Friday, September 21, 2007

an argument against voting rights

alright, after seeing the title to this post, you're probably thinking, "what, are you on crack?!? how could you, as a resident of the district be against your right to have representation equal to the other citizens of the united states!?"

here's why (and it's the lamest of reasons): see that italicized word above? i love saying "the district".

now, in all honesty, i am not arguing against voting rights at all here. i'll gladly give mitch mcconnell a pop in the nose if i ever meet him for not letting the senate actually debate the voting rights bill. in all seriousness, we can't tell if the bill is constitutional or not until the courts have a chance to rule on it. so, since honest people can disagree, why not just pass the bill and let the courts rule on it, mitch? if it's unconstitutional, we district residents will accept that. it would be good to have closure on that route. then, we'll just have to go for the whole hog: an amendment to the constitution that will give us our fair share (and yes, i'm pushing for two senators. if wyoming can have a senator for every 257,502 people, then we certainly deserve one for every 290,765 washingtonians!)

of course, if we were to follow the route that a lot of people are advocating for (statehood), we'd lose the ability to call ourselves "the district" (unless we'd be willing to keep the same name for a state instead of something like "new columbia"). and that would be a shame, because it just sounds so damn cool.

2 comments:

Nolan said...

What is to say that we couldn't be the state of "District of Columbia"? If the Angels can be the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" and Virginia can call itself "The Commonwealth", we can define ourselves however we damn please.

poo poo said...

i dig. i totally like 'district' too. with that title come many priveleges that 'states' don't get.

i just can't think of any right now. ;o)