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
Follow
Reply to: (Illegal) Immigration and the Electoral College.
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: (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.
Comments
- Collapse -
Your position is that

residency status is a factor in determination of representation. A positive assertion. I've stated and quoted the relevent passages that contain no such provision. At this point the responsibility is yours to support your assertion.

Or not. The choice is yours.

Dan

- Collapse -
I must be blind...

where did you quote anything?

- Collapse -
Okay, I found it...

still don't think you're right though. Being here illegally means, by definition, that you are not supposed to be here. I doubt the Founders contemplated counting those who were not supposed to be here at all.

Do they count visitors just passing through? I doubt it.

Think about it, It is clearly unfair. Any political party could affect tgeh Electoral vote by having all their members visit a state for the pertinent weekend.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) It says what it says.
- Collapse -
Seems open to interpretation ot me...

A matter for the Courts.

It doesn't make sense that a foreign country could determine our elections or government fuctions by illegally moving large portions of their population here. I think it would obviously be illegal to do so.

Wondere what a lawyer would say.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) f-u-n-c-t-i-o-n-s a censored word? Since when???
- Collapse -
Re: Seems open to interpretation ot me

Unfortunately it's not. Dan's been hitting around the answer.

The original Article">http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.2.3]Article I Section 2

- Collapse -
Perhaps I should rephrase.

While I did simply ask "why is it so?" in my original post, the implied question, which I think most folks got, is actually, "why is doing it this way a good idea?"

Mark

- Collapse -
Re: Perhaps I should rephrase.

I don't think many will agree that the current system is a good idea even though it is the law. That law is itself set by the Congress and I'd wager that Congress wants the extra bodies counted even if they're not here legally.....Sad

- Collapse -
Perhaps I should apologize.

First, I didn't mean to imply that you were among the people who didn't get my implied question. Your earlier reply, "Not really", in which you stated how you felt things should be, shows that you did, in fact, get it. (As does EdH's earlier reply in which he similarly said how he thought things were supposed to be.)

Second, I already knew the literal explanation--because the law says to apportion them based on the census, and the census is supposed to count everyone--so maybe if I had been clearer initially, you wouldn't've had to dig up the citations. So...

Sorry, my bad.

With that out of the way, I'm not so sure that all of Congress would want illegals counted. Obviously, the States that have a lot of illegal immigrants would, but it seems to me that the States that don't have a lot of illegal immigrants would want things changed.

So maybe there's hope? - Mark

- Collapse -
There's nothing to apologize for....

And you're right, for those states with minimal immigrant populations, their power is diluted by the extra representatives in the states with large immigrant populations....

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I'll bet it could be challenged....
- Collapse -
slavery went out yrs ago dan

your words(Even persons who are property)
but evan democrats dont beleave in slavery oh wow they do you said soHappy
and if a persons in country unlawfully they dont have the right to vote unless your a democratic candidate and need to have a fixed election
amigo

- Collapse -
Mark, you're not making

any sense. What are you trying to say?

Dan

- Collapse -
dan try to read your own words

"Even persons who are property"
slavery went out remember the civil war?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Yeah. But what's your point?
- Collapse -
my point is you think

were pre civil war as slavery is unlawfull or did u forget that?

- Collapse -
I'm sorry, Mark, but

I didn't follow that post.

Dan

- Collapse -
ok dan ill speak real slow you

said this
Even persons who are property< since when do we own people? as in slavery

was this slow enough? if not ask jr to spell it out for you as ray charles can read and understands.
and hes blind

- Collapse -
It's not the speed, Mark, but the clarity.

You've clearly stated that I posted something. You've done that several times. What you've not made clear at all is what your point is in response to what I posted.

Thanks,

Dan

- Collapse -
dan do you support slavery

by your own words you must

(Even persons who are property)< since when do we own people? as in slavery <<<

the words in brackets are yours so you think slavery is ok

end of game

- Collapse -
I must? Mark, your logic fails you.

That conclusion does not follow at from what I said.

Dan

- Collapse -
dan before the cival war people

were property =slaves

you stated

"Even persons who are property."henceforth your calenders off or your very confused

remember the north won the war no more slaves

- Collapse -
your responce proves why

the democrats want illeagles in as they cant win any other way
if dale could hear you now hed would have a klipsion fit.
glad you democrats self destruct because your all dangerous

- Collapse -
I can't follow these

statements, Mark. Please restate your idea.

Thanks,

Dan

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) why you wouldnt understand if you tried
- Collapse -
I tried, Mark.

I did. But I couldn't understand. Sorry. If it is not important for you to be understood that's fine with me.

Dan

- Collapse -
Should be representing all the CITIZENS ...

... not just anyone that lives there.

- Collapse -
Where do you get that?

There's no provision regarding citizenship status for calculating representation.

Dan Happy

- Collapse -
I said SHOULD ...

... and there is a gray area as to whether the Constitution applies to all humans that just happen to find themselves on US soil.

CNET Forums