?

Isn't it obvious?

Let's say that California has... oh 30 million legal citizens.

And ten million non-citizens, including illegals residing in Calfornia.

The Census indicates that 40 million people live in California, whether only 30 million are citizens and thus legally able to vote in Federal Elections or not.

Meanwhile South Carolina has far less non-citizens residing in it - a pattern true for a lot of Red States I think.

Should (and Is?) Calfornia awarded electors and a proportional number of Representatives based on a population of 40 million?

Sounds wonky, but essentially my pulled-from-the-arse numbers would indicate that California has 33% more throw-weight in packing the House with little SJW's and electing witches.

And I don't like that.

2 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by Antonio Moss

Baton Rouge

Member since Mar 2006

48519 posts

Posted on 4/24/19 at 12:06 pm to Sunbeam

But that’s already the system. This new question doesn’t directly affect distribution of representatives. In fact, if, as the left contends, it results in less people taking the census, then it will negatively affect heavy illegal Immigrant states.

0 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by Wally Sparks

Atlanta

Member since Feb 2013

29784 posts

Posted on 4/24/19 at 12:10 pm to Sunbeam

quote:
Should (and Is?) Calfornia awarded electors and a proportional number of Representatives based on a population of 40 million?

Sounds wonky, but essentially my pulled-from-the-arse numbers would indicate that California has 33% more throw-weight in packing the House with little SJW's and electing witches.

And I don't like that.

Except our current system already bases apportionment on total population, not total citizen population.

0 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board