Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (21) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Al S.

    Al S. said, 2 days ago

    Some pols would prefer to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Americans, than chance relinquishing their personal power, ever-narrowing personal interests, and dubious income sources.

  2. JmcaRice

    JmcaRice GoComics PRO Member said, 1 day ago

    There is more political support to return the residential areas of DC back to Maryland since DC was carved out of that state (mostly) to begin with. DC residents would then become re-enfranchised with their own Maryland representative and Senators.

  3. mikefive

    mikefive said, 1 day ago

    I don’t think it would be a good idea to give government employees in D.C. two senators and one (two?) representatives. That would give federal employees an extraordinarily loud voice in national governance.

  4. SizeofaPea

    SizeofaPea said, 1 day ago

    I was taught in school that D.C. was specifically created NOT to be a state. For obvious reasons of hubris and humility.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Of course that was just after the invention of the printing press and we handed in our homework on stone tablets.

  5. gmgodsil

    gmgodsil said, 1 day ago

    Why should ONE city get TWO senators & one representative? Makes NO sense!

  6. martens misses all her friends

    martens misses all her friends GoComics PRO Member said, 1 day ago

    Why should Wyoming (pop. ~ 600,000) have two senators and one representative?

  7. mikefive

    mikefive said, 1 day ago

    @martens misses all her friends

    “Why should Wyoming (pop. ~ 600,000) have two senators and one representative?”

    It keeps the more populated states from running roughshod over the less populated states.

  8. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, 1 day ago

    mikefive: Sure, it is far better that small and/or uneducated states run roughshod over the majority. Must not let the insiders who know where the corruption lies and the bodies are buried have any say in rooting them out.

  9. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 1 day ago

    Because of D. C.’s peculiar state as a district, the people who live in the slave built up city on a swamp are run rough shod over by the Federal govt instead of a state govt. A real mess.

  10. martens misses all her friends

    martens misses all her friends GoComics PRO Member said, 1 day ago

    @mikefive

    Fine. But then what is your answer to gmgodsil? Is the difference (DC with ~700,000 pop. vs Wyoming with ~600,000 pop) just on land area? You can’t run roughshod over a population that owns a large area, but you can run roughshod over a slightly larger population who don’t own a large area of land? Is that fair either?

  11. TripleAxel

    TripleAxel said, 1 day ago

    @JmcaRice

    “There is more political support to return the residential areas of DC back to Maryland since DC was carved out of that state (mostly) to begin with. DC residents would then become re-enfranchised with their own Maryland representative and Senators.”
    -
    That would make more sense to me.

  12. louieglutz

    louieglutz said, 1 day ago

    @martens misses all her friends

    if you would learn your history you would know that the founding fathers considered this and decided that if it wasn’t done this way, the urban masses would destroy the rights of the rural states. it’s called compromise for the greater good.

  13. Ruff

    Ruff GoComics PRO Member said, 1 day ago

    @louieglutz

    Then why did we not stick to the original plan. Why was Virginia allowed to get their share back?

  14. cdward

    cdward said, 1 day ago

    @louieglutz

    Huge difference between then and now. In those days, we were a largely agrarian society. Many of the founding fathers were largely farmers (rich, gentlemen estate farmers, but still…), so they had a vested interest in limiting urban power in favor of their own disproportionate power. Today, however, I prefer one-person-one-vote. Each individual, not each state, ought to have the power. And if more people live in urban areas (logically), then they ought to have a proportional say. There’s no good reason why the rural states should destroy the rights of what you call “the urban masses.”

  15. mikefive

    mikefive said, 1 day ago

    @cdward

    “Huge difference between then and now. In those days,”

    No, cd, things haven’t changed in the manner that you suggest. The States with locales of large urban population get their proportional representation in the House of Representatives. The reasoning of Hamilton in the Federalist Papers hold today as much as they did in 1787.
    By your “logic” the Northeast Corridor, Southern California, and other high population density areas and little physical area could dictate governmental policy to the less dense areas. This is why we have the House representing the populace and The Senate representing the States.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (6).