Do They Have a National Anthem? — The Sequel
I blogged back in 2004 about the ludicrous practice by the Olympicrats of giving Puerto Rico its own Olympic team. My position on Puerto Rico is simple: they perpetually huff-and-puff about independence, or statehood, or whatever, yet whenever it’s actually put to a vote, they chose — surprise — the status quo. Amazing what some tax breaks can do to one’s principles. In any event, the Puerto Rican agitators do not deserve to be taken seriously — so I don’t.
Oh, and I don’t take the Olympicrats — or those who would collaborate with them — seriously either.
In any case, we now have a humorous opportunity to see whether the Olympicrats will take the absurdity of granting nation-state status to “disenfranchised” American citizens to its illogical conclusion:
I did a little looking around and found out that not only does Puerto Rico have a team, but so does Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands – all part of the United States.The wheels started turning in my head. I knew that Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, while parts of the United States, each only have one, non-voting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives. The District of Columbia also only has one, non-voting delegate in the U.S. House. However, unlike those other American territories DC lacks its own Olympic committee.
That is until now. Together with some friends and co-workers who live in the District we’ve started a movement — we are seeking official recognition for the “District of Columbia Olympic Committee (DCOC).”
The “capitolists” (get it?) intend to participate in only one Olympic sport:
The first team we put together is the curling team. We figured that it was the only sport that really fit our collective athletic ability, plus there’s usually beer at the end of the games. … It’s a lot like bocci, but on ice and it has been an Olympic sport since since 1998.
Okay, humor aside — the subject of (voting) congressional representation for residents of the District of Columbia?
It’s quite simple really: too bad, so sad. You don’t like it? Then either move or amend the Constitution.
The question of “one person, one vote” came up during the Alito confirmation hearings. It’s an important constitutional principle. But so is the concept that the District of Columbia is not a state and therefore is simply not entitled to (voting) congressional representation.
If it needs to be said, then let’s say it: The Senate stinks. North Dakota gets the same number of Senate seats that California gets? That makes no sense anymore.
But it’s what the Constitution calls for. Don’t like it? Amend it. It wouldn’t be the first time.
And this really needs to be said, so let’s say it (again): the Electoral College stinks. I’ve been saying that almost since my very first blogpost.
But it’s what the Constitution calls for. Don’t like it? Amend it. It wouldn’t be the first time.
So okay, fine, disenfranchisement of D.C. residents stinks. Point conceded.
But it’s what the Constitution calls for. Don’t like it? Amend it. It wouldn’t be the first time.
And good luck with that whole curling thing.
(Via Hammer of Truth.) More thoughts at Debate Link, Moderate Voice.
POST SCRIPT: On a completely unrelated subject, I would advise the would-be “capitolist curlers” to be careful about tossing around the world “Olympic” too flippantly. The Olympicrats don’t like it — just ask the gays.
Similar Posts:
- Do They Have a National Anthem?
- More District Enfranchisement Nonsense
- “Who’s the More Foolish…”
- On Unicameral State Legislatures
- Olympics: If You Can’t Beat ‘Em…
Filed under: Uncategorized
i'll be checking that post about the electoral college – that's been a peeve of mine since I was old enough to understand the process, and in fact, I didn't register to vote until i was 21 to spite the system.
Yeah not registering to vote really spites the system.
Regarding DC: People who choose to live there and complain about their lot are idiots in my estimation. And no one is forced to live there. Just as with New Orleans, it is false to say there are some so poor that they have no alternative.
I like the idea of the electoral college, and seem to recall that in 2000, it was the republicans who thought that they might be on the losing end of a popular vote win and EC loss. It ended up being the opposite, but everyone plays under the same rules- there is no home field advantage. As it is, policies and spending seem to me as already skewed to favor the urban poor. Eliminating the electoral college would render vast swaths of the citizenry to be irrelevant and cause the politicians to pander even more to the urban areas than they already do, to the detriment of us all. At this particular snapshot in history, eradicating the EC might favor democrats, but what would the rule change mean in 30 years? We went from 1888 to 2000 between EC win/popular vote losses. That doesn't strike me as remotely broken enough to need fixing. The unintended consequences to a balance of power could be devestating in the long run.
Actually, you're wrong on DC. You *don't* need to amend the Constitution. They can be granted statehood, they can be "retro-ceded" to Maryland, or they can simply be granted voting privileges in the House through an act of Congress.
I don't blame DC residents one bit for bitching. It's complete BS that they don't get the vote. They don't get the "tax breaks" you mention that PR does — why shouldn't they get the vote?
[Kip replies: No, I'm not wrong. Your proposed options all imply that the District of Columbia ceases to be a District. To keep the constitutional provision for the "seat of government" and simultaneously give it congressional representation requires a constitutional amendment.]