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 -
What's your source?

I really doubt that people here illegally are supposed to be represented.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) The Constitution.
- Collapse -
The one that begins with....

"We the People of the United States..."?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) or we the un invirted
- Collapse -
Oh really? Which part?

Quote please.

- Collapse -
OK
...which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

And:

...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.


No mention of variation of status except where specified.

Dan
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) You're getting warmer
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) but for votein i think there is
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Why are Indians excluded then?
- Collapse -
For the same reason that

two fifths of all others are.

Dan

- Collapse -
2/5ths of what dan?

whisky vodka what?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) "3/5" superceeded by Amt. 14, indians are not.
- Collapse -
Not really

Congressmen should be representatives of everyone in their district that is constitutionally entitled to representation in the U.S. Congress. Illegal aliens are not entitled to representation in our government nor should they be.

- Collapse -
not acorring to dan hes all in favor of them

being his equal in election timesSad

- Collapse -
Where did you get that, Mark?

Show me what statement of mine you misenterpreted and I'll explain how you got it wrong. Please be specific.

Thanks,

Dan

- Collapse -
dan ill let you prove me wrong

your games get tiresome

as you still think slavery is ok
heres your own words please explain this


"Even persons who are property"
very distressfull in my opionon

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) That's just like you, Mark.
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) just doing what you do dan
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) See my post above.
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Ditto
- Collapse -
Nice straw man, Dan.

I never said, ''just those that voted for them.'' The alternatives I proffered were: [all] eligible voters, [all] registered voters, or [all] persons who voted in the last election regardless of who they voted for.

Not straw - M@N

- Collapse -
My point stands even if

you amend that to 'voted or voted for them'.

Dan

- Collapse -
So why didn't you say that the first time?

My point is that "voted" and "voted for them" are not synonymous. Just because something is true for a subset does not necessarily mean that it is true (or false, for that matter) for the set as a whole.

Also note that people who voted (in the last election) is the smallest subset of the alternatives I posited. So even if we grant that your point still stands with regard to just people who voted, it is not necessarily true that your point will also stand when applied to people who are registered to vote and/or people who are eligible to vote.

Care to discuss either of those? - Mark

- Collapse -
Maybe 9 years later, I'll finally get an answer.

CNET Forums