> DC needs to be a state. It's unconscionable that it isn't and the rights of 680,000+ US citizens are ignored because it isn't politically expedient to give them the representation they're due.

I hope this doesn't sound like a lecture, but whenever a question about fundamental rights emerges, it's often useful to turn to the Constitution and Federalist Papers to understand the rationale and intent behind the system that was created. While it's certainly possible to disagree and change things over time, there's usually a valid historical reasoning behind why things were made the way they were that is lost.

As far as I understand the history (I'm open to fact-checking as I'm not a historian and never lived in DC) Washington D.C. was intentionally never supposed to be a state so that no single state would have extra power and influence over the operation of the central government. This makes a lot of sense when you think of this in terms of bureaucracy and power creep that the Founders were trying to avoid. If Washington D.C. was a state from the beginning, its interests and issues would inevitably begin to take precedence over those of other states because the Capitol would be on land it controlled. The Capitol was intended to be completely neutral ground when it came to favoring any state over any other.

Now you might ask, were the people of that area supposed to have no representation at all? Not exactly. As far as I understand the intent, Washington D.C. was actually never supposed to have a large permanent residential population. DC was intended for whatever government buildings that needed to exist and that's basically it. I'm not 100% sure how that changed and what historical factors led to DC growing into a larger city, but that seems to be a key mistake.

The question now becomes what do you do with these people to ensure that they're represented? I think most people are on the same page here with wanting all Americans represented, but is making them a state the right solution? I'd argue no and I'd like to give a slightly different reason why.

A lot of the commenters here are thinking in terms of balance when it comes down to Black/White or Democratic/Republican when it comes to adding states, but I'd argue that the key division in the nation that needs to be balanced is Urban/Rural. A lot of the ways that people in this country think differently come down to whether they're more Urban or Rural-minded. How people think about self-responsibility and living with neighbors comes down to this divide: you can easily see this viewpoint encapsulated when it comes to gun rights and education and how the Urban/Rural divide works there. One big issue with DC that I see (as far as I understand the area) is that it's so small that there's no substantial rural influence possible. Even the bluest of blue states that are dominated by urban politics like New York have some kind of rural areas and constituencies that they have to pay attention to and who hold some influence and mindshare in a state legislature. As far as I understand the area, Washington D.C. can never have any kind of rural influence just due to the density and size. I think adding a state without even a theoretical influence of one factor possible is very questionable and likely going to be incredibly divisive.