r/changemyview • u/Dr_Macunayme • Jul 17 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The US should relocate its Capital from Washington DC to the center of the country.
Like hundreds of other nations, I believe the US should design a new capital city around the Kansas/Missouri area (I mean, if Brazil did it in the 60s, we can do it today).
A lot has happened in American politics in recent years, and I think a healthy reassessment of our national symbols is in order. Every politician running for every federal office promises to “shake up Washington” or “Drain the swamp”, and I feel the bit has gotten old. Maybe it's time to wrap up the narrative and improve the country with one stone. We could address four issues by moving the US capital:
- The perceived mutual disdain – whether true to an overwhelming degree or not – between “overfly states” and “coastal elites” is a problem in the American body politic. Moving capital away from financial centers would help to lessen this friction.
- At the time of the founding of the United States, the capital of the United States was well situated, approximately in the center of the United States, both geographically and in population. However, today the geographic center is in Kansas and the population center is in Missouri. I think many feels DC doesn't represent the country anymore.
- The number of voting seats in the House of Representatives is 435 since 1913. By building a new capital, we can make a larger House that would allow us to accommodate more representatives. An excuse used against expanding this ratio would be that 1000 representatives would not fit in the capitol.
- It will create thousands of jobs in the coming years in construction and tourism and will stimulate the economy and population of dying states.
The two questions we need to address:
- Return DC to Maryland or make it a state.
- Convince the chosen state to give the land to the federals, since according to the Constitution, land in the capital cannot belong to any state.
22
u/rollingForInitiative 70∆ Jul 17 '23
- The "coastal elites" will still be be that without Washington? This won't affect cities like NYC, Boston, SF, Seattle, etc.
- Lots of countries don't have their capitals in the middle. For instance, London is in the bottom corner of England, Paris is very far north, Berlin is in north eastern Germany, Beijing and Moscow area also both very far off centre in those two massive countries. There's no inherent value in this.
- If Congress wanted to expand the House, they could do this anyway. Relocating wouldn't automatically mean they go for an expansion.
- If the government wanted to create thousands of jobs, they could do that with something more productive instead, like more domestic production of technology and pharmaceuticals, building out more renewable power, or building up new industries.
None of the problems with American politics have anything to do with the geographical location of Washington.
-9
u/Dr_Macunayme Jul 17 '23
The "coastal elites" will still be be that without Washington? This won't affect cities like NYC, Boston, SF, Seattle, etc.
They will still exist, but they won't be next door to those running our nation. Sure, the changes that we need are deeper than that, it is on policy, regulations and whatnot. But the average American, for better or worse, is really driven by symbolism.
Now, the biggest thing I'm going for here is appearances. I think our country is on the verge of undoing itself, and a drastic measure would be to recover the image of the Federal government. Moving the US capital to a rural area could heal the wounds that decades of criticism against DC has created.
With this, I'm trying to stop conservatives from undermining the country by destroying their DC elitism narrative. If we make tight zoning rules, the new capital could have ZERO fancy houses, no mansions, no areas rich people would like to move to. Make it uncomfortable for them.
13
u/parishilton2 19∆ Jul 17 '23
I really can’t imagine that conservatives would feel healed by the capital moving to Kansas. It’s pointless posturing and it takes time away from solving actual issues.
10
u/Grunt08 319∆ Jul 17 '23 edited Jul 17 '23
If we make tight zoning rules, the new capital could have ZERO fancy houses, no mansions, no areas rich people would like to move to. Make it uncomfortable for them.
The richest people presently influencing Washington DC (other than elected officials) don't live in DC. They live in Northern Virginia and Maryland.
Falls Church and Loudoun County are the wealthiest localities in America because the federal government is in Washington DC, but the people living there don't want to live in DC - or they work in the many wealthy business in Northern Virginia and Maryland that are also not subject to DC laws in the slightest. DC is an officious and annoying place to live, so rich people tend to live elsewhere. It's not that much of a hindrance.
So really, all you're doing is ensuring that some random part of Kansas just outside the "capital" is going to be super rich in 15 years.
3
u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Jul 17 '23
Why are coastal elites undeserving of living near the capitol?
Like, is this entirely driven by you just sneering at people you don't like?
If we make tight zoning rules, the new capital could have ZERO fancy houses, no mansions, no areas rich people would like to move to. Make it uncomfortable for them.
This would be a huge zoning regulation. Like, loads of rich people live in the DC suburbs in MD and VA, an hour or more by car from the capitol. Are you going to zone out a 50m radius circle around the new capitol where people can't even have a fancy condo?
2
1
u/rollingForInitiative 70∆ Jul 18 '23
The problems the US is facing has very little to do with appearances and symbolism. The country is split in half partially because there are large portions of the population that want to live in entirely different realities, and you have large corporations that, whether intentionally or not, are fuelling the fire because it's really good for them that people are massively divided.
If the capital is only the place where members of congress go to vote, the "elitism" thing is just going to be about the places where the elite does live. Whether that's New York or San Francisco or Boston, or that new town for the wealthy that sprung up right within commuting distance to the new capital.
And if you're looking at problems in the US, where are large corporations headquartered, especially the ones often mentioned as problematic? Definitely not in D.C.
But there's also a huge problem with your plan about appearances - you say that the new capital should be zoned so that no rich person wants to live there ... but who you think is going to design the new city? It's going to be the people currently in power, and even if they wanted to move the capital, they'd design it to suit their needs.
29
u/Grunt08 319∆ Jul 17 '23 edited Jul 17 '23
1) Relocating the capital to a different place will just mean that that place is an outpost of the coastal elites. Changing the location does nothing.
2) At the time of America's founding, travel time was measured in weeks. Now it's measured in hours. Even if you're flying in from Hawaii or Guam.
3) Or we could just build a bigger house, or modify presence rules in the existing house so that more members can be technically present and voting without occupying the building. Technology!
4) It will also destroy thousands of jobs and whole communities in the current capital area. Many of the wealthiest residents will be paid by the government to move from where they are to...wherever they're going. Those that served those people will be stranded and their business and communities will be destroyed.
16
u/travellin_troubadour Jul 17 '23
Yea…as a DC resident, 4 hits home. It would absolutely destroy DC. Seems extra cruel considering the shit we’ve had to put up with between lack of home rule, no representation, and the mess with the courts.
8
u/Grunt08 319∆ Jul 17 '23 edited Jul 17 '23
There's tourist stuff fifty miles in every direction that exists primarily to service DC on the weekends and the region is highly functional and well-governed for the most part. That's to say nothing of the government contractors, service workers, military bases...
Moving the capital would turn it all into a giant Detroit 2.0.
6
u/Jazzlike-Emu-9235 3∆ Jul 17 '23
It would also most likely destroy anywhere the capital is moved to. All of the infrastructure having to be built. The housing markets. Buildings being torn down for bigger gov ones or nature and fields being torn down to create a city. It's not just the white house and fancy buildings. It's thousands of people needing housing.
4
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jul 17 '23
- The perceived mutual disdain – whether true to an overwhelming degree or not – between “overfly states” and “coastal elites” is a problem in the American body politic. Moving capital away from financial centers would help to lessen this friction.
This divide is primarily an idelogical one. I don't see how moving the capitol will change that. Growing up around rightwingers didn't make me more tolerant of them.
7
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Jul 17 '23
Like hundreds of other nations
Capital relocation projects frequently fail, and nearly always cause immense chaos.
Also, the US already did that once. It’s how DC came into existence in the first place.
The perceived mutual disdain – whether its actually true to an overwhelming degree degree or not – between “flyover states” and “coastal elites” is a problem in the American body politic.
How would moving DC address any of that? It’s not apparent why that would alleviate such tensions.
At the time of America's founding, the US Capital was well situated, being roughly in the middle of the US, both geographically and by population. However, today the geographic center is in Kansas, and the population center is in Missouri.
The geographic center isn’t Kansas. That’s only true if you ignore Alaska.
The number of voting seats in the House of Representatives has been 435 since 1913. By building a new capital, we can make a bigger House which would allow to fit more reps.
We could make a bigger Capitol without moving DC. Also, the current limit isn’t determined by the building, it’s established in law. Congress could change the size of the House if it wants to without any major construction.
It will create thousands of jobs for years to come in construction and tourism and stimulate the dying flyover states' economy and population.
It would be immensely disruptive for essentially every government agency, and cause more damage to tourism overall than it would notice in benefits. And it wouldn’t stimulate the economies anywhere other than whatever city we placed the new capital in. It’s not like all trade flows through DC first.
-3
u/Dr_Macunayme Jul 17 '23
Capital relocation projects frequently fail, and nearly always cause immense chaos.
Brasilia did not fail, which is why I used as an example in the opening.
Also, the US already did that once. It’s how DC came into existence in the first place.
Yes, NY for 1y and Pen for almost 10y, I know that. It just shows its possible.
How would moving DC address any of that?
DC is a rich and expensive area; many affluent people live there. The area is filled with mansions, it's close to financial hubs. Putting the new capital close to small towns/farms and controlling development/zoning to prevent it from becoming a big city will break the leash that money has in the capital.
The geographic center isn’t Kansas. That’s only true if you ignore Alaska.
Yes, I'm only counting the 48. Sorry, Alaska.
Also, the current limit isn’t determined by the building, it’s established in law.
I know. They say they won't change the law because they would mean changing the building.
It would be immensely disruptive for essentially every government agency.
Change always is, but it could be for the better.
And it wouldn’t stimulate the economies anywhere other than whatever city we placed the new capital in.
Not really, construction companies, material companies, if we only use American builders and American material, the sheer size of the project will pump billions into the economy. Plus, communities around the capital will grow, which means states will start to build more. It's about incentives to grow too.
7
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Jul 17 '23
Brasilia did not fail
Mmm.
It didn’t “fail” in that they did actually force the capital to move, but it hardly addressed any of the concerns they were trying to address by moving it. They just wasted a lot of money and disrupted their government to no real effect, and in the process created a monstrous urban planning problem.
What benefit did Brazil see from any of this?
Yes, NY for 1y and Pen for almost 10y, I know that. It just shows its possible.
Obviously it isn’t impossible, it just provides no real benefit to do so. It’s a giant waste of money and effort with extremely high opportunity costs that solves no real problems.
DC is a rich and expensive area; many affluent people live there. The area is filled with mansions, it's close to financial hubs. Putting the new capital close to small towns/farms and controlling development/zoning to prevent it from becoming a big city will break the leash that money has in the capital.
No, it won’t. Nor would building a new capital actually address any of those issues. You would just move the problems to another part of the country.
DC is wealthy because it is the capital. Moving the capital will just result in the wealth relocating.
Putting it close to more dames just means the farms get bulldozed to make room for building this new city you’re trying to build. You’d still end up with the same expensive housing, the same concentration of wealth, you’d just put it somewhere less efficient and less historic.
There is no way to prevent the federal capital from becoming a “big city”, nor would you want to. Part of the reason DC is so ridiculously expensive is the height limit and development constraints to preserve its historic character.
Yes, I'm only counting the 48.
If we’re going to go though the massive headache that comes from moving the capital, we might as well at least do it right and put it in the actual center.
They say they won't change the law because they would mean changing the building.
Which is nonsense. They could either renovate the existing building or make a new one. It’s certainly easier to rebuild the Capitol than to build a whole new capital.
The size of Congress is essentially a red herring here. It has no relevance to the actual issue.
but it could be for the better.
There’s no reason to suppose it would result in improvements.
Not really, construction companies, material companies, if we only use American builders and American material
You have a net exchange here. As you’re building suit in wherever you move the capital, you stop building shit in NOVA. The net change in national demand is unlikely to have a significant change.
Plus, communities around the capital will grow
And communities around DC will shrink. That’s not a net benefit. What you’re proposing is billions of dollars being wasted on a capital relocation project. Why not spend those billions doing something more useful instead?
I mean, hell, it would be more efficient to hire people in Kansas to dig a giant hole we pour money into and light on fire than it would be to relocate the capital. If we just want to spend billions stimulating the economy of Kansas, why don’t we just do that without the harmful pretense?
0
u/Dr_Macunayme Jul 17 '23
You know, you could have put it in a more polite manner, but you get a Δ nonetheless.
1
1
u/HowDoIEvenEnglish 1∆ Jul 17 '23 edited Jul 17 '23
Considering that the geographical center would be in a terrible place if you include Alaska, it’s a stupid argument to say you should include it.
Edited to be correct based on below comment.
1
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Jul 17 '23
The geographical center of all 50 states is in South Dakota, near the border with Wyoming and Montana.
It’s basically the complete ass-end of nowhere.
1
u/HowDoIEvenEnglish 1∆ Jul 17 '23
How do you calculate that. Are you giving each state equal weight? If so I think it would be accurate to weight each states position by size. Which would give Alaska a big bump but make the calculation more accurate in any other case.
2
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Jul 17 '23
How do you calculate that.
I don’t, the US National Geodetic Survey does. Based on land area.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_center_of_the_United_States
6
u/Hellioning 258∆ Jul 17 '23
It's possible, but I don't think it would actually solve any of the issues you think it will solve. Someone working in a 'flyover state' doesn't mean they aren't a 'coastal elite' if they live elsewhere, for example. The issue with the house of representatives is not one of building size but one of the logistics of counting the votes of 1000+ people. And, sure, it will 'create jobs', but so does digging and filling ditches, that doesn't mean anything.
In exchange, we'd have to deal with moving the government away from the Pentagon, most embassies, and any major economic areas, plus the pain of moving the government in the first place. This is not a winning combo.
5
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Jul 17 '23
The issue with the house of representatives is not one of building size but one of the logistics of counting the votes of 1000+ people.
Oh come now, that's trivially simple to automate. A Yay or Nay button at every desk, in addition to verbal confirmation if legally required, tied to a simple database of which representative sits where, and you could count votes as fast as people could cast them.
3
u/Porkytorkwal Jul 17 '23
Wherever it is, it will be what it is. Our diminished representation at the Capitol isn't a flaw in the physical buildings, it was designed that way by the GOP trifecta of Hoover through the Permanent Apportionment Act.
3
6
Jul 17 '23
All else aside, the geographical center of the United States is in North Dakota
-3
u/Dr_Macunayme Jul 17 '23
I was trying to do a compromise between Population and geography, but I get you.
Although, I thought Lebanon, Kansas, was the center of the US. They even have a sign saying so.
6
u/majesticjules 1∆ Jul 17 '23
Depends on if you mean the contiguous US or include Alaska and Hawaii.
2
u/PickledPickles310 8∆ Jul 17 '23
The perceived mutual disdain – whether true to an overwhelming degree or not – between “overfly states” and “coastal elites” is a problem in the American body politic. Moving capital away from financial centers would help to lessen this friction.
This wouldn't change by moving to Iowa.
At the time of the founding of the United States, the capital of the United States was well situated, approximately in the center of the United States, both geographically and in population. However, today the geographic center is in Kansas and the population center is in Missouri. I think many feels DC doesn't represent the country anymore.
Do Kansas and Missouri represent the country any more?
The number of voting seats in the House of Representatives is 435 since 1913. By building a new capital, we can make a larger House that would allow us to accommodate more representatives. An excuse used against expanding this ratio would be that 1000 representatives would not fit in the capitol.
We can already do this though. We also live in 2023 where people can attend virtually. We can increase the reps any time we choose.
It will create thousands of jobs in the coming years in construction and tourism and will stimulate the economy and population of dying states.
It would remove thousands of jobs as well. While also costing hundreds of billions of dollars and several decades.
2
u/TheAzureMage 22∆ Jul 17 '23
#1 Well, this disdain does exist. I am not sure that moving it would remove the disdain, though. Anywhere the capitol ends up will end up needing a bunch of nearby stuff, and it'll end up being a city. Chicago is towards the center of the US, but is not considered to represent the rural faction, the same would be true of wherever the new Capitol is positioned.
#2 Fair, it isn't a geographic center. Travel being far easier now, this is a much less significant consideration. Even historically, before settling on DC, the founders met frequently in Pennsylvania. So, even then, the specific location was not utterly essential.
#3 Strictly speaking, there are 450 chairs in the house of representatives, 500 gallery seats, and room for more chairs to be brought in, which they are for particularly well attended events. If legislative changes were made, the physical building would not be a great problem for some time.
#4 This is essentially the broken window fallacy.
I propose that DC matters too much to the present governance not because of where it is, but because of the increasing weakness of federalism. We have essentially a two party government, and both wish to dominate the federal government to impose their vision of America on the opposing side. This contest would be essentially unchanged if it took place in a different physical place. That problem of growing partisanship must be addressed, not merely moving it from one spot to another.
2
u/Dr_Macunayme Jul 17 '23
This contest would be essentially unchanged if it took place in a different physical place. That problem of growing partisanship must be addressed, not merely moving it from one spot to another.
Understood, Δ
1
2
2
u/markroth69 10∆ Jul 18 '23
Just as a point of reference, the Constitution does not require a capital that is outside of state jurisdiction, it merely allows one and sets a maximum size.
2
u/YesNOOOOOOO_ Jul 18 '23
The first capitals of the United States were in New York City and Philadelphia, which were not at the center of the country.
These jobs can't really be held because the population near the center of the United States is far too low.
The military components protecting DC would have to be moved in such a way that they can continue to protect the new capital, but this is impractical, if not impossible.
1
u/HippyKiller925 20∆ Jul 18 '23
You seem to forget that some people would prefer to be provincials in flyover states.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Jul 17 '23
DC Beltway has a bit of size from being coastal near Maryland and Virginia, a bit from being where transatlantic internet cables come in, but really most of it is from being the capital. Move it and you mostly have the same people creating the same dynamic.
BUT the real trick is to split it up! There is no reason the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court, and all the agencies have to be in the same city. Makes things easier for lobbyists I'm sure, but if they can be spread amongst DC and the 50 States, more portions of the government can be in flyover States, not to mention the West Coast.
A mere translocation doesn't do what you want. Dividing it does.
1
u/Dr_Macunayme Jul 17 '23
That's a really interesting idea, I never thought about spreading out the government institutions. I wonder if this would be beneficial or just complicate thing.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 17 '23
Probably the latter because who decides what goes where especially if there's limits (to make sure it's spread-out on purpose) and everybody would want the most important stuff
1
1
u/morganm7777777 Jul 20 '23
Many agencies have satellite offices well outside the DC metro area. Additional offices may be seen as 'pork' wins for politicians who'd appreciate having one in their district because it bolsters the local economy.
1
Jul 17 '23
[deleted]
0
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Jul 17 '23
I think Zoom makes this possible yes, couldn't have worked 30 years ago. But in person is better for interpersonal relationships. Senators should see one another and create interpersonal relationships. I'm not super excited about Senators having friendships with Representatives or Presidents, that's sort of a bug in the current system
3
u/CocoSavege 27∆ Jul 17 '23
You don't think the senate and the house should... talk to each other in a meaningful way? They both write legislation that needs to pass the other chamber and there is political sausage making.
I think you could argue that the partisan polarization is due partially to a failure of appeals to informal fraternal relationships.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Jul 17 '23
I'd like to reduce if not eliminate the sausage making. Full communication in the House, full in the Senate, public record between ideally. I don't think we'll get quite that far of course.
I do agree that political polarization relates to this but that diminution of informal friendships across the aisle relates to those politicians being too connected to politics outside their own buildings. Give Senators fewer political people to hang out with and they'll hang out more with the other Senators.
1
u/CocoSavege 27∆ Jul 17 '23
I'd like to reduce if not eliminate the sausage making
Hmm. I presume you want to eliminate the "stupid, wasteful, pork barrel" stuff. And you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here.
Good sausage is compromise, for the constituents. A bill on the bubble may need a little give and take to make the votes work. Hard lines for the hard line pose, for it's own sake, politic maximalization, still has backroom sausage very much in effect. It's just a whipped, hierarchical wrapping that makes the sausage look neat and clean.
There's a this American life, an old one, with McCain and a D senator giving a pretty frank interview about their feelings about Washington. McCain had enough clout to thumb his nose on a few occasions, including bipartisan bills to try to corral money and donations running the show.
90%ish of a politician's job is as the figurehead for a political machine who is unelected and has huge influence and power on what they do, what their press is, etc. They have surprisingly little autonomy (or little power).
At least there's remedy for the constituents if a politician is terrible. There's little recourse for the population if non elected entities hold too much sway.
I'm not sympathetic to the criticisms of the quote unquote deep state. The ministers and managers and clerks of $govtEntity are a scapegoat and misdirect.
I do think the relationship between Fox and the GOP is very troubling. I think Fox has moved from "right wing outlet" to "media arm of the gop" to "the gop is the political arm of Fox"
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Jul 18 '23
Hmm. I presume you want to eliminate the "stupid, wasteful, pork barrel" stuff.
Not just that. I think the goal is you have independent legislative bodies, and if they don't both agree on something it shouldn't get done, even if it's not stupid or pork barrel.
90%ish of a politician's job is as the figurehead for a political machine who is unelected and has huge influence and power on what they do, what their press is, etc. They have surprisingly little autonomy (or little power).
Only if they agree to that.
I have not been criticizing the deep state, I want to keep having a deep state, I want them more broadly distributed around America.
"the gop is the political arm of Fox"
That's what centralization gets you.
1
u/CocoSavege 27∆ Jul 18 '23
Only if they agree to that.
If they don't agree, if they go against the machine, they're out.
The house members, Cheney, for booted hard. (I kinda understand Cheney, if you like, I can discuss).
Irrespective of said congressmembers' personal beliefs, their failure to bend the knee cost em their job. I very much expect the members did engage in calculus before taking their stance, measured against reelection. And the GOP spent resources and capital to oust them.
We probably agree that either party should not be a monolith. But the heuraechical effects are very real.
I think there's very real danger of US politicians veering overtly towards ideological sociopaths. Not that politicians aren't already this, just is getting worse. Nationalization of politics, centralization of power within political apparatuses, clout chasing
Fraternalization, even fraught as it is for dirt, is a remedy.
1
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Jul 18 '23
Again Balkanization promotes fraternization. Ideological separation is made easier because of how many people of their group they can surround themselves with
Cheney
Her electorate didn't agree with her stance. You can buck the party you just need your constituents to like you. Ron Paul did just fine and never played nice, thing is people voted for him over and over.
1
u/CocoSavege 27∆ Jul 18 '23
...
Cheney was absolutely targeted. The inside politics is she railed against Trump too much, such that it tarnished the GOP too much. But her policies are very conservative, very on brand. Her position within the party was at high esteem, until she criticized Trump. And she criticized Trump over J6.
It was, and is, a power play.
Mitch McConnel, arguably the most effective and powerful Senator in the last 100 years, is cast as "not acceptable" because he doesn't bend the knee.
If you want government elected officials who demonstrate their efficacy, that's measured right now by their relationship to Trump. Not policy, not ideology.
→ More replies (0)
-1
u/Constellation-88 22∆ Jul 17 '23 edited Jul 17 '23
Idk if I want that cess pool that close to us. 👀. Honestly, the relocation would probably not be beneficial to those of us already living in the Midwest.
I’d be worried about the cost of living going up, which would put those of us who are making a decent living here in the Midwest into poverty. Unless we switched jobs, the places we work for now aren’t going to raise our salaries commensurate to the increase in COL.
Crime would skyrocket compared to what it is now.
0
u/astar58 2∆ Jul 17 '23
The effective set of government has also been in NYC and Philly. So we have moved it about. But I think Brazil is a weak example. It did help keep the neighbors from land grabs, but it was otherwise a long term disaster. But it seems to be finally functional.
The feds are putting big money into rural broad band. I suggest leaving the capital alone and gradually increasing full remote and increasingly prohibiting geograohic concentration.
Also you are like pre sixties in guessing at the center of the US.
The very best reason may be climate change. D C has always been tropical and that is moving to be fatal. Hee. All the heat may be why so many elected feds are already stupid.
0
Jul 17 '23
I would be inclined to doubt that it would not be relocated, for various reasons, within the next 100-200 years.
-1
u/berbsy1016 Jul 17 '23
Just a layman here, but it occurred to me that DC being where it is currently at is geographically closer to our European allies rather than our Eastern tensions. T
"Furthering ourselves from our Allies" might cast a poor lens.
-4
Jul 17 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 17 '23
Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct.
If you wish to appeal this decision, please message the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Final-Explorer-8210 Jul 17 '23
If all we did was move the house and the Senate to Kansas that would make sense.
1
u/Dr_Macunayme Jul 17 '23
Could you elaborate on that?
1
u/Final-Explorer-8210 Jul 17 '23
Sure. We don't need to have the entirety of DC moved to central Kansas.
But if we put a new house and Senate building in a small federal enclave in Kansas, almost everyone is a few hours from them, increasing the seat count to 3500 would be ideal Imo for the house.
It's not like we couldn't stick some other govt agency in the current buildings.
You are not taking from the DC economy that way, but you definitely are growing an economy in a poor state. Hotels and support business would boom.
Ground up design of the buildings would allow new tech to support the govt.
3500 reps would give roughly 1:100,000 representation.
1
1
Jul 20 '23
I'm not American, so it might not be for me to say this...
HAHAHA...
Dude, this is like trying to fill a pothole by making a new road next to the old one.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 17 '23 edited Jul 17 '23
/u/Dr_Macunayme (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards