Could you imagine a president's family and staff being basically the only voters and then said president loses DC? I'm dead just thinking about it.

The president typically is not considered a resident of DC but instead maintains his or her residency from his original state, just like our members of Congress. This is why the sitting president always goes back to their home state to vote.

There would not be 436 representatives. The total is set by law at 435. The allotment would be reapportioned between the 51 states.

it may be easier to remove most of the federal district designation, return the land to Virginia and Maryland, and only have tiny enclave of a few federal buildings under federal control, not an entire city.

Fun fact: The Pentagon isn’t located in Washington DC: it’s located in Arlington, Virginia.

Interesting fact, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands also all have non-voting Representatives in Congress and Puerto Rico has Congressional representation through a position called a Resident Commissioner who also does not have voting rights.

If the issue was about representation, the residents of D.C. would be willing to join the State of Maryland or Virginia. There isn't any need for residential areas to be included in D.C. so an easy solution is to make the district smaller.

The whole point of a district for Federal activity is that it is not a state, that it is under the firm control of the federal government. It was supposed to house federal institutions and not much else. If it has become too populous to do this, then most of it should be handed back to Maryland. Keep enough to work as it was designed.

As someone who's lived in DC my whole life, I'm glad you finally covered this topic. However, not being a state doesn't just mean DC residents have no representation in Congress. It also means that the federal government can basically repeal any local law they don't like that we voted for ourselves (This has happened a few times and is pretty fucked up tbh). We also don't have our own state prison system meaning that people who are convicted are moved across the entire country to federal prisons.

⚠️ CORRECTION - With all due respect to Walter Washington, the first African American mayor of a major US city was Carl Stokes, elected in Cleveland in 1967.

The federal district was carved out of Maryland and Virginia originally. The part across the river was given back to Virginia. If anything, the residents within the district should be considered citizens of Maryland as far as representation goes. Were out Capitol to ever move, it would be given back to Maryland and 10 miles square carved out of whatever state it was moved to. There's no provision to create a state out of what in essence belongs to Maryland. So no, it cannot ever be a state.

The biggest issue with a state of Columbia is that it would mess up the nice even number of 50 states

A correction. Carl B Stokes was the first elected African American mayor of a major US city in Cleveland. Cleveland at that time had around 800,000 residents.

Citizens of Washington D.C. get to vote for mayor for the first time, and they immediately vote in a guy named Washington EDIT: For the people saying that this is incorrect, 9:48 in the video blatantly explains DC residents were able to vote on mayor and elected Walter Washington.

Fascinating and informative!

The proposed area of the state of Douglas should just be given back to Maryland. All problems solved, all people should now be represented, and political parties maintain their "balance".

Yes, the whole point of D.C. was so no state would host the nation's capital. Few people, aside from federally elected representatives and staff, were ever expected to live there.

It would be interesting to see a similar video for Puerto Rico becoming a state too! Nice video as always :)

Thanks for the video. You obviously did lots of research! As a resident of Washington d.c. I think it sucks that I don't have representation in Congress! I had no idea that stayed had actually got so close to passing in Congress! I am a Democrat, but I can totally see why Republicans are not interested in having two Democratic senators added to the Senate. Having Maryland take back the land they gave for DC seems to make the most sense to me, but it sounds like they are not interested.

This has been super cool to learn about as someone new to the DC area. The Maryland option occurred to me years ago as the best choice, but I hadn't considered MD might refuse to take DC back. It has a precedence given how VA handled their half and still feels like the best option. Given that the overall number of congress/senate members won't change, this seems to be the least intrusive option. Balance and compromise will be the only thing that can sell this (if it is even possible). DC as a state feels impossible with all the Red states that would need to ratify the amendment.

Minor correction: Detroit got a black mayor before DC, in 1974. And Cleveland got one all the way back in 1967.

In retrospect it would’ve solved a lot of issues if they made it way smaller than the max 10x10 miles

"One State to rule them all, one State to find them, one State to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them; In the Land of DC where the shadows lie."

Why not make the federal district smaller like in the plan at 17:00, and merge the rest back into Maryland and Virginia?

Interesting to hear about the failed amendment that would have given DC voting representatives in Congress without making it a state. I always wondered why that option wasn't really part of the conversation, not realizing it had been tried once and failed. It's kind of a weird quirk of our system that adding DC as a state is probably the easier route.

The filibuster really is a confusing thing. A vote, to see if you should even vote, that doesnt have the same requirements, but harsher ones than the final vote.

Excellent presentation of quite the quagmire!

Great video but I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't mention that much of it is an endorheic basin. That kind of goes along with it being dry and aired and desert, but I think it kind of adds another level as to why a lot of it can't be farmed or inhabited.

Brazil took inspiration on the US concept of a federal district, however the Federal District of Brazil has representation in both houses of Congress, a governor elected by the district's voters, its own legislative assembly and the combined political and legal powers of both a state and a municipality. Plus, the Union is constitutionally obligated to fund many of the district's services, like the police force, which is really well equipped and well paid by Brazilian standards. So, here the controversy is about the privileged position of Brasilia when compared to the rest of the country.

This story skips over some of the history as to how DC became a “federal enclave.” During a meeting of the founders, a riot broke out outside the meeting. Fearing in the future that if a state was mad at the federal government, they would refuse to send police aid to assist, the founders wanted a way for the federal government to self-sustain. Hence, making DC not subject to any state. EDIT: a typo fixed and wanted to tell yall in the comments to be nice to each other! :)

Why doesn't Congress pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that creates a new form of "capital district"? This “capital district” could be treated as a full state without being called a state and would avoid the problem created by the 23rd Amendment.

You could also add Washington DC to Maryland.

Except that neither the President, nor the VP, nor any member of Congress is a resident of Washington, DC. They are legally residents of their states of origin, and must maintain their residences in those states.

Slight correction: Under the Reappointment Act, the House of Representatives is capped at 435 members. Unless an amendment to that law was to be enacted, a state would have to give up a seat. However, when Hawaii and Alaska were added, two additional seats were added until the next session, where it was reverted back to 435, so 436 may be possible until the next Congressional cycle after DC's admission.

15:44 Promising to veto something isn't neutrality in the slightest! It's direct opposition!

How do I see the show notes? I want to check out that 80,000 hours site

You might note that the map in minute 4 shows the current Alexandria boundaries. When DC was created, it looked a quite bit different.

I'm Australian. Our national capital - Canberra - sits - like DC in a separate territory - Australian Capital Territory or ACT, which is in the state of New South Wales. However - unlike DC - the ACT has it's own government with limited autonomy to pass laws. ACT residents vote in federal AND New South Wales state elections and are represented in both parliaments.

5:18 Did you know that the KZfaq Mobile loading wheel is situated just about perfectly center of this square diagram you put here when not zoomed in?

Bro “No Taxation Without Representation” coming back 💀

I thought you made a mistake by omitting Rhode Island, but I was shocked to find that RI has about 2000,000 more people in it.

I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the whole point in DC not being a state was cause it was meant to be the neutral/apolitical administration area

When consideration was being given to the admissions of Hawai'i and Alaska to the Union, the issue was supported because an equal number of Senators (2) and Representatives (1, each) - would be added to Congress - 2 Senators and a Representative from a Republican-leaning state, 2 Senators and a Representative from a Democratic Party-leaning state. In a burst of historical irony, Alaska was the Democratic Party leaning state, Hawai'i a Republican Party-leaning state - both of which have switched in the past 60 years. @18:06 Since the House is capped to 435 members, another state would have to lose a Representative in the addition of one from D.C.

I think there has been a slight slip-up in RealLifeLore's selection of images. At 11:11, a still is visible where I actually recognise 3 of the politicians! They are, however, not from the US. From the left, sitting behind the table, those are: Frans Andriessen, Prime Minister Dries van Agt, and Deputy Prime Minister Hans Wiegel, of the Netherlands! Their cabinet, Van Agt I, is however contemporary to US president Jimmy Carter's term. Quite a weird choice in the context of this video...

Great video, but just FYI the number of House members would not increase to 436. The House seats would be reapportioned between the states, and some other state would lose a seat (because the statuatory limit is 435). Edit: My mistake. Apparently the DC Admission Act increases the House to 436 members.

Hey! One thing I noticed is when you said 41% of the residents are African American it’s actually not a majority but a plurality, A majority has to be at least 50% while a plurality is simply the most represented group. Great videos, keep up the good work!

Why not give DC back to Maryland? Keep the national mall and government buildings as the capital, and then all the residents have representation.

I think, the US should look at how other federal republics with a capital under direct federal supervision treat that capital representation-wise. In Australia, the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) has full representation in the House of Representatives and "half" seat-wise in the Senate with the ACT Representatives and Senators having the same rights as the others (with the difference that the ACT Senators don't have as long as a term and are not elected in two classes). Also, the Northern Territory is likewise represented in the Australian Parliament. In Nigeria, the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja is represented by two Representatives and one Senator (States are represented by three). In Brazil, the Federal District (Brasília) is fully represented like a state in both chambers of Congress. Likewise in Argentina, where the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires is fully represented like a Province. Likewise in Mexico, where the Distrito Federal is fully represented. In India, the Union Territory of Delhi is fully represented in Parliament.

I've never heard the word 'unprecedented' used so much until I subscribed to this channel.

Correction, the House would only be at 436 until the next Census, when, under the House Apportionment Act, it would return to 435.

The rest of us pay taxes without representation too

I think the Chief of Naval Operations also lives in the Federal District at the Naval Observatory. He would also have a few staff members that live their also.

I think this is hilarious, because as Marylander, I often forget DC isn't just part of our state. Honestly the only way to tell that you're entering DC is that the roads get worse 😂

You missed huge portions of DC History; residents originally were allowed to continue voting in Maryland and Virginia elections (depending on what side they lived on). Georgetown, Alexandria and City of Washington all had elected Mayors until 1807 when all 3 jurisdictions were merged into the "District of Columbia." Between 1807 and 1973 there were several systems of governance including Appointed Territorial Governors, Appointed Commissioners and Appointed Mayors that returned to Elected Mayors with the establishment of the Home Rule Act in 1973. Further you are missing a huge point by calling it "DC City Council" and "local laws" because DC is part of no state; its "Council" (its name is Council of the District of Columbia, not City Council) functions as a de facto state legislature and its laws are the equivalent of state laws. Remember just because DC is not a state; doesn't mean that functions that are normally carried out by a state government cease to exist ( DMV's, Welfare, Insurance/Banking Regulation, Parole/Probation, State Superintendent of Education, etc); thus the Mayor of DC is equivalent to the Governor of any of the States and the Council of DC is equivalent to the State Legislature of any of the States; simply because it is not part of any state and thusly not beholden to state level government like the Mayor and Council of a regular city would be.

So long story short, a bunch of loopholes are the biggest problem in America, and it's the loopholes that create loopholes in trying to close them. And they'll never be closed ever.

It wouldn't permanently change the size of the House of Representatives to 436, because it's set by law to 435. It was temporarily increased to 437 following the admission of Hawaii and Alaska, but was brought back to 435 in the 1963 reapportionment following the 1960 census. Of course, this law could be changed (and really ought to, the number of constituents per Representative is frankly ridiculous, at over 700k, which is about the total population of the most populous state in 1790, Virginia, including the slaves) with a simple Act of Congress, since it's a regular law and not an amendment.

DC residents: There are 700,000 people here who have no real representation in Congress! Puertorricans with 3.9 million people being a US colony since 1898: First time?

@4:20 actually DC residents did retain voting rights in their respective states until the Organic Act of 1801 and it could very easily be returned as was the plan in 2004’s DC voting rights restored act. This would put them into Maryland’s voting scheme while maintaining their independence from Maryland.

The issue of statehood should be prioritized to Puerto Rico over the much smaller DC

Simple way to deal with this is the government of each state which makes up the district of Columbia get counted by the state that where they reside. Those in Virginia cast votes for Congress in Virginia those whose house would be in Maryland vote in Maryland. Same for residents voting for president. while the rest stays the same other than they vote for the city offices in DC rather than Congress appointments.

I believe you are wrong about it increasing the number of representatives in the House. I believe the House is statutorily limited to 435. So one of the larger states would lose one representative and DC would gain one.

Australia has a “federal district” for its capital city Canberra. Except, states in Australia have 12 senators, and territories (like the Australian Capital Territory) get two senators. So the A.C.T still gets lower house and upper house representation. Just less than the Australian states.

Good summary of the situation, but why would it be "Big Trouble"?

16:39 that man’s beard is epic haha

The repeal of the 23rd amendment, should DC become a state or be annexed would be fairly easy to assume. Most states and or congress people would not like the idea of their state's power being undermined that way imo

The way you solve the presidential voting issue is to have them vote as part of the state that they lived in before taking office. To me that's a no brainer easy fix, as they are not permanent resident of the white house

2:20 man is vibing

I think the main issue of DC being it's own state is one of conflict of interest. It'd essentially give the federal government the power of a state as well.

1:27 federal income tax is the same across all states. It is based on income. So saying they pay more income tax than anyone else doesn’t mean they are treated unfair, it means they make more money than anyone else.

Honestly, it should either become a state OR the states that donated the land are the ones to represent those people in congress, while the feds still manage it outside of congress. Citizens there could be both DC and Virginia/Maryland citizens (respectively).

Since the current part of DC came from Maryland, add two districts to the current state of Maryland to represent them. They will also by represented in the Senate by the two Senators that they would help elect. Think this would work.

I had 0 idea about any of this. Very interesting situation in the U.S. to learn about. I've heard of D.C. but never really knew what it was.

Man I already see RealLifeLore's next videos: How Puerto Rico became the longest running colony in history Why the Philippines didn't become a US state How America maintains its maritime empire Why the United States hasn't passed a US Amendment since 1992 (which was about how Congress gets paid btw) How the two party system broke America

To be fair in regards to the whole last five minutes, typically presidents vote in the states that they previously resided in. For example Joe Biden still votes in Delaware and Trump voted in Florida

20:55 "[...] If they did, and Congress didn't *also* repeal the 23rd Amendment, [...] the tiny district remaining would be treated as a full State, and be able to appoint 3 Electors [...] meaning, effectively, the sitting President themself would become capable of personally appointing 3 electors [...]" This isn't actually quite true. The 23rd Amendment does not give the residents of DC the right to vote on Electors (nor does the Constitution grant that right to the residents of the States). All it does is allot DC a number of Electors (currently 3 due to its size) and says that these Electors shall be appointed by the District as Congress provides by law. Congress could simply create a law requiring that the local officials who administer the District appoint 3 Electors based upon some given criterion (perhaps even based upon who holds the greatest number of Electoral votes amongst the States' Electors) and circumvent the awkwardness of the President potentially having the power to appoint 3 Electors personally. - Of course, this presumes the 23rd Amendment would be left in place. It is my belief that if DC were to become a State, then a 28th Amendment would likely be passed by a Democratic-majority and President with the support of a Republican-minority (as I don't believe a Republican-controlled Congress and Presidency would ever consider DC Statehood) as a sign of goodwill. The continuance of the 23rd Amendment would have little argument in favor it, and I suspect its repeal would be done as a sign of good will and governance by the majority, with the minority obviously in favor of it due to the current President being opposite them. The repeal or modification (to make it contingent on real population) of the 23rd Amendment should be the easiest amendment to pass ever since it would obviously be the correct option.

But the big, important thing would be to make the whole Washington metropolitan area its own state, that's over six million people. It would obviously be a lot more efficient than the current setup.

Actually, IIRC, the 10 sq. Mile Area didn't become "Washington, D.C.", it just became D.C. Washington was just the name of the County (and a city) on the Maryland side, so until it was returned to Virginia, there were two Counties composing the District of Columbia: Washington D.C. and Arlington D.C. which is also why it has the weird double name to this day. That was my understanding anyways, please correct me if I'm mistaken!

Would love if you did one of these about Puerto Rico, USA Virgin Islands or Guam becoming a state please 🫶🏽👍🏽

This is very interesting

Admittedly, I don't know anything about the actual procedure in the senate, but here's an anecdote from a contentious church election (of all things). The church congregation had been debating if a promenant tapestry depicting Thanksgiving should be removed and archived due to the way it portrayed native people. It was a historic piece. Nearly a century old, it took church members of a weaving club a lot of time and effort. The piece was of high quality in terms of craftsmanship, and was two stories tall and equal in width. It was part of a series of tapestries created with great effort and expense. Months of debate ensued. The issue was approached from every conceivable angle. Local native American leaders were asked to examine the tapestry. Their opinion was expected to heavily influence the congregation because of that church's valuing of inclusivity and multi-cultural dialogue. The local Indigenous leaders confirmed that, yes, the portrayal was insensitive at best, and outright disrespectful (albeit unintentionally) at worst. Still, a vocal portion of the congregation opposed removal on the grounds that it was a historic piece, and it portrayed the Thanksgiving story: a story held in high regard by many American Christians. It's also controversial due to the colonial implications. On the day of the vote, over a thousand people were in attendance. Many steeled themselves for a long process. A number of the traditionalists had speeches prepared. A few of the reformists did. Proceedings began with the opening speech of why they were here and laying out rules on how the process worked. The floor was then opened to voices and motions from the gathered congregation. Immediately, a young member, one of the youngest adult members stood and was recognized. "We all know why we are here. There have been months of debates, and we know the opinions of the Dakota people. I motion we move to a vote immediately." "The motion to vote has been raised. Do we have a second?" Another millennial stood. "Aye. Seconded." "The motion carries. We will forgo any further deliberations and proceed to vote immediately." The vote was immediately held. When it was tallied, the decision was made: the tapestry would be removed from the seasonal rotation to be replaced by another. It would be archived for posterity and available for view in a smaller gallery, away from the main hall. In the wake of the vote, many of the opposition accused the head decon, the elected church council member who chaired the meeting of rigging the result. They were upset that they didn't get to speak their piece in the meeting. In truth, that head decon was just as surprised at the way the event played out. Privately, he was just glad the process was behind him, and in awe of the brilliant maneuver to bypass any potential filibuster. I don't know if this same methodology could be used to bypass filibuster in the US Congress. I don't know enough about the proceedings. But, perhaps, I should relay the story to my local congressional representatives.

You know, it's pretty ironic how the 23rd Amendment- the thing meant to give D.C. more representation- is now one of the biggest obstacles standing in the way of FULL representation.

This remind me that for a good amount of time Mexico City wasn't a state but a federal district (distrito federal or DF) for a good amount of time until a couple of years ago, the main difference was that 8 millions from a citty of 22 millions or the 1/6 of the whole country lived there so it was way more important to see how it was ruled. At the end of the day it turned into the 32 state of Mexico and now its the newest state.

DC resident here: a lot of good Barack Obama’s “official support” of DC statehood did in 2009 when the Dem party had a House majority and 60 votes (enough to overcome a filibuster threat from the other party). As with many other subjects, the Democratic Party wants the issue to continue for campaign reasons rather than permanent solutions 15:45

As a former DC voter who has thought a lot about this: DC should be returned to Maryland.

41% of African American living in D.C. would make them the plurality instead of the majority. I can understand why you used majority since it’s more familiar than the term plurality, which is the largest group among three or more groups. Majority is traditionally defined as more than half.

The reason D.C. pays so much in Federal taxes is that D.C. also has all the Federal jobs that benefit from the Federal taxes from the other states... I live in the DMV area and the 1st and 3rd richest counties in the nation reside in this area. It's not coincidence.

Why not just give them a representative but not make them a state? Just like how the Vatican City has a representative in the U.N.

Washington DC residents really need to support Puerto Rico's cause for statehood and have both go through congress and House of Rep.

fun fact: in Brazil the capital of the country doesn´t have a governor because of its size however citizens have pretty much all rights to vote for mayor, representatives etc.

17:50 I love how you used 49th highest population instead of 3rd least.

Didn't we fight over 200+ years ago with the saying "No Taxation without Representation!" ?

Preemptively looking at this reasoning with the question: "Is this a valid reason to take away democratic reservation for more people than live on several small states?" I'm expecting the answer is "No, don't be ridiculous."

You explained that in the 1993 vote all the house Republicans voted no to DC statehood, which makes sense, but you didn't go into why the Democrats were split. What was the reasoning for the portion of Dems who voted no to statehood?

Even without the filibuster, Joe Manchin said he’d only support DC statehood through a constitutional amendment, so it would fail 49-51 in the Senate.

There should be NO one living in D.C. who is not a government worker. Reminds me of a SCAM a teacher pull on my 3rd grade school friends. We played ball after school, one day a teacher offered to Umpire games. Three months later we were told we could no longer play because the school could not afford to pay the teacher for the umpiring job. So much for good faith services.

I think there is a law or amendment to keep the number of representatives at 435 if there were to be more states.

I'm sure that if D.C. statehood were to pass, Congress and the states would very quickly repeal the 23rd amendment, as it would be completely ridiculous at that point.

I'm always impressed by how the US can be so cleverly built, as a country, but, at the same time, so complicated.

TLDR; Cant make 51 stars fit evenly

We used to throw tea into a harbor for less