Speakeasy forum

General discussion

(Illegal) Immigration and the Electoral College.

Why are Congressional Districts apportioned based on total population? At first blush, it seems to me that it would be more appropriate to apportion them based on the number of eligible voters. i.e. 18+, non-felon citizens. Heck, maybe even base it on the number of registered voters, or the number of ballots cast in the previous election. But basing it on total population flummoxes me.

By basing it on total population, aren't we essentially encouraging States to increase their population by any and all means, legal or otherwise? Wouldn't it be better if we instead encouraged more citizens to vote?

What am I missing here? - Mark

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: (Illegal) Immigration and the Electoral College.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: (Illegal) Immigration and the Electoral College.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Outdated system

In reply to: (Illegal) Immigration and the Electoral College.

The population basis would have been more reflective of the number of voters when the traditional family was standard and we didn't have overwhelming illegal immigration.
Now that you suggest it, I'd say that the total number of electoral college votes should be determined by the actual number of voters who participated in the actual election. That would be a sure way to increase participation.

Collapse -
Not really.

In reply to: Outdated system

Remember that huge fractions of the population were barred from voting when the system was developed.

Dan

Collapse -
That supports my idea

In reply to: Not really.

Even going back to the days of only white landowners voting, it was assumed that the landowner's vote would effectively represent his family's and workers/slaves (depending on where you were). Hence, the relative ratios of landowners across states would be similar to the relative populations.
Illegal immigrants throw off this balance, because a significant portion of the population in certain states are not citizens. Politicians of those states seem to cater to these illegal immigrants to increase the party's (guess which one) electoral votes that are won.
My guess is that if illegal immigrants were discounted from the electoral college system a certain political party would have trouble winning elections.

Collapse -
Thanks, now for part 2 of the question.

In reply to: Outdated system

Now that we've established that I'm not the only one who thinks including illegal immigrants in the calculation is a bad idea, does anyone know of a resource that calculates per capita Electoral votes, but using a population figure that excludes illegal immigrants?

Mark

Collapse -
I don't want more people voting,

In reply to: (Illegal) Immigration and the Electoral College.

most are too ingnorant now

Collapse -
Should we line up all the potential donors

In reply to: I don't want more people voting,

and let you decide who gets to vote?

Diana

Collapse -
well some seem to think/or is it not think?

In reply to: Should we line up all the potential donors

Busby on defense, says she misspoke
June 3, 2006

If an election can turn on a sentence, this could be the one: ?You don't need papers for voting.?

On Thursday night, Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District, was speaking before a largely Latino crowd in Escondido when she uttered those words. She said yesterday she simply misspoke.

But someone taped it and a recording began circulating yesterday. After she made that statement at the meeting, Busby immediately said: ?You don't need to be a registered voter to help (the campaign).?

She said that subsequent statement was to clarify what she meant.

spoken like a true thinkerHappy

and when we demand photo ids the democrats scream its racist i wonder why that would be hmmm

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/50thdistrict/20060603-9999-1mi3busby.html

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) How do you figure I said that?

In reply to: Should we line up all the potential donors

Collapse -
I don't want more people voting, most are too ingnorant now

In reply to: (NT) How do you figure I said that?

Sounds like you want to decide who isn't too ignorant to vote.

Diana

Collapse -
I hope you stretched well before you made that

In reply to: I don't want more people voting, most are too ingnorant now

absurd leap

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Agree

In reply to: I don't want more people voting,

Collapse -
In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

In reply to: I don't want more people voting,

Or "Stupid is as stupid does."

While I sympathize with your point of view, and agree that an unfortunate consequence is that you and I get stuck with the candidate who appealed to the lowest common denominator (e.g. "bread and circuses"), I would prefer, instead, to raise the intelligence level of the electorate. Which brings up something else I've been toying with recently:

A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to the prosperity of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books shall not be infringed.

Which "book-control" people here would like to defend the position that:

a) that sentence means that only people who are already well-educated should have books.

b) that only well-educated people having books would be a good thing for the country as a whole.

Mark

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I don't deserve what stupid people do

In reply to: In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

Collapse -
I never said that you, in particular, did.

In reply to: (NT) I don't deserve what stupid people do

What I did say was "the people get the government they deserve". (And I should probably note that, although I don't know the source, that quote is not original to me.) "The people" is used here in the collective sense.

This is both the greatest strength and greatest weakness of a democracy, or any type of "majority rules" system; the majority of the people will get what they deserve.

That is why I would prefer to raise the intelligence level of the electorate, to turn the weakness into a strength.

Mark

Collapse -
That would be decried as racist :-(

In reply to: I never said that you, in particular, did.

No matter how well conceived or intentioned. Some people think having to show a picture ID in this day and age is discriminatory Sad

Evie Happy

Collapse -
I think you should post this as a new thread.

In reply to: In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

It's quite interesting and I think it might get more replies that way. (The book "amendment").

Evie Happy

Collapse -
But that would ruin the surprise!

In reply to: I think you should post this as a new thread.

I'll spring it on 'em the next time someone makes an "anti-book" post.

Although, if you'd like to post it in a new thread, you're welcome to do so - Mark

Collapse -
Well, they are the representatives

In reply to: (Illegal) Immigration and the Electoral College.

of all the people in their district, not just those that voted for them. They're supposed to be, anyway.

Dan

Collapse -
Even the ones here illegally?

In reply to: Well, they are the representatives

The solution is obvious. Base it on the number of legal residents (which is what I thought it was supposed to be).

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Yup.

In reply to: Even the ones here illegally?

Collapse -
I don't think so.

In reply to: (NT) Yup.

I am pretty sure elected officials are intended to represent citizens and possibly those here legally. I don't see what basis there is for them to represent people who are not citzens and are not here legally.

Collapse -
Representation is based

In reply to: I don't think so.

on persons. Even persons who are property.

Dan

Collapse -
Persons who are property?

In reply to: Representation is based

Where are you getting that?

You realize it's 2006, right?

Collapse -
You wondered about what

In reply to: Persons who are property?

was supposed to be. That was the original intent.

Dan

Collapse -
Does it mention anything about illegal aliens?

In reply to: You wondered about what

Don't think so. What the modern day intent of the law is....

Collapse -
Variations in residency status is

In reply to: Does it mention anything about illegal aliens?

not mentioned.

Dan

Collapse -
Being here illegally is not a "variation in residency

In reply to: Variations in residency status is

status". It's against the law. Just like...um...avoiding cig taxes, only a lot worse.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Really, it is.

In reply to: Being here illegally is not a "variation in residency

Collapse -
I don't think so, Dan....

In reply to: (NT) Really, it is.

You still haven't come up with any credible documentation.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

REVIEW

Sublime suburban chariot

High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.