I ain't fleein' to no Vanilla Suburb.

I'll have The Funk.

 Reply

It isn't so much about "black people" per se ... but it is OBVIOUSLY about the fact that the majority of DC's population are liberal democrats. (But the fact that a majority of the the DC population are lower-income blacks probably has something to do with their voting proclivities.)

You think it's just a coincidence that only Republicans object to giving half a million motly liberal democrats a new representative in Congress? Really?

 Reply

It's a clear-cut constitutional issue. I completely get the demographics comment, and I don't doubt that's driving some of this. But don't the obvious constitutional issues supercede that? We don't give Puerto Rico votes, and it's not because they're Conservative Hispanics - it's because they're a commonwealth.

People use transparent arguments to cover for racism all the time - the Confederate Flag debate is a perennial example. This is a bit different, don't you think? Though some of the same forces apply, no doubt.

 Reply

Lifted from Wiki:

"Most residents do not pay federal income tax but pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare), and Puerto Rico income taxes. But federal employees, or those who do business with the federal government, Puerto Rico-based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S. and others also pay federal income taxes. Because the cutoff point for income taxation is lower than that of the U.S. IRS code, and because the per-capita income in Puerto Rico is much lower than the average per-capita income on the mainland, more Puerto Rico residents pay less income taxes to the local taxation authority than if the IRS code were applied to the island."

As we said in the beginning, no pay = no vote.

 Reply

@Almostbanned: ""Warrantless wiretapping" and "undeclared wars" have nothing to do with this, so don't change the subject."

Of course it is relevant. You can't crap on the constitution sometimes and then when it comes to giving people a motherfucking VOTE, then be all like 'but the constitution!' *whine*

I agree it is unconstitutional. As Alex says above, there's some hiding behind that to deny a vote to half a million people. And it sucks because these same people let the constitution get shat on the last few years.

 Reply

And thus began the ridiculous disenfranchisement of Washington, D.C., which meant that Washingtonians could not vote for President until 1961, and could not even elect their own mayor until 1973. Yes, before 1973, the Federal government governed the city without citizen input.

So now, the District of Columbia, a jurisdiction containing more people than Wyoming and North Dakota, may have the opportunity to have one-third the representation its official fellow states have (because, don't forget, the idea of giving D.C. two senators would be radical).

The saddest part about this? The vast majority of Americans are truly in the dark about how disenfranchised Washingtonians are. And, if they knew, the vast majority of Americans would support full voting rights.

This is all simply un-American at its core. Fake protests against the constitutionality of it all are thinly disguised plots against giving African-Americans more power, Democrats more power, or both.

 Reply

I mean, if there are any furries on Gawker, they've at least had the decency not to mention it. (Although, it would be cool if you could befriend a giant penis...)

 Reply