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 -
What's your source?
Jun 6, 2006 8:18AM PDT

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

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) The Constitution.
Jun 6, 2006 8:54AM PDT
- Collapse -
The one that begins with....
Jun 6, 2006 8:59AM PDT

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

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) or we the un invirted
Jun 6, 2006 9:00AM PDT
- Collapse -
Oh really? Which part?
Jun 6, 2006 9:04AM PDT

Quote please.

- Collapse -
OK
Jun 7, 2006 2:56AM PDT
...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
Jun 7, 2006 3:02AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) but for votein i think there is
Jun 6, 2006 8:20AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Why are Indians excluded then?
Jun 6, 2006 8:37AM PDT
- Collapse -
For the same reason that
Jun 6, 2006 8:56AM PDT

two fifths of all others are.

Dan

- Collapse -
2/5ths of what dan?
Jun 6, 2006 8:59AM PDT

whisky vodka what?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) "3/5" superceeded by Amt. 14, indians are not.
Jun 6, 2006 9:00AM PDT
- Collapse -
Not really
Jun 6, 2006 4:05AM PDT

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
Jun 6, 2006 4:17AM PDT

being his equal in election timesSad

- Collapse -
Where did you get that, Mark?
Jun 6, 2006 8:00AM PDT

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
Jun 6, 2006 8:22AM PDT

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.
Jun 6, 2006 8:57AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) just doing what you do dan
Jun 6, 2006 9:01AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) See my post above.
Jun 6, 2006 7:58AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Ditto
Jun 6, 2006 8:40AM PDT
- Collapse -
Nice straw man, Dan.
Jun 6, 2006 1:27PM PDT

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
Jun 7, 2006 2:57AM PDT

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

Dan

- Collapse -
So why didn't you say that the first time?
Jun 7, 2006 3:15PM PDT

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.
Dec 16, 2015 11:49PM PST