Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

(Illegal) Immigration and the Electoral College.

Jun 5, 2006 3:02PM PDT

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

- Collapse -
Outdated system
Jun 5, 2006 9:30PM PDT

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.
Jun 6, 2006 12:10AM PDT

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

Dan

- Collapse -
That supports my idea
Jun 6, 2006 6:28AM PDT

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.
Jun 6, 2006 1:55PM PDT

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,
Jun 5, 2006 9:33PM PDT

most are too ingnorant now

- Collapse -
Should we line up all the potential donors
Jun 6, 2006 1:59AM PDT

and let you decide who gets to vote?

Diana

- Collapse -
well some seem to think/or is it not think?
Jun 6, 2006 2:27AM PDT

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?
Jun 6, 2006 2:51AM PDT
- Collapse -
I don't want more people voting, most are too ingnorant now
Jun 6, 2006 12:22PM PDT

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

Diana

- Collapse -
I hope you stretched well before you made that
Jun 7, 2006 12:37PM PDT

absurd leap

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Agree
Jun 6, 2006 2:46AM PDT
- Collapse -
In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.
Jun 6, 2006 1:47PM PDT

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
Jun 7, 2006 12:40PM PDT
- Collapse -
I never said that you, in particular, did.
Jun 7, 2006 2:02PM PDT

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 :-(
Jun 7, 2006 8:56PM PDT

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.
Jun 7, 2006 8:58PM PDT

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!
Jun 8, 2006 12:35PM PDT

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
Jun 6, 2006 12:09AM PDT

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?
Jun 6, 2006 2:50AM PDT

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.
Jun 6, 2006 2:58AM PDT
- Collapse -
I don't think so.
Jun 6, 2006 3:03AM PDT

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
Jun 6, 2006 3:20AM PDT

on persons. Even persons who are property.

Dan

- Collapse -
Persons who are property?
Jun 6, 2006 3:25AM PDT

Where are you getting that?

You realize it's 2006, right?

- Collapse -
ed dans not alone read and be sad
Jun 6, 2006 4:13AM PDT
- Collapse -
You wondered about what
Jun 6, 2006 7:53AM PDT

was supposed to be. That was the original intent.

Dan

- Collapse -
Does it mention anything about illegal aliens?
Jun 6, 2006 8:16AM PDT

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

- Collapse -
Variations in residency status is
Jun 6, 2006 8:50AM PDT

not mentioned.

Dan

- Collapse -
Being here illegally is not a "variation in residency
Jun 6, 2006 9:02AM PDT

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

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Really, it is.
Jun 7, 2006 2:50AM PDT
- Collapse -
I don't think so, Dan....
Jun 7, 2006 4:59AM PDT

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