Talk:District of Columbia vote in the United States House of Representatives

message: I may be wrong, but it seems like the first section especially (in addition to the others) is really biased. It's talking about how taxation w/o respresentation is a problem, and they imply that it's agreed that it's going on in DC - can we get some supporters of the other side (hey I actually agree with them, but the fact that I CAN agree means it's violating NPOV)?--Danielfolsom 08:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there may be an NPOV problem.  The section on "Taxation Without Representation" used to be more balanced, but that balance was edited out.  I have now restored it.  I'll remove the NPOV tag for the time being.Ferrylodge 13:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The article is missing some important information regarding the 2007 Congressional action.  The section opens with a discussion of HR 328, but then on Mar 13, a House Committee passed HR 1433.  We ought to describe what happened to HR 328 as well as the differences between the two bills.  Does anyone know? -- Sholom 14:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A newer version of the bill - HR 1905 - passed a full House vote last week and is on its way to the Senate. I'll update the article. -- Hux 11:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional Action in 2007 

message: Beansy has deleted the following paragraph from the article:
:"The voting power of each citizen of Washington D.C. in presidential elections is currently more than three times that of Texas citizens, according to a list of U.S. states by population. However, the voting power of each citizen of Washington D.C. in presidential elections is currently less than that of Wyoming citizens."
This paragraph has been the subject of considerable discussion above, and this info about per capita electoral representation has been in the article for months (i.e. since last year).  I don't see any compelling reason to delete this accurate information.
Beansy says that, "electoral representation per-capita is a separate issue and does not belong here."  However, the present article discusses the lack of DC representation in the Senate, and that is certainly relevant to whether DC should have a vote in the House vote.  Likewise, the voting power of DC citizens in presidential elections is relevant too.Ferrylodge 06:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, since I seem to be in the minority here in the opinion that this is a separate issue, I'm not going to bother contesting it right now, since I simply don't have the energy right now. I added that Texas has less electoral representation per capita than any other state though, since that is directly relevant to the example. Beansy 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beansy -- are you in the minority?  I see Ferrylodge on one side, and a you and me on the other.  Who else has taken a stand? -- Sholom 16:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would the lack of DC voting power in the Senate be relevant, while the presence of DC voting power in presidential elections is irrelevant?  Anyway, if info is arguably relevant, I think we should err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.  Is there a way of rephrasing this info that would make Beansy and Sholom more comfortable with it?  The info has been in the article for quite a while, and I don't think anyone disputes that it's factually correct.Ferrylodge 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is disputing the factual accuracy of the paragraph in question. DC's lack of voting power in the Senate is relevant as an extension of the subject of DC's disenfranchisement in general. Do you think that us D.C. residents don't ultimately want someone to speak and vote on our behalf in the Senate as well like every other U.S. citizen has that pays federal taxes? Anyway, while the fact that DC is represented by the electoral college in Presidential elections is relevant in that DC is not disenfranchised in that regard, the degree of their electoral representation per-capita is only tangentially relevant at best, and relies entirely on the implication that the fact that they have higher proportional electoral college representation than all but one state somehow makes up for their lack of Congressional representation in any direct, meaningful way. Furthermore, even if that is an acceptible argument to pose, it in no way represents a legal argument for or against the District of Columbia receiving Congressional representation anymore than the same subject represents a legal argument for Wyoming being stripped of its Congressman. Which is to say it is not a legal argument at all. Even if the information is somehow relevant to the topic, it's most definitely in the wrong section.Beansy 07:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've shortened the material in question, and moved it to a different section.  Hopefully, that will work better.Ferrylodge 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, the information about relative voting power in Presidential elections should not be in the article. This article is about the move to give DC a full voting member of the House of Representatives, voting for which is already weighted per capita. Mentioning its relative voting power per capita in Presidential elections is both irrelevant to the article's specific topic and, more importantly, very likely to confuse readers. However, it does make sense to at least mention that the District currently has no Senate representation, since this serves to frame the article in terms of the larger discussion - that of DC voting representation in general. - Hux 11:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Hux, there's other articles dealing with realtive voting power in Presidential elections and this is very much non relevent to this article. DC currently has 3 electorial votes out of 438. If this passes, DC will have 3 electoral votes out of 439. Jon 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This legislation will affect the electoral college.  That must be mentioned.Ferrylodge 15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. However, that information doesn't belong in the title section. I've incorporated it into the section on the 2007 bill. (See below for some more ideas I'm having about the structure of the article as a whole.) -- Hux 07:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral Representation Per Capita 

message: It would be useful if there were some info on where this stands in the Senate's list of priorties if there are some sources. Particularly from leadership. Jon 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any sourced statements from the Senate yet? 

message: Any sources on what the difference between this version and the previous version is? Jon 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   H.R. 1905 

message: I think there are several ways in which this article could be improved. For example:
* The last sentence in the opening paragraph and the whole of the second paragraph should be moved to a section below the contents box. Leader sections in Wiki articles are meant to give an overall description of what the article is about, not delve into different opinions, legal questions, etc., about the topic.
* The section immediately following the contents box should probably be an expanded discussion of the notion of DC voting representation in the House, rather than an immediate platform position with a somewhat sensationalist heading, as it is now. After all, DC voting rights are not solely based on the notion of "no taxation without representation".
* The sections, "DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006", and, "District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007", should either be merged, or re-written as sub-sections under a common title (e.g. "Legislation"). Right now there's a lot of repeated information, since the bills are very similar.
* The article overall needs to move to a higher standard of professionalism, in my opinion. Phrases like, "These seem to be the primary pertinent parts of the Constitution", are a bit...amateur. ;)
Thoughts? -- Hux 08:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of your suggestions are good.  I've edited the article accordingly.  Take a look, and see what you think.  I still feel that the lead must discuss the electoral college.  Any bill that affects the electoral college must be summarized as such, IMHO.Ferrylodge 16:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for structural changes to the article 

message: "In the unlikely event that the population of D.C. approaches that of two districts, there may again be calls for a bill to give equal representation." The wiki is not a crystal ball. From a more practical standpoint, a second house district would requires more population than the state of Montanta has (the most populated state with only one representive.) Jon 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut unsourced speculation

message: "Lieberman chaired a committee hearing on May 15.[25] Russell Feingold of Wisconsin chaired a Senate hearing on the same subject, on May 23.[26]" Which Senate committee(s) or subcomittee(s)? The committees legislation goes thru is much more important than who is leading them. Jon 14:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just fixed that.Ferrylodge 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Committees more important than the person leading the hearings 

message: Would it be Mike Panetta or Eleanor Norton? Or would a new election have to be held? (Who would run?) —Random832 15:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to assume Norton, with upwards of 17 years fighting for this issue, would be the clear favorite.--Patrick Ѻ 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who would be the Representative?