That's not a better option. VA and MD don't want that. The people in DC don't want that. The people in DC want to be a state. That's what matters.
We're far removed from it historically, but this country was created by groups of people coming together to decide they want to form a state and then joining up with other states. It's literally right there in the name: United States. It's kind of, like, our whole deal as a country.
> The land was set aside for federal use, living in it and then complaining you don't live in a state seems insane.
Kind of like complaining about not getting a vote on taxes imposed on you when you choose to live in North American colonies rather than Britain proper. Whiners.
Also note that US citizens who live overseas can vote in state elections for federal office under federal law (and in most states can also do so for local/state offices under state law.) Inside the US but not within the boundaries of a state is the only place US citizens are systematically disenfranchised by geography.
> The land was set aside for federal use, living in it and then complaining you don't live in a state seems insane.
People have been living in it since the beginning. The land that they live on is not owned by the Federal government. It's owned by the people who live there (or their landlords). They paid for it. They pay property taxes on it. If the Federal government wants them to move, the government can pay them whatever amount is necessary to entice them to move. Otherwise, they deserve the same right to a voice in Congress that every other US citizen has.
An odd precedent. So if any undesirable area wants to be a State (imagine the additional Fed-related gov’t jobs!) and if the surrounding/bordering State(s) don’t want the undesirable area’s continuing burden, then the undesirable area should be able to establish a new State, getting another two Senators in the process? Like setting up a second firm, dumping all your bad loans/assets onto the New State/Feds, and voilà, all the remaining desirable area’s/original firm’s stat look great.
Sounds like a non-starter for the rest of the States who implicitly take on the burden of the undesirable area through direct support via the Federal, rather than the original State(s) system.
In the case of DC, also sounds like a blatant political ploy by the Democratic Party. We also remember Marion Berry.
Now, if DC wants to become a US Territory, that might get more traction. Also a chance to prove it is worthy of Statehood, like most of the other Western States had to.
Ah Marion Berry. The only corrupt politician in the history of America. No state politician ever did anything wrong. Yes, of course. If "never had a corrupt public official" is your bar for statehood, we'll have to dissolve the union.
Yeah, it does benefit the Democrats. I'm not particularly happy about that. But maybe the Republican party could try supporting policies that appeal to people who live in DC? When you have prominent Republicans declare that they want to cause a recession in DC it's not hard to figure out why people there don't support them.
The rest is, I guess a slippery slope argument? There's no other "undesirable" areas in the country that aren't already a part of a state. Some hypothetical state shell-game that you imagined is not a valid reason to continue depriving hundreds of thousands of US citizens of their rights.
We're far removed from it historically, but this country was created by groups of people coming together to decide they want to form a state and then joining up with other states. It's literally right there in the name: United States. It's kind of, like, our whole deal as a country.