Census-WHY BOTHER

[runrussellrun]

Dartmouth Lax of MD,
Regarding US Congressional districts:

1. why did the number increase, proportionally, throughout US History? Up until the 1920's, if NOT mandated by the US Constitution?

2. The conversation regarding electoral colleges is directly related to whom our President is, based on districts.

3. Do we need to spend billions for information we already have? (do you get a census from Ball-moore county of the state of Terrapin? )

4. As a business owner, would you rather take 2-3 potential clients every month, or 2000-3000? (open secrets and spending on lobbying/campaign contributions. THought this was obvious ) We currently have the latter. Oh, I forgot, YOU know your congress person by name. We all do!

So many other reasons.

https://thirty-thousand.org/index.htm

FYI

The UK has 66 million with 650 in the House of Commons...or 1 per 100k.

What's the number supposed to be?

Thank you for pointing this out. The intent was 30k-50k. Not 650K to 750K. Brits are a little bit closer to actual representation.

I could live with 100k, but would prefer 75k.

I guess most people are fine with 7 times that amount, but then will continue to complain about Congressional gridlock and phantam ghost costs, when for decades upon decades, we just can't seem to account for a billion here, a billion there.......but I just wanna complain.

Would having triple the amount of politicians in charge of the horrible Baltimore school system? You tell me?

[runrussellrun]

Dartmouth Lax of MD,
Regarding US Congressional districts:

1. why did the number increase, proportionally, throughout US History? Up until the 1920's, if NOT mandated by the US Constitution?

2. The conversation regarding electoral colleges is directly related to whom our President is, based on districts.

3. Do we need to spend billions for information we already have? (do you get a census from Ball-moore county of the state of Terrapin? )

4. As a business owner, would you rather take 2-3 potential clients every month, or 2000-3000? (open secrets and spending on lobbying/campaign contributions. THought this was obvious ) We currently have the latter. Oh, I forgot, YOU know your congress person by name. We all do!

So many other reasons.

https://thirty-thousand.org/index.htm

Ok, Fatty,
At least you’re somewhat trying to make the hypothesis that more Reps would make for better government.

But your link makes all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. Right off the top that the intention of the founders was that the number of constituents would not exceed 60k per Rep. nope, not found in the Constitution. If that was the intent they certainly could have said so. But they did not.

Of course, the founders also didn’t intend for women much less freed slaves to vote, but they did (sort of) want them to be ‘represented ‘ and counted as Persons. Those slave holding states otherwise at too great of a disadvantage.

I just don’t see the hypothesis that lots more Reps would result in better legislation or oversight having much basis.

Fair to make the argument but I think issues like gerrymandering, the picking of ones voters instead of voters picking their Reps, is much more on point.

gerrymandering would be a nice side effect to having more districts, don't you think ? (thought it was obvious)

why states are allowed to dictate federally is beyond me, but this is where we are.

I don't know my congress person. I have known them at other times in my life, but it's been a while. Personally.
99.9999 percent of Americans don't. Access is everything.

what is Congress voting on today?

exactly

[foreverlax]

Dartmouth Lax of MD,
Regarding US Congressional districts:

1. why did the number increase, proportionally, throughout US History? Up until the 1920's, if NOT mandated by the US Constitution?

2. The conversation regarding electoral colleges is directly related to whom our President is, based on districts.

3. Do we need to spend billions for information we already have? (do you get a census from Ball-moore county of the state of Terrapin? )

4. As a business owner, would you rather take 2-3 potential clients every month, or 2000-3000? (open secrets and spending on lobbying/campaign contributions. THought this was obvious ) We currently have the latter. Oh, I forgot, YOU know your congress person by name. We all do!

So many other reasons.

https://thirty-thousand.org/index.htm

FYI

The UK has 66 million with 650 in the House of Commons...or 1 per 100k.

What's the number supposed to be?

Thank you for pointing this out. The intent was 30k-50k. Not 650K to 750K. Brits are a little bit closer to actual representation.

I could live with 100k, but would prefer 75k.

I guess most people are fine with 7 times that amount, but then will continue to complain about Congressional gridlock and phantam ghost costs, when for decades upon decades, we just can't seem to account for a billion here, a billion there.......but I just wanna complain.

Would having triple the amount of politicians in charge of the horrible Baltimore school system? You tell me?

I get the idea that if my district were cut in half, my "issues" would be readily heard. have been involved in all size of organizations....bigger ain't always better. If we just fixed the way districts are drawn, that would be enough to start.

[MDlaxfan76]

Dartmouth Lax of MD,
Regarding US Congressional districts:

1. why did the number increase, proportionally, throughout US History? Up until the 1920's, if NOT mandated by the US Constitution?

2. The conversation regarding electoral colleges is directly related to whom our President is, based on districts.

3. Do we need to spend billions for information we already have? (do you get a census from Ball-moore county of the state of Terrapin? )

4. As a business owner, would you rather take 2-3 potential clients every month, or 2000-3000? (open secrets and spending on lobbying/campaign contributions. THought this was obvious ) We currently have the latter. Oh, I forgot, YOU know your congress person by name. We all do!

So many other reasons.

https://thirty-thousand.org/index.htm

Ok, Fatty,
At least you’re somewhat trying to make the hypothesis that more Reps would make for better government.

But your link makes all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. Right off the top that the intention of the founders was that the number of constituents would not exceed 60k per Rep. nope, not found in the Constitution. If that was the intent they certainly could have said so. But they did not.

Of course, the founders also didn’t intend for women much less freed slaves to vote, but they did (sort of) want them to be ‘represented ‘ and counted as Persons. Those slave holding states otherwise at too great of a disadvantage.

I just don’t see the hypothesis that lots more Reps would result in better legislation or oversight having much basis.

Fair to make the argument but I think issues like gerrymandering, the picking of ones voters instead of voters picking their Reps, is much more on point.

gerrymandering would be a nice side effect to having more districts, don't you think ? (thought it was obvious)

why states are allowed to dictate federally is beyond me, but this is where we are.

I don't know my congress person. I have known them at other times in my life, but it's been a while. Personally.
99.9999 percent of Americans don't. Access is everything.

what is Congress voting on today?

exactly

No, more districts with gerrymandering just means more exact voter choosing by the politicians in power.

Focus on the gerrymandering if you want better representation, politicians actually competing for your vote.

[MDlaxfan76]

Dartmouth Lax of MD,
Regarding US Congressional districts:

1. why did the number increase, proportionally, throughout US History? Up until the 1920's, if NOT mandated by the US Constitution?

2. The conversation regarding electoral colleges is directly related to whom our President is, based on districts.

3. Do we need to spend billions for information we already have? (do you get a census from Ball-moore county of the state of Terrapin? )

4. As a business owner, would you rather take 2-3 potential clients every month, or 2000-3000? (open secrets and spending on lobbying/campaign contributions. THought this was obvious ) We currently have the latter. Oh, I forgot, YOU know your congress person by name. We all do!

So many other reasons.

https://thirty-thousand.org/index.htm

FYI

The UK has 66 million with 650 in the House of Commons...or 1 per 100k.

What's the number supposed to be?

Thank you for pointing this out. The intent was 30k-50k. Not 650K to 750K. Brits are a little bit closer to actual representation.

I could live with 100k, but would prefer 75k.

I guess most people are fine with 7 times that amount, but then will continue to complain about Congressional gridlock and phantam ghost costs, when for decades upon decades, we just can't seem to account for a billion here, a billion there.......but I just wanna complain.

Would having triple the amount of politicians in charge of the horrible Baltimore school system? You tell me?

I get the idea that if my district were cut in half, my "issues" would be readily heard. have been involved in all size of organizations....bigger ain't always better. If we just fixed the way districts are drawn, that would be enough to start.

Local issues get addressed at the local and state level. We send folks to Congress to address national scale issues and resources.

We need those we send to DC to represent our views and interests on these national issues. Which means we want them to compete for our support by doing a good job,rather than picking who they wish to represent.

And instead of the polarization that is inevitable with gerrymandering, we’d get focus on solving problems, not just creating political talking points for the next election.

[cradleandshoot]

Dartmouth Lax of MD,
Regarding US Congressional districts:

1. why did the number increase, proportionally, throughout US History? Up until the 1920's, if NOT mandated by the US Constitution?

2. The conversation regarding electoral colleges is directly related to whom our President is, based on districts.

3. Do we need to spend billions for information we already have? (do you get a census from Ball-moore county of the state of Terrapin? )

4. As a business owner, would you rather take 2-3 potential clients every month, or 2000-3000? (open secrets and spending on lobbying/campaign contributions. THought this was obvious ) We currently have the latter. Oh, I forgot, YOU know your congress person by name. We all do!

So many other reasons.

https://thirty-thousand.org/index.htm

Ok, Fatty,
At least you’re somewhat trying to make the hypothesis that more Reps would make for better government.

But your link makes all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. Right off the top that the intention of the founders was that the number of constituents would not exceed 60k per Rep. nope, not found in the Constitution. If that was the intent they certainly could have said so. But they did not.

Of course, the founders also didn’t intend for women much less freed slaves to vote, but they did (sort of) want them to be ‘represented ‘ and counted as Persons. Those slave holding states otherwise at too great of a disadvantage.

I just don’t see the hypothesis that lots more Reps would result in better legislation or oversight having much basis.

Fair to make the argument but I think issues like gerrymandering, the picking of ones voters instead of voters picking their Reps, is much more on point.

gerrymandering would be a nice side effect to having more districts, don't you think ? (thought it was obvious)

why states are allowed to dictate federally is beyond me, but this is where we are.

I don't know my congress person. I have known them at other times in my life, but it's been a while. Personally.
99.9999 percent of Americans don't. Access is everything.

what is Congress voting on today?

exactly

No, more districts with gerrymandering just means more exact voter choosing by the politicians in power.

Focus on the gerrymandering if you want better representation, politicians actually competing for your vote.

Have you read the Mueller report? He also investigated this as well. I am not sure but I think the gerrymandering issue is Michael Flynns fault as well. Just to clarify MD. I know you are a RINO and I know you have very sensitive feelings but so you don't get confused... like you RINOs tend to do... I'M JERKING YOUR CHAIN...

[MDlaxfan76]

Dartmouth Lax of MD,
Regarding US Congressional districts:

1. why did the number increase, proportionally, throughout US History? Up until the 1920's, if NOT mandated by the US Constitution?

2. The conversation regarding electoral colleges is directly related to whom our President is, based on districts.

3. Do we need to spend billions for information we already have? (do you get a census from Ball-moore county of the state of Terrapin? )

4. As a business owner, would you rather take 2-3 potential clients every month, or 2000-3000? (open secrets and spending on lobbying/campaign contributions. THought this was obvious ) We currently have the latter. Oh, I forgot, YOU know your congress person by name. We all do!

So many other reasons.

https://thirty-thousand.org/index.htm

Ok, Fatty,
At least you’re somewhat trying to make the hypothesis that more Reps would make for better government.

But your link makes all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. Right off the top that the intention of the founders was that the number of constituents would not exceed 60k per Rep. nope, not found in the Constitution. If that was the intent they certainly could have said so. But they did not.

Of course, the founders also didn’t intend for women much less freed slaves to vote, but they did (sort of) want them to be ‘represented ‘ and counted as Persons. Those slave holding states otherwise at too great of a disadvantage.

I just don’t see the hypothesis that lots more Reps would result in better legislation or oversight having much basis.

Fair to make the argument but I think issues like gerrymandering, the picking of ones voters instead of voters picking their Reps, is much more on point.

gerrymandering would be a nice side effect to having more districts, don't you think ? (thought it was obvious)

why states are allowed to dictate federally is beyond me, but this is where we are.

I don't know my congress person. I have known them at other times in my life, but it's been a while. Personally.
99.9999 percent of Americans don't. Access is everything.

what is Congress voting on today?

exactly

No, more districts with gerrymandering just means more exact voter choosing by the politicians in power.

Focus on the gerrymandering if you want better representation, politicians actually competing for your vote.

Have you read the Mueller report? He also investigated this as well. I am not sure but I think the gerrymandering issue is Michael Flynns fault as well. Just to clarify MD. I know you are a RINO and I know you have very sensitive feelings but so you don't get confused... like you RINOs tend to do... I'M JERKING YOUR CHAIN...

Thanks for clarifying, but it was pretty weak attempt at chain jerk.

Feel free to contribute to the discussion in some way that doesn’t betray a knee jerk reaction to fight the liberal boogeymen.

[runrussellrun]

Dartmouth MDLax,

Why haven't you answered my questions regarding this issue ? (scroll up )

Or, do you want to continue to bloviate and tell stories, belittle the little people.

COme on, do what you accuse others of NOT doing. Contribute to the conversation. And not with another story of who you know, captain topper. except, no one is asking. Trust me, the feeling is familiar.

[HooDat]

Congressional districts should match school districts. That is how people live their lives, and share their issues - assuming the school districts aren't overly gerrymandered in response (the impact of busing I believe has diminished?).

If a district is too big - divide it up by high schools

If a district is too small - put it together with it's neighboring district.

[foreverlax]

+1

[Trinity]

+1

[Typical Lax Dad]

Congressional districts should match school districts. That is how people live their lives, and share their issues - assuming the school districts aren't overly gerrymandered in response (the impact of busing I believe has diminished?).

If a district is too big - divide it up by high schools

If a district is too small - put it together with it's neighboring district.

+1

[MDlaxfan76]

Dartmouth MDLax,

Why haven't you answered my questions regarding this issue ? (scroll up )

Or, do you want to continue to bloviate and tell stories, belittle the little people.

COme on, do what you accuse others of NOT doing. Contribute to the conversation. And not with another story of who you know, captain topper. except, no one is asking. Trust me, the feeling is familiar.

I must have missed a question in your disjointed ramblings.

Feel free to ask it again.

That said, your underlying contention, frequently repeated, was that the Constitution requires more Congressmen. Flat wrong.

I also addressed the reasons why it would quite likely not provide more effective legislating on national issues.

I also addressed that we have local and state representatives to deal with local and state issues.

You are free to disagree. I’m with you in spirit, but I think the passion would be better focused on gerrymandering.

[CU88]

Congressional districts should match school districts. That is how people live their lives, and share their issues - assuming the school districts aren't overly gerrymandered in response (the impact of busing I believe has diminished?).

If a district is too big - divide it up by high schools

If a district is too small - put it together with it's neighboring district.

The nation’s largest, and least dense, congressional district is New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District. Covering the southernmost two-thirds of what’s already a very large state, the 2nd sprawls over 71,739 square miles of land; according to the 2010 Census, it has only 9.6 people per square mile.

How do you suggest this district be partitioned?

[Bandito]

Shirley, the Founding Fathers knew the population of their new country would increase. In fact, many of them paved the way for this increase by purchasing or conquering lands. (Jefferson/Louisanna Purchase )

They also understood the value of proportional Representation. Hence, why they added this at the very beginning of the US Constitution, including language of having a census every ten years: (the ONLY reason for the census )

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”

— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3

But, since the 1929 Proportions Act, the number of US House of Reps. has been set at 435.

So, why bother doing the census if the number of Representatives does NOT fit with the US Constitutional guidelines?

Why bother with anything? Why bother with laws, borders, electoral college? Seems like anything you don’t agree with you want to get rid of. Typical liberal. Outlaw it if you don’t agree!

Thankfully the citizenship question is going back on the Census. President Trump putting Americans first, unlike Democrats who put illegal aliens first.

I bet you 90% of Democrats are under the impression that the citizenship question was never a part of the census. They have no idea that it was on there until Obama took it off. Just another example of how their media fails them and deceives them, and uses them. Useful idiots

[SCLaxAttack]

For the sake of clarity, specificity, and the elimination of fake news, a tabular history of when birthplace and citizenship has been asked:

https://cis.org/Richwine/History-Census ... gIGL_D_BwE

[seacoaster]

For the sake of clarity, specificity, and the elimination of fake news, a tabular history of when birthplace and citizenship has been asked:

https://cis.org/Richwine/History-Census ... gIGL_D_BwE

Thanks for this; helpful given all the noise around. Much appreciated.

[holmes435]

Even that table is a bit misleading. They explain it in the article, but there is the actual census and there used to be a long form survey sent out to a fraction of the population, which was replaced by the American Community Survey in 2010. The survey is now done annually, not every decade.

So from 1960 through 2010, no citizenship question was asked on the census sent out to everyone, but it was in fact asked in the accompanying longer surveys, including in 2010.

So no, Obama did not remove the question as Sanders claimed and the resident troll here parroted.

[Bandito]

For the sake of clarity, specificity, and the elimination of fake news, a tabular history of when birthplace and citizenship has been asked:

https://cis.org/Richwine/History-Census ... gIGL_D_BwE

Thanks for this; helpful given all the noise around. Much appreciated.

Yup. Proves my point Obama did Remove it from 2010 census. Why are you opposed to it? why are you putting illegals before Americans?

[a fan]

People are opposed to it because the Census allocates money from the Federal government to each State based on total population.

Basically what you're asking for, is to pay more in State taxes because of an inadequate accounting of who lives in your State. People consume government services.

Works for me. Stupid is as stupid does. If Trump had insisted that the Citizen question be taken off, you'd be on here jumping up and down, telling us how important it is to follow the Constitution which directs that you count "persons", not citizens in the Census.