The first presidential primary in the nation, as we all know, takes place in Washington DC tomorrow.
But it doesn’t matter, because the votes of the 600,000 US citizens who live in the District of Columbia aren’t counted anyway.
Washington, DC, Uses Presidential Primary as ‘Attention-Getter’
Hey! Delighted as always to hear from you. I have been remiss in getting out all of my holiday-New Year greetings and if mid-month isn’t too late, Happy 2004! Actually, I thought of you quite often during my travels. Though the endless staircases in the train stations were exhausting, I felt grateful for being able to navigate them at all. I did keep my eyes peeled for ramps, elevators, and door opening buttons mounted at the correct height and was really appalled at their scarcity and inconvenience. To have gotten the elevator in most of the stations I would have had to go to the far ends of each platform. Plus every train I got on had a substantial gap between train and platform edge and usually only one car per train was equipped with any sort of wheelchair access at all. It was tiring and difficult to travel with my cane and I was horrified by the idea of trying to make that same trip solo in a chair. As far as comfort zones go, my proscribed life has been far more about time, money, and children than MS. But my trip WAS a wake-up call, I’ll grant you that. Take care, ~LA
First, I like the new look. Second, a few things about the DC primary. Residents of Washington D.C. to vote for president and have a primary that actually counts. This “protest” primary was just so they can argue that they deserve statehood. DC actually has three electoral votes for president, but they do not have voting congressional representation, rather they have a delegate (like Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico) that does not receive the vote in Congress. They also have a mayor and City Council who are elected, and doing a rather poor job in my opinion.
Constitutionally, I have no idea whether giving DC a full congressional delegation is legal, but giving them a voting delegate might work. They should not become a state, because the founding fathers never intended for the nation’s capital to be a state because it could cause a conflict of interest.
One of the arguments made for statehood is that the federal government will pay taxes on the currently non-taxable government property. That may be true, but the federal government currently subsidizes the city of Washington D.C. with between 5 and $6 billion per year. They would not get that money if they were to become a state.
The DC government is relatively inept at their job. Graft and illegal activity have occurred at all levels of government and there is absolutely no control of money. The Washington D.C. police have not solved one murder for the entire year 2003.
Personally, I don’t think they have shown the ability to be truly independent. Maybe I’m wrong, but it sure doesn’t look good.
I think you are right. There are many examples of incompetent government. I would be interested to hear some constitutional scholars reviews on statehood for the District of Columbia.
Thanks, Jeff.
You present some good points, with the exception, perhaps, of the last one. I don’t think that proven competence is a necessary prerequisite for self-governance (although obviously it would be nice).