A brief and likely isolated appearance on this thread (since I have a
day-old baby strapped to my chest, and he and his 1.5-year-old brother
are likely to give me little time to comment in coming days): 

Saying that "The "equitable" argument about dilution of larger states
was put to rest by the 23rd Amendment, which gives DC to at least elect
three presidential electors ," it seems to me, is like saying that "The
'equitable' argument about giving D.C. the vote was put to rest by the
Constitution, which gives D.C. no Congressional representation."  That a
relatively mild inequity (D.C. is slightly overrepresented on a
per-person basis compared to the big states in the Senate in the
Electoral College) was one placed into the Constitution -- or for that
matter a very severe one was placed into the Constitution in 1787
(either as to exclusion of D.C. or as to the 2-senators-per-state rule)
-- doesn't tell us whether a severe inequity (D.C. being vastly
overrepresented compared to the big states in the Senate) should be
enacted today.  Nor does it persuade me that the solution for one
inequity (no representation for D.C.) is a different inequity (the same
Senatorial representation for D.C. as for California).

Eugene



-----Original Message-----

 
The "equitable" argument about dilution of larger states was put to rest
by the 23rd Amendment, which gives DC to at least elect three
presidential electors.  To put it mildly, DC has a unique set of
problems, historical background, and culture - having little in common
with either Maryland or Virginia.  This is the traditional justification
for representation as a state in the United States Senate.
 
. . .