LaxPower Back-Up Stick

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:04 pm 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.

Why can't you do both: (1) count all people and use that for money allocations, while (2) using actual citizenship numbers to allocate congressional representation?

CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:14 am

HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:41 pm 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?

It can't be - but perhaps the representative of that district should have an allowance for air travel within his district.....?

HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:32 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:04 pm 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.

Why can't you do both: (1) count all people and use that for money allocations, while (2) using actual citizenship numbers to allocate congressional representation?

Because representation, according to the Constitution, is to be based on Persons.
Not the voting, as women couldn't vote at all, but the representation counted them. Of course, they only counted Africans as partial Persons, but this was actually done at all so that the slave holding states would have greater representation than they would if it was just on the basis of citizens.

Persons, not Citizens.

Want to change this, you need a Constitutional Amendment.

HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:34 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:14 am

HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:41 pm 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?

It can't be - but perhaps the representative of that district should have an allowance for air travel within his district.....?

HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:32 pm Why can't you do both: (1) count all people and use that for money allocations, while (2) using actual citizenship numbers to allocate congressional representation?

Because when you ask that question, it scares off anyone who is illegal----or even if they are legal, yet anyone in their family isn't.

No matter. Less Federal money for every State. Every State has illegal immigrants. Guess those Trump voters didn't need that Federal money.

You "win" Trump fans. Enjoy your higher fees and taxes.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:30 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:24 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:16 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:48 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:24 pm 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.

Here is my contribution my RINO friend. A thread starts here about the census. Really freaking complex topic. The mission is to count noses and find out how many people actually are in this country. In true form the jackwagons here are trying to turn the census into quantum physics. As far as jerking your chain... your a freaking strange sort of RINO. You are not of the capacity to understand when your chain is being jerked. I have known many Republicans along my travels and you break the mold from all of them. Whatever you are politically I am glad you claim the Republicans as home plate... they deserve you. I am more convinced than ever that the best and brightest the democrats and republicans have to offer screams out loud to every American... there has to be a better choice...

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:19 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:30 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:24 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:16 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:48 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:24 pm 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.

Here is my contribution my RINO friend. A thread starts here about the census. Really freaking complex topic. The mission is to count noses and find out how many people actually are in this country. In true form the jackwagons here are trying to turn the census into quantum physics. As far as jerking your chain... your a freaking strange sort of RINO. You are not of the capacity to understand when your chain is being jerked. I have known many Republicans along my travels and you break the mold from all of them. Whatever you are politically I am glad you claim the Republicans as home plate... they deserve you. I am more convinced than ever that the best and brightest the democrats and republicans have to offer screams out loud to every American... there has to be a better choice...

So, run for office cradle. Let's see how you do.

But rather than get personal, let's just say that if you think the census question is "freaking complex" you ain't getting my vote.

It's flat simple. We count noses as you say, because the Constitution requires that we count all Persons.
We want to be sure we get everyone or as darn close to it as humanly possible, so we keep the questions to a minimum to make the process as quick as painless for the census takers and those being counted as we can. It's an enormous project to reach everyone, in every corner. And we do it just once every 10 years.

We also do periodic surveys and samples to get a deeper picture of the population for matters that don't require the same completeness, ie where estimates suffice.

But...The Trump Administration would like to suppress the count of Persons who aren't citizens. Indeed, not only do they want to undercount Persons, they further want the prospect of answering the Census to come with some legal risk for the personal answering the Census (it's illegal to lie) and that's all about suppressing responses from family members of non-citizens. Avoid the Census taker and avoid being on the spot to answer whether grandad is a citizen or not...or don't mention granddad at all...both being crimes.

That's what's going on and the Supreme Court recognized that was what was going on, and moreover that the Administration was not telling the truth about their rationale.

All pretty darn simple.

Want to get a reasonable estimate of citizen versus non-citizen? Do a survey.

Don't suppress the actual count of Persons.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:57 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:19 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:30 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:24 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:16 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:48 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:24 pm 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.

Here is my contribution my RINO friend. A thread starts here about the census. Really freaking complex topic. The mission is to count noses and find out how many people actually are in this country. In true form the jackwagons here are trying to turn the census into quantum physics. As far as jerking your chain... your a freaking strange sort of RINO. You are not of the capacity to understand when your chain is being jerked. I have known many Republicans along my travels and you break the mold from all of them. Whatever you are politically I am glad you claim the Republicans as home plate... they deserve you. I am more convinced than ever that the best and brightest the democrats and republicans have to offer screams out loud to every American... there has to be a better choice...

So, run for office cradle. Let's see how you do.

But rather than get personal, let's just say that if you think the census question is "freaking complex" you ain't getting my vote.

It's flat simple. We count noses as you say, because the Constitution requires that we count all Persons.
We want to be sure we get everyone or as darn close to it as humanly possible, so we keep the questions to a minimum to make the process as quick as painless for the census takers and those being counted as we can. It's an enormous project to reach everyone, in every corner. And we do it just once every 10 years.

We also do periodic surveys and samples to get a deeper picture of the population for matters that don't require the same completeness, ie where estimates suffice.

But...The Trump Administration would like to suppress the count of Persons who aren't citizens. Indeed, not only do they want to undercount Persons, they further want the prospect of answering the Census to come with some legal risk for the personal answering the Census (it's illegal to lie) and that's all about suppressing responses from family members of non-citizens. Avoid the Census taker and avoid being on the spot to answer whether grandad is a citizen or not...or don't mention granddad at all...both being crimes.

That's what's going on and the Supreme Court recognized that was what was going on, and moreover that the Administration was not telling the truth about their rationale.

All pretty darn simple.

Want to get a reasonable estimate of citizen versus non-citizen? Do a survey.

Don't suppress the actual count of Persons.

Unless I am getting this wrong every ten years our nation has done the census. Like the nominations for SCOTUS only now has it deviated from its original purpose to be hijacked by the political extremes of both parties. Our nation has done the census for many decades and it has never been the BFD it is today. You are right there in the mix with the quantum physics crowd. If certain people are upset by a question... LEAVE IT BLANK. You are right there in clusterfudge of suppressing the count. I really honestly can't ever envision you being any sort of a Republican. I am not attacking you personally your words just do not mesh with what all the Republicans I know believe. You are like what a Mormon is to many Christians. You all are sort of on the same page until you get down to that vision Joseph Smith had on his farm... then all your beliefs go to hell in a handbasket and you are always at each others throat as to who the right Christian is.

Bandito wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:05 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:22 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:58 pm 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?

Because it results in an undercount, Dumdum.

Is House of Rep apportionment (by state) based on census count of residents or citizens ?

https://www.census.gov/topics/public-se ... s.html#Q16

Are undocumented residents (aliens) in the 50 states included in the apportionment population counts?

Yes, all people (citizens and noncitizens) with a usual residence in the 50 states are to be included in the census and thus in the apportionment counts.

If Trump's metrics yield a valid estimate of non-citizens by state, it will make for interesting debate (& litigation ?)
regarding re-apportionment of House seats, by state,

Bandito wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:38 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:17 am 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

Isn't i saying the same thing?

Guess you aren't interested in sticking to the US COnstitution, ball doh

Does any one remember all the OUTRAGE when Obama removed the citizenship question from the Census?

Why can't you do both: (1) count all people and use that for money allocations, while (2) using actual citizenship numbers to allocate congressional representation?

You don't need a law degree to answer this. But since I did spend the three years in law school, let me lay it out:

1. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution says "Representatives...shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, 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."

2. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment cleaned up the bit about the 3/5ths. Now the rule is that representation is determined based on the “whole number of persons in each state.” It does not say anything about the number of voters, number of adults, number of legal immigrants, number of illegal immigrants. It says "whole number of persons." Put that in your strict constructionist pipe and smoke it!!

3. SCOTUS has previously ruled (9-0 fyi) that you have to do apportionment based upon an actual enumeration of the population. You can't base it on other kinds of statistical techniques (even if valid). Because the freaking Constitution says exactly what is says!!

4. If the Commerce Department is going to do an actual count, then the enumeration clause of the Constitution itself requires the census to be administered in a way that “bear[s] … a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population.” Wisconsin v. City of New York (1996; 9-0). Also says that the judgments of the Commerce Secy in administering the Census are subject to judicial review. Very good rule. Because if that were not the rule, there would be nothing to stop a rat bastard hack Commerce Secy from fashioning a questionnaire designed to discourage participation by certain segments of the population.

5. Writing for the Court, Justice Roberts said (and I paraphrase) "get the fork out of my court room you lying rat bastard Wilbur Ross. And please stand by for your indictment on perjury charges for lying in federal court."

6. The reason why Trump CAVED on this issue (in addition to a SCOTUS decision) is that going back to the district court for litigation would mean discovery. And discovery would be BRUTAL. It would just show more and more and more and more rat bastard-ness on the part of the Trumpsters. Thankfully for us all, the lawyers at the DOJ (not Barr but the real worker bee Deep Staters) fragged Barr and Trump badly enough that even Trump/Barr finally had to give up. Which, of course, did not stop them from claiming complete victory! At some point, those damned Deep State lawyers are just not willing to sacrifice their careers, self-respect and law licenses any more in service to a complete clusterfork of bad faith, shameless lies, incompetence and dumb-forkery.

7. Interestingly, SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the question of whether counting illegals in the census (and using their heads for congressional apportionment) is required and legal. So that question is technically open. Alabama is currently suing over that very question. Seems like that case is going to be a loser, but you never know.

8. TL/DR version -- you need a constitutional amendment to apportion on a basis other than actual count of actual people in the country. You may not think it is right or fair to count the illegals, but that is what it says. The 3/5ths wasn't right or fair either -- but we needed an amendment to get rid of that.

Thanks for this ggait. Nicely done. Point No. 6 is the silver bullet of all of them.

Bill Barr: Congratulations on your stunning retreat!

Alas....

......the purpose of this thread is to talk about : (not tRump, Oblame-ah or any other political hack )

1. 435 members of congress. The NE could actually, once again, loose even more Reps. Guess you guys don't care that 50K - 100K more people are added to YOUR district. Why do we allow the oligarchy to keep on increasing the cost of elections and population that they represent?

2. There is NO legal purpose of using the census numbers to allocate federal dollars. It doesn't exist. (does it? A law? )

The fantasy that census data is used to spread funds out in an equitable manner. $720 million for wildlife restoration? $11 billion for "special eduction" ? Huh. Are there questions on the census about IEP's and learning disabilites? (Fairfield county is abound with extended time SAT test takers, if you know what I mean )

https://www2.census.gov/programs-survey ... bution.pdf

3. How is that census data working out for our big cities highways and infrastructure? You leave Great Falls at 4am and drive to Hunt Valley, it takes you 40 minutes. You leave at 4pm, it takes you four hours. Yes, census IS so valuable.


The smaller the House, relative to the total population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion or myopic groupthink.
In contrast “Numerous bodies … are less subject to venality and corruption”. [James Madison, 14-August-1789]

From https://thirty-thousand.org/index.htm#Q3

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:18 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:57 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:19 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:30 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:24 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:16 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:48 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:24 pm 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.

Here is my contribution my RINO friend. A thread starts here about the census. Really freaking complex topic. The mission is to count noses and find out how many people actually are in this country. In true form the jackwagons here are trying to turn the census into quantum physics. As far as jerking your chain... your a freaking strange sort of RINO. You are not of the capacity to understand when your chain is being jerked. I have known many Republicans along my travels and you break the mold from all of them. Whatever you are politically I am glad you claim the Republicans as home plate... they deserve you. I am more convinced than ever that the best and brightest the democrats and republicans have to offer screams out loud to every American... there has to be a better choice...

So, run for office cradle. Let's see how you do.

But rather than get personal, let's just say that if you think the census question is "freaking complex" you ain't getting my vote.

It's flat simple. We count noses as you say, because the Constitution requires that we count all Persons.
We want to be sure we get everyone or as darn close to it as humanly possible, so we keep the questions to a minimum to make the process as quick as painless for the census takers and those being counted as we can. It's an enormous project to reach everyone, in every corner. And we do it just once every 10 years.

We also do periodic surveys and samples to get a deeper picture of the population for matters that don't require the same completeness, ie where estimates suffice.

But...The Trump Administration would like to suppress the count of Persons who aren't citizens. Indeed, not only do they want to undercount Persons, they further want the prospect of answering the Census to come with some legal risk for the personal answering the Census (it's illegal to lie) and that's all about suppressing responses from family members of non-citizens. Avoid the Census taker and avoid being on the spot to answer whether grandad is a citizen or not...or don't mention granddad at all...both being crimes.

That's what's going on and the Supreme Court recognized that was what was going on, and moreover that the Administration was not telling the truth about their rationale.

All pretty darn simple.

Want to get a reasonable estimate of citizen versus non-citizen? Do a survey.

Don't suppress the actual count of Persons.

Unless I am getting this wrong every ten years our nation has done the census. Like the nominations for SCOTUS only now has it deviated from its original purpose to be hijacked by the political extremes of both parties. Our nation has done the census for many decades and it has never been the BFD it is today. You are right there in the mix with the quantum physics crowd. If certain people are upset by a question... LEAVE IT BLANK. You are right there in clusterfudge of suppressing the count. I really honestly can't ever envision you being any sort of a Republican. I am not attacking you personally your words just do not mesh with what all the Republicans I know believe. You are like what a Mormon is to many Christians. You all are sort of on the same page until you get down to that vision Joseph Smith had on his farm... then all your beliefs go to hell in a handbasket and you are always at each others throat as to who the right Christian is.

Yup, I'm actually cool with Mormons considering themselves Christians, followers of Christ. I know a lot of Mormons through a variety of ways. My experience is that they on average behave far more in the path of Christ's teachings than many evangelicals much less the rest of us believers and non-believers. They do have some pretty whacky 'beliefs' coming out the 'shrooms Joseph Smith ate, but then again a lot of dogmas are products of man's imagination. Modern Mormons are a pretty darn stable bunch.

Perhaps I'm missing something on why you're so wound up on this issue. The experts at the Census Bureau, not me, say that adding the question would suppress the count, making it inaccurate. The experts, not me, say adding the question is unnecessary to estimate citizenship #'s.

Simple stuff. Don't get your pants in a wad.

And if you are the DOJ or Wilbur Ross, don't lie to the Court.

Yes, I grew up a Republican. I vote. Worked for Nixon as a 9th grader (later horrified), have voted in every election 1980 forward, never voting Dem. If I recall correctly, you grew up Dem? But haven't liked their liberal tendencies? Not so sure you're in much of a position of who has a claim on being a 'Republican'.

Sure, I'd put myself in the Einshower, Mac Mathias, Jack Kemp, etc wing of the GOP, not the Gingrich, Roger Ailes, etc wing.
Much less in the Trump strong man cult.

The question for me is whether the GOP I knew and associated is going to be relegated to the dust bin of history, but it's real clear that if the GOP reflects the hard right, 'white is right' Trump cult going forward, they will be an increasingly small minority party. Demographics will overwhelm that positioning.

I'm concerned, therefore, that the majority will swing to an anti-capitalist leftwing dominance with authoritarianism given full reign, boundaries and norms shattered in the right-wing last gasps.

Ate shrooms at his birth place once and then had a grand time across the river at some bucolic school that has gone way down hill.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:35 am Alas....

......the purpose of this thread is to talk about : (not tRump, Oblame-ah or any other political hack )

1. 435 members of congress. The NE could actually, once again, loose even more Reps. Guess you guys don't care that 50K - 100K more people are added to YOUR district. Why do we allow the oligarchy to keep on increasing the cost of elections and population that they represent?

2. There is NO legal purpose of using the census numbers to allocate federal dollars. It doesn't exist. (does it? A law? )

The fantasy that census data is used to spread funds out in an equitable manner. $720 million for wildlife restoration? $11 billion for "special eduction" ? Huh. Are there questions on the census about IEP's and learning disabilites? (Fairfield county is abound with extended time SAT test takers, if you know what I mean )

https://www2.census.gov/programs-survey ... bution.pdf

3. How is that census data working out for our big cities highways and infrastructure? You leave Great Falls at 4am and drive to Hunt Valley, it takes you 40 minutes. You leave at 4pm, it takes you four hours. Yes, census IS so valuable.


The smaller the House, relative to the total population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion or myopic groupthink.
In contrast “Numerous bodies … are less subject to venality and corruption”. [James Madison, 14-August-1789]

From https://thirty-thousand.org/index.htm#Q3

Great quote from Madison, and indeed a strong defense for the House to be larger than the Senate, more representative of where the population lived than the Senate's equality of power among states independent of population.

Opponents wanted the few to rule, not the many.

All good points. And thankfully, we indeed have a system of checks and balances and representation. Is it perfect? Nope.

Back to census, funds can be apportioned any way we wish. We do frequently use census data, the amount of total population, to allocate some resources. That's a choice, generally the right one, but there isn't a Constitutional demand one way or the other necessarily. There are other examples where funds are allocated where they are need, independent of population numbers.

What we do have a Constitutional requirement for is the allocation of representation based upon total population, not of citizens, of total population.

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:51 am Ate shrooms at his birth place once and then had a grand time across the river at some bucolic school that has gone way down hill.

I don't recall the school part.
which school?