Slashdot Mirror

Not all. Not even all American citizens.

How long will it be before the average person again rallies around "No taxation without representation"? Judging by DC's experience, quite a while.

Did he mention Washington, DC in his mathematical formula?

A few million are willing to give up their right to vote for representatives in exchange for living in Washington, DC.

Myth 5: DC residents have more influence because they're closer to the President and Congress. FALSE. In the age of global communications, proximity does not mean access. Most federal officials know more about their home districts or international affairs than in DC issues. Few DC residents have privileges based on their proximity to power.

Myth 3: The Founding Fathers wanted to take away the rights of DC citizens. FALSE. The founders were concerned about the rights of District citizens, but because getting approval for the federal Constitution was their first priority, they left open the possibility that future generations could address the inequity. Alexander Hamilton proposed to let DC residents vote with Maryland or Virginia until their population grew, at which time Congress would give DC voting representation. James Madison argued that DC should be given a legislature "for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages."

Myth 8: DC is too small to have representation. FALSE. DC is 63 square miles, and has a larger population than Wyoming. All states - regardless of size - have equal representation in the Senate, whereas in the House of Representatives, representation is determined by population size. For example, California and Wyoming have two Senators each, but California has 53 Representatives while Wyoming has only one.

I expect representation for the taxation.

Ask Washington, DC how that argument has worked for them.

DC isn't considered a state. So we have limited voting rights.

It's why our license plates say "Taxation Without Representation".

I think the DC Taxation Without Representation license plates are awesome :)

Sucks to be us, I guess.

Next you`ll be griping about taxation without representation.

What, you mean like Washington D.C.? From the pages of the first site that popped up when I googled:

District of Columbia citizens have no representation of any kind in the US Senate and only a nonvoting delegate to the US House of Representatives. US citizens who live in Washington, DC, have no voting representation on the national issues considered by Congress. Furthermore, since Congress also acts as Washington's "state" legislature, local citizens are also denied voting representation in a state legislative body-something that all other Americans enjoy.

As a resident in D.C., I have no voting representation in either the house or the senate (our one delegate can vote in committee in the house - whoopie.)

So vote one for the technies for me!

Support Voting Rights for DC

Given that it is the legislators job to listen to and represent the views of their constituents (and no one else)...

And that's one reason why Washington, DC, is such a mess. There's a congressional committee in charge of managing District affairs (doing things like overruling the decisions of the elected city council and ignoring the results of referenda), but the members of the committee have no obligation or inclination to listen to the people whose lives are affected by their decisions.

Those of us who live in DC (not the tourists and politicians who plague the city) pay federal taxes, fight in wars, and perform all the other obligations of US citizenship, but we have no vote in the Congress, the body that determines how those taxes are spent and where those wars are fought.

It's ludicrous for the United States to lecture other countries about democracy when it is lacking basic democracy in its own capital.

There are two reasons for this:
1) The Stamp Act in 1765 brought about the issue of "No Taxation without Representation". It was the cornerstone idea of the American Revolution. Yet those of us who live in the American capital are not represented by a voting member in Congress. We have a non-voting "delegate" who has no real power to cause positive change for her constituents.

2) We have an electoral vote in Washington DC, so surely I can vote for president, right? Wrong. You see, I am a Republican, and Republicans make up 6% of the voting population of this city. Democrats consistently win not only the electoral vote, but all public offices as well. I cannot complain about the fairly held local elections: the majority should rule and I fully support that idea, even though the Democrats re-elected a convicted felon for mayor several times (Marion Barry). My complaint is with the electoral process in presidential elections that affords votes according to state, rather than according to person. One who lives in a hopelessly liberal or conservative state does not have any say in the election -- the outcomes of those states have been pre-determined.

I am almost hoping for Bush to win the popular vote, and Gore to win the electoral vote. I am hoping that the electoral college will come crashing down in this election's wake. Most citizens have forgotten completely about the electoral college since the day they learned about it in the fourth grade. The media barely helps, touting public opinion polls that do not reflect the true process -- the only polls that matter are within states that "count" -- those that are hedging on their vote.

Some of you who live in "battleground" states may be surprised to hear that I have not seen a *single* commercial for one presidential candidate or the other. After all, why should they spend money to convince undecided voters in a state whose outcome is already decided?

Maybe I shouldn't complain -- maybe I'm lucky that I don't have to see the dark side of these campaigns in sleazy television ads.

And maybe I shouldn't complain -- if Washington DC had a voting member in Congress, that vote would certainly belong to a Democrat, thereby undermining many of the programs I believe in as a Republican.

But I AM complaining, because this country was founded on fairness and equality, and those ideals have been lost in the political process. One voice, one vote.

By the way, I'm moving to Maryland next month. :)

For more info on Taxation without Representation, see the DC Votes site.

There will likely be 2-3 seats of the Supreme Court up for reappointment in the next administration. I think that control of this is more important than the worthy longer term goal of getting more choices on the ballot. But not everybody's vote will make a big difference on that.

Here's my opinion:

Who should vote for Nader? - people who live in states where Gore or Bush is a sure bet to win. I live in DC and there is no way that Gore is not going to win our three electoral votes. My vote for Nader can help the Green Party towards the 5% of the popular vote they need to receive matching funds in the next election.

Who should not vote for Nader? - people who live in states where the race between Bush & Gore is close. Your vote will make a difference. Support the candidate that you want making the decisions for Supreme Court appointments. If I lived across the Potomac in Virginia, I would vote for Gore because he definitely needs votes there.

Naturally, the same arguments could be made about Buchanan, Browne, Hagelin and other third party candidates. I just happen to prefer Ralph to any of the other candidates.

--
It's Time -- www.dcvote.org

Do you support full voting representation for 500,000+ citizens of the United States?

If not, why?

--
It's Time - www.dcvote.org