retrocession

The residents of the District are free to vote for retrocession back to Maryland if they want representation.

That's only true if you compare statehood to the status quo, not if you compare statehood to retrocession.

The fact that people don't accept retrocession just shows that people really want more Democrats in the Senate.

Also: neither VA not DC want retrocession and you can’t force a state to change its borders.

You can make a case for retrocession, but the other arguments are understood by everyone to be a fig leaf.

Alexandria's citizens petitioned Virginia to take back the land it had donated to form the district, through a process known as retrocession.

Particularly since DC retrocession and merging low population states (also elegant) have no legs.

VA got all of its land back with the retrocession 173 years ago.

English as an interlanguage among Chinese people has become much rarer since the retrocession of Hong Kong strongly promoted the use of Mandarin there.

I'm not aware that these currently exist but the concept of reinsurance on reinsurance is not new (it's called retrocession).

If representation were the issue then retrocession would be an acceptable solution.

The biggest reason would be that the people of Maryland oppose retrocession.

The state is named Maryland; it's called "retrocession." It already happened before, with the Virginia side of DC.

A "retrocession spiral" could take out many of the companies involved at the same time, e.g.

To answer your question directly, there are active markets where insurance policies are effectively "traded" like this (reinsurance and retrocession and the Lloyds market).

DC used to be a square with the Potomac River running straight through it; the land on the Virginia side of the river was returned in the "retrocession" in the 1800s.

Retrocession is a neat idea aside from the fact that none of the people it would affect actually want it.