UConn James Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Link But in "Vote Thieves," Rodriguez argues that representation based on population size unfairly penalizes many Northeastern states and intensifies political polarization. The fundamental problem, Rodriguez says, is that states are given federal representation based on the total count of people there. Apportionment is not made according to voting turnout in states, and not according to those who are legal citizens.... Rodriguez says that, as a result, the House of Representatives is more unbalanced than at any time since the 1870s. And, he says, the shift to states with high head counts but large numbers of undocumented residents has several practical effects. "If you talk about an issue like immigration reform, you simply can't get it without the House votes of states like Texas and California," Rodriguez says. "But those are exactly the states that have no incentive to pass immigration reform because they benefit from the extra representation." Just !@#$ing stupid that reapportionment of the electoral college includes census #s of illegals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 LinkJust !@#$ing stupid that reapportionment of the electoral college includes census #s of illegals. I am completely AGAINST counting illegal aliens. But I'm all for proper counting of all "negros", regardless of their "negro dialect." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Link Just !@#$ing stupid that reapportionment of the electoral college includes census #s of illegals. Are you sure that the census includes illegal aliens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 I am completely AGAINST counting illegal aliens. But I'm all for proper counting of all "negros", regardless of their "negro dialect." I am completely FOR counting illegal aliens. I'd like to know how many are really here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 I am completely FOR counting illegal aliens. I'd like to know how many are really here. Sure, the Census should --- and does --- count them. I'm not sure of the language used, but with this administration.... Just saying that I take issue that their headcount contributes to congressional seat and electoral college apportionment. This is like stowaways getting in line at the galley for shares of a ship's rations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Sure, the Census should --- and does --- count them. I'm not sure of the language used, but with this administration.... Just saying that I take issue that their headcount contributes to congressional seat and electoral college apportionment. This is like stowaways getting in line at the galley for shares of a ship's rations. I'm saying they should just be counted so we know how many there are. They should count for nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I'm saying they should just be counted so we know how many there are. They should count for nothing else. The problem with that Chef, is that it determines how many members of congress will represent that district and the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 The problem with that Chef, is that it determines how many members of congress will represent that district and the state. I know that's what it's used for as well as many other things. I know it wouldn't work because we can't ask legal status when doing the census and if we did all illegals would hide during the count. I was only half serious with that remark anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I'm saying they should just be counted so we know how many there are. They should count for nothing else. If they can be counted in the process we might also be able to handcuff them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Sure, the Census should --- and does --- count them. I'm not sure of the language used, but with this administration.... Just saying that I take issue that their headcount contributes to congressional seat and electoral college apportionment. This is like stowaways getting in line at the galley for shares of a ship's rations. I need to peruse the US Constitiution... Is there anything against it? All I could remember is this from the 14th: 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I need to peruse the US Constitiution... Is there anything against it? All I could remember is this from the 14th: 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Mexicans not legal. And there we have it in black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I'm saying they should just be counted so we know how many there are. They should count for nothing else. Would that be denying them equal protection? ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 And there we have it in black and white. Hey, what about all the not taxed Danish aliens. Why does illegal alien have to be Mexican (Mexican is Spanish-Native blood right?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Hey, what about all the not taxed Danish aliens. Why does illegal alien have to be Mexican (Mexican is Spanish-Native blood right?). We're not overwhelmed with illegal Danes. Visit southern CA sometime, you'll get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 We're not overwhelmed with illegal Danes. Visit southern CA sometime, you'll get it. I understand your point. We can interpret the USC and I do think it can be a living, breathing, ever changing document... Just not that much as you want it to be. Go figure, me falling on this side of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 And there we have it in black and white. Great. We can count the whole number of persons. All well and good. But the Constitution makes no stipulation that this resulting whole number must be used unadulterated to determine apportionment of representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I understand your point. We can interpret the USC and I do think it can be a living, breathing, ever changing document... Just not that much as you want it to be. Go figure, me falling on this side of the argument. Then what value would it have? This is the Constitution today, well maybe not tomorrow depending on how it goes. I get a charge out of you people who treat the US constitution like a credit card agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Great. We can count the whole number of persons. All well and good. But the Constitution makes no stipulation that this resulting whole number must be used unadulterated to determine apportionment of representation. That is true, so it is open to interpretation. They should put it to a public referendum and see what most of the people want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Maybe we should compromise and count them as 3/5ths of a person. I think that would work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts