Saturday, April 21, 2007

Washington D.C. Voting Rights

Washington D.C. is an interesting dot on the map; smaller than Rhode Island, but undeniably an area of great importance. Not being a state, D.C. is ruled by Congress and has no representative in either the House or the Senate. Yet, it pays taxes. For that reason and others, Washington D.C. should have at least one representative in Congress.

No taxation without representation!

“American nationals”, those that live in territories of the U.S., can move freely about the country and enjoy other benefits of citizens of the insular states. The factor that separates them from everyday citizens is taxation. Nationals do not have to pay taxes and cannot vote. Residents of D.C. have to pay and also cannot vote. If the president decided to make his primary home the one in the White House, would you want him to NOT pay taxes? No, of course not. Therefore, D.C. residents pay taxes. But this is straying from the point; D.C. inhabitants pay taxes, but cannot vote.

Partisan bickering

D.C. is left-leaning. That made some right-wingers conclude this D.C. voting plan is not such a good idea after all. To compensate for the new Democratic vote, somebody came up with idea to give a right-leaning state a vote. Utah was chosen. Everybody wins!

President Bush is still promising a veto. It is “unconstitutional”, he claims. Washington D.C. is in a different class; it is not a state, but it pays taxes. The capitol of our country deserves representation if there’s going to be taxation.


Jason said...

I think it's even worse than taxation without representation. We're going around the world "spreading democracy," but won't allow democracy in our nations capital?

Political Realm said...

Why can't the District just be included with either Maryland or Virginia, as far as voting for Congress/President. I know originally they didn't want the capital to be under the control of any single state, so they made it independent. But in this day, I don't really think that's necessary.