Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, January 13, 2020

Population data collected from the 2020 census could lead to dramatic changes in how congressional seats and Electoral College votes are apportioned in several states. Ten states, including several in the Northeast and Midwest, are set to lose congressional districts, although seven in the West and South could gain seats, according to an analysis of new Census Bureau data.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

As if the Chinese fire drill called the Democratic Primaries wasn't enough of a headache for the DNC.

#1 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-12 10:47 PM | Reply

This is why Trump wants a citizenship question. For more winning.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-12 10:49 PM | Reply

All politicians do what they do for more winning, Cap'n Obvious.

But that's irrelevant to the topic. The topic is about states like Texas and Florida very likely to gain more representatives and half a dozen or more blue states to lose some after the 2020 census.

#3 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-12 10:55 PM | Reply

A citizenship question on the Census is highly relevant to this topic.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-12 10:58 PM | Reply

"But that's irrelevant to the topic. The topic is about states like Texas and Florida very likely to gain more representatives and half a dozen or more blue states to lose some after the 2020 census."

Slowly but surely both of those states are going to go blue, more problems in Puerto Rico....uh oh....more Puerto Ricans heading for Florida!

#5 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-13 10:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's of course assuming that these states will NOT change their 'color'. When there are population shifts, this opens the door for potential shifts in political viewpoints as well.

Populations dropping in California and New York doesn't necessarily means that conservatives are leaving and moving to places like Texas and Florida. Who knows, maybe most of them will be young liberals moving to those 'red' states with lower costs of living. And then there's the impact of immigrants entering the country and where they finally settle, and while this may not have an immediate impact on a state's 'shade', it will over time. And lets not forget that the mortality rate also plays a role in these demographic changes, and this is where the biggest risk comes into play for the 'red' states, as the older and more conservative voters die-off, and they're replaced with a population that is younger and often more progressive in their political views.

So no matter what happens as a result of the 2020 census, time is NOT on the side of the Republicans, to say nothing of conservationism in general.

OCU

#6 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-13 11:09 AM | Reply

I am of the opinion we need more representatives .... last time I checked it was 700,000 per rep.

Should be more like 100,000.

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-13 12:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

how does it work when a state loses or gains a district?

Is it like with the census...the party in charge gets to re-draw maps to either add or take out a district?

Is it an opportunity to gerrymander?

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-13 12:22 PM | Reply

#3 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Snoofy's inability to articulate why its relevant goes without saying.

But it is relevant because, Illegal Immigrants swing the representative count. Plus the goal of the OpenBorders crowd isn't more voters its more representatives.

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-13 12:22 PM | Reply

Is it an opportunity to gerrymander? ~ Eberly

I believe so, I hear Omar is going to get cut out in the next gerrymander.

They might use seniority and carve up the one being cut out.

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-13 12:24 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

I am of the opinion we need more representatives .... last time I checked it was 700,000 per rep.
Should be more like 100,000.
#7 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

It's 700k in California, but only 350k in Wyoming.
The States themselves are Gerrymanders.

Meanwhile, the Constitution specifies one rep per 30,000 people.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-13 02:09 PM | Reply

It is important for so many reasons including Federal spending and elections that the census be accurate. I welcome a complete and accurate census regardless of whether 'blue' or 'red' states think they gain from it.

#12 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-13 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Illegals, legals, add them to your State and you gain representatives.

Why in the world is the Constitution totally ignorant when using 'persons' instead of 'citizens' for the head count.

#13 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-13 04:59 PM | Reply

Why in the world is the Constitution totally ignorant when using 'persons' instead of 'citizens' for the head count.

#13 | Posted by Petrous

I suspect that our Founding Fathers assumed that America would always be a country where immigrants played a significant role in the culture and prosperity of the nation. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to limit the mechanism by which we apportion ourselves into political units to only considering 'citizens' at the expense of the actual population, which would always be in flux.

But since you've brought up the idea of what should constitute the population of a Congressional district, how do you feel about including prison inmates in the census count? People in mental institutions? Nursing homes? And if your concern is that the make-up of a Congressional district should reflect ONLY the people allowed to fully participate in our political landscape, why not limit the census, for purposes apportioning Congressional districts, to only voters, or at least those who are eligible to vote, which of course would leave out anyone under the age of 18, convicted felons (in many states), etc.

I mean, if you're going to question the use of the term 'persons' versus 'citizens', why stop there?

OCU

#14 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-13 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Slowly but surely both of those states are going to go blue, more problems in Puerto Rico....uh oh....more Puerto Ricans heading for Florida!

#5 | POSTED BY DANNI "

Could be. But maybe not. You have no way of knowing, of course. I remember many of your prognostications that failed to come to fruition, AAMOF.

#15 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-13 09:05 PM | Reply

Why in the world is the Constitution totally ignorant when using 'persons' instead of 'citizens' for the head count.
#13 | Posted by Petrous a

They REALLY should do a better job of teaching civics in schools.

It is actually quite basic.

The federal government doesn't exist to solely address the needs of citizens, but everyone, every single person-legal, illegal, documented, undocumented, American, Native American, convict, detainee, prisoner, green card holder, etc. within its borders. As an aside, why do you think Gitmo was chosen to house those captured in the "war on terror"?

When the US was established, there were all sorts of "miscellaneous" categories of people within the borders, the biggest being slaves, indentured servants and Native Americans. ----, it could have been argued that women and non landowners were not citizens.

The federal government has to allocate its resources, which it does through apportionment by numbers of people.

It really is frustrating to have to debate stuff like this when people are ignorant of basic facts.

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-13 09:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It is important to have an accurate count of people in the country regardless of status. However, only citizens should be able to vote and elect our leaders thus shaping the country. Congressional districts should be based on citizens' numbers.

#17 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-13 09:17 PM | Reply

The Federal gov't consists of representatives chosen by vote.

Illegals cannot vote, but their number increases a State's number of reps in the House. States will a larger percentage of citizens, but smaller populations have less representation.

Why should a State with a greater % of illegals have a larger voice in the House than a State with a larger % of citizens.

Do States with large illegal populations gain a voice for them in the House, a place where they cant vote? Actually, yes. Illegals cant vote, but they create more House votes because of their presence. In an odd way, illegals do vote...

Civics taught that the Constitutional amendment to make Senators selected by the public harmed States. The Federalist Papers provided great instruction about the balance of the House (the people and the purse) and Senate (the State gov't's voice). The States had equal power in the Senate to counter high population States in the House. The South needed the 3/5ths as their Northern brethren had large populations.

So, more House reps but the Senate remained equal. So, when the Senators became elected officials by the public, the only hedge against the high pop States was gone.

After the amendment, the largest populations now dominate the Congress. IMO, the States were wrong to give up their voice in the Congress. Senators don't represent the State govt. They are just two more members of the House.

The highest populations now get more in the House, the Senators ride those voters to keep their jobs, and you have a rubber stamp Congress: screw the States as they have no defense from the Fed.

#18 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-13 10:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Remember "No Taxation Without Representation"? Are you not aware that "illegal immigrants" also pay taxes? There are all kinds of Federal taxes, not just income tax. There are federal taxes on gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco, just to name a few. If you pay any federal taxes you are (in principle) a taxpayer and therefore entitled to representation. Even if you don't get to vote, your numbers in the population need to be addressed.

Also, at the time the country was founded, there was no such thing as "illegal immigration". People just showed up, and that was it. The first immigration laws were passed in 1882, almost 100 years after the adoption of the Constitution (and 20 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment) so, no, it wasn't considered an issue by the "Founding Fathers" or the Constitution they wrote.

#19 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-01-13 11:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Why in the world is the Constitution totally ignorant when using 'persons' instead of 'citizens' for the head count.
#13 | POSTED BY PETROUS"

Because the South had slaves. With the end of slavery, everything should have been re-written as citizens.

#20 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-14 01:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I suspect that our Founding Fathers assumed that America would always be a country where immigrants played a significant role in the culture
#14 | POSTED BY OCUSER"

I suspect it is because they limited the vote solely to property owning, white males - hence, people with skin in the game. Further, the founders never envisioned how we would allow the size and role of the government to change - such as allowing an income tax. If the role of the government is limited and only people that have skin in the game can vote - then the government is responsive to the people and cannot do much harm even if they are irresponsible.

#21 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-14 01:09 AM | Reply

"Remember "No Taxation Without Representation"? Are you not aware that "illegal immigrants" also pay taxes?
#19 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN"

Poor argument. I, like a lot of other people, paid income taxes WAY BEFORE we could vote. Further, if you want to add in gas taxes, you start to rope in anybody that ever had to fill up a jug for a lawnmower. So, ridiculous argument as we don't give the right to vote to LEGAL citizens under 18.

#22 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-14 01:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's 700k in California, but only 350k in Wyoming. ~ Snoofy

No thats not true ... we are only talking house of representatives ... keep up

#23 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-14 01:37 AM | Reply

Meanwhile, the Constitution specifies one rep per 30,000 people.
#11 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Where is that Snoofy? I would like to see it ... if you know where it is.. I have never seen such a number.

#24 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-14 01:37 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#24 -- There is no such number in the Constitution. When I first read that a couple of hours ago I googled for it. I knew it wouldn't be there because if it was indeed written into the Constitution, there would be an amendment fixing the number of representatives at 435. There is no such amendment.

#25 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-14 01:48 AM | Reply

The first law establishing an actual official number of House Members wasn't passed until 1911, setting the number at 435. This law was enacted in anticipation of the entries of New Mexico and Arizona as states a few months later in early 1912. This was done in part to head-off debate as to whether additional members of the House should be allowed when states were added to the union, but on that point, nothing was done officially until 1929 when the 'Permanent Apportionment Act' became law establishing that there would be a maximum of 435 voting members of the House. The law was later amended to include six non-voting members, representing Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. This law also provided some guidelines for how to handle new states as they were added to the union, which next occurred in 1959 with the admissions of Alaska and Hawaii (A bit of trivia here, as the new states were each automatically given a single Representative, bringing the House membership to a temporary total of 437, which remained in place until after the 1960 census, when its numbers were then used to make the final apportionment, bringing the number back to the legal maximum of 435).

As for the 30,000 number, YES, it actually does appear in the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative."

OCU

#26 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-14 02:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Losing: Alabama - California - Illinois - Michigan - Minnesota - New York - Ohio - Pennsylvania - Rhode Island - West Virginia
Gaining: Texas - Florida - Arizona - Colorado - Montana - North Carolina - Oregon

"Texas is increasingly becoming a battleground state in presidential elections, due to demographic change and growing urban populations. According to the Census Bureau data, Texas had the second highest number of new residents from other countries between July 2018 and July 2019, behind California, and the second highest number of new residents from elsewhere in the U.S. over the same time period, behind Florida."

Very true of Texas. Florida seems to be home to more and more boomers and both are taking a lot of people fleeing California Taxes.

#27 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-01-14 01:31 PM | Reply

#25 | Posted by goatman

^ Google and Reading Comprehension issues. Here's a link.

#28 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-01-14 01:33 PM | Reply

"California Taxes.

#27 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE "

during the Great Rust Belt Migration to the south in the '80s, the displaced union folks were smart enough not to bring their poison with them. I presume the California expats are just as smart.

#29 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-14 01:36 PM | Reply

"As for the 30,000 number, YES, it actually does appear in the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative."
OCU

#26 | POSTED BY OCUSER "

That does not say that there must be one rep for every 30,000 people. It is saying there can be no more than one for that number. Big difference.

#30 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-14 01:39 PM | Reply

"^ Google and Reading Comprehension issues. Here's a link.

#28 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE "

^Same issues.

Your LMGTFY led me to hundreds of links. I'm not reading them all. Please give me a link to one of them that says that the Constitution dictates one rep for every 30,000 people.

If you are going to cite what OCU did, don't bother. It obviously does not say there must be one rep for 30,000 people. It is saying there can be no more than one (two, three) for that number of people.

#31 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-14 01:42 PM | Reply

Leftists have a plan to gain absolute power. Create 127 new states out of Washington, DC.

www.vox.com

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-14 01:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

There is no such number in the Constitution.

#25 | Posted by goatman

I was simply pointing out that the NUMBER 'thirty thousand' does indeed APPEAR in the Constitution since you had stated that that it was not to be found. Your comment put NO conditions on the use or context of the number, just that it did NOT exist, period!

OCU

#33 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-14 01:52 PM | Reply

"I was simply pointing out that the NUMBER 'thirty thousand' does indeed APPEAR in the Constitution since you had stated that that it was not to be found. Your comment put NO conditions on the use or context of the number, just that it did NOT exist, period!
OCU

#33 | POSTED BY OCUSER "

Well, I was replying to a post that stated the Contitution required one rep for 30,000 so I thought it was contextually implied -- kind of like using 'it' as a pronoun implies the previous noun spoken.

Sorry I wasn't more clear

#34 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-14 01:55 PM | Reply

"However, only citizens should be able to vote and elect our leaders thus shaping the country.
#17 | POSTED BY GOATMAN"

Profound.

Thanks Cap'n Obvious.

#35 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2020-01-14 07:51 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort