DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state).
National Democrats would also like two more Senate seats (and both DC and Maryland are predominantly Democratic, DC absurdly so) while national Republicans are happy enough with the status quo, giving DC no voting representation in Congress at all. So there's no strong momentum for movement on any side except DC's (who don't have the power to do anything about it by themselves).
By these arguments nearly every sizable city in the country should be its own state.
>DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state).
> By these arguments nearly every sizable city in the country should be its own state.
I think that's worth considering. It would get rid of a lot of the left/right gridlock at state levels. Cities would be mostly free to do as they wish without rural areas holding them back and rural areas would be free to do as they wish without cities holding them back. This would also greatly reduce the amount of BS that needs to get done at the federal level because a ton of that stuff is not interstate issues but an end run around the fact that the blue team and the red team can't do what they want at the state level so they try and get the feds to do it to the whole country.
And before anyone says "but money" I would like to remind them that freedom isn't free.
I mean, maybe? Bremen, Hamburg, and Berlin are Länder (the German equivalent of states). You could certainly make an argument for, say, NYC being its own state; it'd be bigger than Delaware. But a lot of these things are historical accidents: West Virginia only exists because of the Civil War, California would certainly not be one state if founded now, while DC isn't a state at all. And given that the boundaries of the states are entrenched by the constitution there's a heavy status quo bias as to what might happen in the future.
Berlin is a state because (esp West-)Berlin kind of had to be one in the restructuring after WW2.
Bremen and Hamburg both were Free Cities in the Holy Roman Empire. More importantly, they were among the very few Free Cities that retained this status until and past the end of the HRE (1806). Being in the Hanseatic League helped establish their importance, but the League wasn't actually a major concern at that time anymore, and hadn't been for over a century, but they certainly played to that history (and e.g. added "Hansestadt" to their names, long after)
I think honestly when the 3 largest cities in the us each have more people than the entire United States did at independence it is worth asking what sort of political reforms are possible
Which strikes me as a good idea. Particularly since DC retrocession and merging low population states (also elegant) have no legs.
Every metro with population above median or average of existing US states should have the option of forming a new state. Seems to work for Berlin/Bremen/Hamburg in Germany, and various metros in other countries.
China treats its major cities (and the nearby area) at the province level: Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing. So it's not unprecedented among governing systems. And given the size of those areas, it is a pragmatic approach.
National Democrats would also like two more Senate seats (and both DC and Maryland are predominantly Democratic, DC absurdly so) while national Republicans are happy enough with the status quo, giving DC no voting representation in Congress at all. So there's no strong momentum for movement on any side except DC's (who don't have the power to do anything about it by themselves).