arbitrary lines on a map.
The Founding Fathers were also seeking to reduce the risk of civil war or the breakup of the Union, which if smaller states get consistently ignored would be a stronger possibility
Back when the nation was about the States, not the federal government. The federal government is now much more powerful than ever envisaged, so really what the Founding Fathers thought is not relevant.
Actually for most Americans their state government has more influence on their local health and education and police systems than the Federal government and also now on abortion too.
The Federal government's biggest powers relate to Foreign Policy and Defence and the tax and spend share the Federal Government takes
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
It’s not a state, just a district. The reason was that having the capital in any state would give that state undue power, so a little piece was carved out of Virginia
(IIRC it was a deal that Hamilton did with Virgina to get their support for the federal reserve system. Such is politics 😳)
In the interests of absolute pedantry:
What is now Washington DC was in fact carved out of Maryland, although the original district did include an area in Virginia.
In the interests of absolutist fundamental pedantry…
Nowhere did I say that Virginia was the *only* state that ceded territory to create the District…
Here's what you said:
'a little piece was carved out of Virginia'
Which is true, but misleading. Because the main piece was carved out of Maryland.
The art of true pedantry… find a small fact and cling fast…
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
It’s not a state, just a district. The reason was that having the capital in any state would give that state undue power, so a little piece was carved out of Virginia
(IIRC it was a deal that Hamilton did with Virgina to get their support for the federal reserve system. Such is politics 😳)
In the interests of absolute pedantry:
What is now Washington DC was in fact carved out of Maryland, although the original district did include an area in Virginia.
In the interests of absolutist fundamental pedantry…
Nowhere did I say that Virginia was the *only* state that ceded territory to create the District…
Here's what you said:
'a little piece was carved out of Virginia'
Which is true, but misleading. Because the main piece was carved out of Maryland.
The art of true pedantry… find a small fact and cling fast…
We’re they half way up Virginia at the time, before giving ground? 🤭
Apologies I’ve been out to a fancy dress party and so tipsy I should log out and back away before banned.
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
It’s not a state, just a district. The reason was that having the capital in any state would give that state undue power, so a little piece was carved out of Virginia
(IIRC it was a deal that Hamilton did with Virgina to get their support for the federal reserve system. Such is politics 😳)
Leon/SeanT/MissyG/whoever is a nasty, racist, horrible bully and when he comes on the site the quality drops quickly. I now actively avoid the site when he is around.
Got to say I think you are comprehensively wrong in this assessment. I don't recognise any of what you claim about him. He is forthright and does a fine line in abuse but he is no bully. He doesn't expect anyone to be cowed by his postings and delights in people fighting back against him. I would suggest that it is undeniable that he is an asset to this site even though I disagree with him on the majority of what he posts.
I am sorry to say Richard, when he starts on with his autism narratives, I politely disagree on account of my son's ASD only to be bombarded with abuse regarding my humourless wokery. He is unbearably unpleasant when he rides that particular rodeo.
I am convinced he is an internet troll. In reality, possibly a dreary Librarian and Lib Dem Parish Councillor called Colin from Bromyard, rather than the exotic travel writer and novelist he claims to be.
I don’t think he’s a travel writer. It’s all part of this online persona he’s constructed. And the terrible quality of his prose discounts the idea that he’s a published writer. He’s doubtless someone from somewhere dreary in the Home Counties living a fantasy.
You are either a joker or as thick as you make out you are.
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
It’s not a state, just a district. The reason was that having the capital in any state would give that state undue power, so a little piece was carved out of Virginia
(IIRC it was a deal that Hamilton did with Virgina to get their support for the federal reserve system. Such is politics 😳)
In the interests of absolute pedantry:
What is now Washington DC was in fact carved out of Maryland, although the original district did include an area in Virginia.
In the interests of absolutist fundamental pedantry…
Nowhere did I say that Virginia was the *only* state that ceded territory to create the District…
Here's what you said:
'a little piece was carved out of Virginia'
Which is true, but misleading. Because the main piece was carved out of Maryland.
The art of true pedantry… find a small fact and cling fast…
We’re they half way up Virginia at the time, before giving ground? 🤭
After the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. got three votes in the electoral college. (One unfortunate consequence of this is that ties are now possible.)
Why was Washington DC disenfranchised in the first place?
It’s not a state, just a district. The reason was that having the capital in any state would give that state undue power, so a little piece was carved out of Virginia
(IIRC it was a deal that Hamilton did with Virgina to get their support for the federal reserve system. Such is politics 😳)
In the interests of absolute pedantry:
What is now Washington DC was in fact carved out of Maryland, although the original district did include an area in Virginia.
In the interests of absolutist fundamental pedantry…
Nowhere did I say that Virginia was the *only* state that ceded territory to create the District…
Here's what you said:
'a little piece was carved out of Virginia'
Which is true, but misleading. Because the main piece was carved out of Maryland.
The art of true pedantry… find a small fact and cling fast…
We’re they half way up Virginia at the time, before giving ground? 🤭
You're charge is that this is a nitpickett.
Did you mean to reply to StillWater - I was just the drunk doing smutty jokes.
Comments
The Federal government's biggest powers relate to Foreign Policy and Defence and the tax and spend share the Federal Government takes
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/16384321/tory-mp-reveals-shes-bisexual/
Apologies I’ve been out to a fancy dress party and so tipsy I should log out and back away before banned.