Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Fugus]

Actually, the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 stipulates 435 House Seats, regardless of the number of states.

Wouldn’t that just mean a majority of both houses and the president be needed to remove that?

Or they can pass a bill that forced individuals votes be weighted according to the population they represent.

Edit: wouldn’t even need the senate or president to get that second one done

[PhaelixWW]

Wouldn’t that just mean a majority of both houses and the president be needed to remove that?

Or they can pass a bill that forced individuals votes be weighted according to the population they represent.

Okay, fine. A supermajority of Senators would have to okay a dissolution of the Senate, but a simple majority of both chambers would be able to increase the size of the House. Still unlikely to get a majority of House Representatives to vote to decrease their own individual political power.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit: wouldn’t even need the senate or president to get that second one done

I'm not sure that's true. I'm sure the language of existing law would preclude weighted votes being a thing.

[Shadowferal]

Used to be one House Rep for every 10k people. Which today would make that over 33k crammed into the House of Representatives.

[PhaelixWW]

Used to be one House Rep for every 10k people.

Hrm, no it didn't.

The first Congress (1789-91) had 65 House members, the number provided for in the Constitution until the first census could be held. Based on an estimated population for the 13 states of 3.7 million, there was one representative for every 57,169 people. (At the time, Kentucky was part of Virginia, Maine was part of Massachusetts, and Tennessee was part of North Carolina. Vermont governed itself as an independent republic, despite territorial claims by New York.)

By the time the first apportionment bill took effect in March 1793, Vermont and Kentucky already had joined the Union; the 15 states had a total population of 3.89 million. Since the apportionment law provided for 105 House members, there was one representative for every 37,081 people. (According to the Constitution at the time, only three-fifths of the nation’s 694,280 slaves were counted for apportionment purposes; using that method, the ratio was approximately one representative for every 34,436.)

[Fugus]

Okay, fine. A supermajority of Senators would have to okay a dissolution of the Senate, but a simple majority of both chambers would be able to increase the size of the House. Still unlikely to get a majority of House Representatives to vote to decrease their own individual political power.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm not sure that's true. I'm sure the language of existing law would preclude weighted votes being a thing.

Sorry, I wasn't talking about the Senate at all, I am against dissolving them as well, I would love a case where states are capped at a certain population size and is required to split after a certain level or some equivalent so Joe Bob Hodunk out in Welfare Queen Florida can basically hold the nation hostage because his clan has enough people in empty states to tell the nations actual population who provides for his states governments to go fuck themselves. But I would not want an actual dissolution of the Senate, a single chamber with all that power is too much.

From what I know about the weighted votes, I only skimmed and saw where they talked about limiting the size of congressional seats and limiting each state getting at least a single vote, but I didn't see where they precluded them from saying the vote being representative of the population they represent.

They could have it where each congressional vote is not equal to one vote but is instead equal to the number of people his district represents. Then Wyoming's individual congressman's vote would be equal to roughly to 578,759 and and each of California's congressman's vote would be equal to the population they represent in their district. That would remove fractional votes from the equation entirely and still have their votes actually be what it was intended to be worth.

[PhaelixWW]

They could have it where each congressional vote is not equal to one vote but is instead equal to the number of people his district represents. Then Wyoming's individual congressman's vote would be equal to roughly to 578,759 and and each of California's congressman's vote would be equal to the population they represent in their district. That would remove fractional votes from the equation entirely and still have their votes actually be what it was intended to be worth.

But if any of the text of the Constitution or any other law... ever... talks about it as "a majority of the members of the House vote to do ____...", then it nixes the idea of weighted votes. The text would then have to be changed first, which would require a new law at a minimum, and potentially an Amendment.

If every text said "passes the measure with a vote", then maybe, but that's unlikely to be true.

It would also be likely quickly undone, even were it possible.

[DarkTZeratul]

I would love a case where states are capped at a certain population size and is required to split after a certain level or some equivalent so Joe Bob Hodunk out in Welfare Queen Florida can basically hold the nation hostage because his clan has enough people in empty states to tell the nations actual population who provides for his states governments to go fuck themselves.

Unfortunately, that'd be difficult to do since populations aren't evenly spread throughout the state. New York, for instance, has approximately 19.4 million people living in the state, but two thirds of them live in or around New York City. The only possible way to split it would be to create one state that's the size of a postage stamp with an enormous number of people, and second state with a similar density to Wyoming.

They could have it where each congressional vote is not equal to one vote but is instead equal to the number of people his district represents. Then Wyoming's individual congressman's vote would be equal to roughly to 578,759 and and each of California's congressman's vote would be equal to the population they represent in their district. That would remove fractional votes from the equation entirely and still have their votes actually be what it was intended to be worth.

While I dislike a lot of the proposals I've seen for increasing the size of the House, largely on the basis that there's a threshold past which it becomes difficult to actually accomplish anything because there are so many people involved, I think the so-called Wyoming Rule would be a good compromise. Based on the 2010 census (because those are the latest numbers on Wikipedia), that would only require a modest increase from 435 seats to 547.

[Shadowferal]

Hrm, no it didn't.

My mistake. I see here; The amendment lays out a mathematical formula for determining the number of seats in the House of Representatives. It would initially have required one representative for every 30,000 constituents, with that number eventually climbing to one representative for every 50,000 constituents. However, there is some agreement that the last line contains a scrivener's error[1] (see Mathematical discrepancies).

The "ideal" number of seats in the House of Representatives has been a contentious issue since the country's founding. Initially, delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention set the representation ratio at one representative for every 40,000 people. Upon the suggestion of George Washington, the ratio was changed to one representative for every 30,000 people.[6] This was the only time Washington voiced an opinion on any of the actual issues debated during the convention.[7]
-------
That still would have been a crazy number.

[beanman12345]

Unfortunately, that'd be difficult to do since populations aren't evenly spread throughout the state. New York, for instance, has approximately 19.4 million people living in the state. Two thirds of them live in or around New York City.

Yup same situation with Illinois. 2/3, heck maybe even more that that, of population live in Chicagoland area. almost all the rest is redneck land.

[Mayhem]

Except, they really are. Those boundaries are based on land, the amount of land is not relevant. It's not based on people, because everything gets tied back to those very boundaries. It's why jurisdiction is also based on those very same land-based boundaries.

I never said it was based proportionally on land, merely that land was the basis for it.

Costa Rica apparently has no land.

[Breccia]

Cross-posting: Facebook clamps down on "stop the steal" posts. They want no part in supporting a murderous insurrection.

[Fugus]

Unfortunately, that'd be difficult to do since populations aren't evenly spread throughout the state. New York, for instance, has approximately 19.4 million people living in the state, but two thirds of them live in or around New York City. The only possible way to split it would be to create one state that's the size of a postage stamp with an enormous number of people, and second state with a similar density to Wyoming.

Actually, not really with how I was envisioning it.

Here is an example of what I was talking about.

Lets say Liz Cheney of Wyoming casts a vote, her vote isn't worth 1, it is worth the 578,759 voters in her district she represents.
Now if AOC of New York casts a vote, her vote also isn't worth 1, it is worth the 706,440 voters in her district that she represents.

[Skulltaker]

I had to google what the PGA was. He's angry because of the impeachment, but he's 'gutted' because of fucking Golf? I have no words.

[Themius]

You're not living in reality, then.

/shrug

Pray tell, though... just who do you think would be able to dissolve the Senate?

I am saying what needs to be done, whether it is "reality" is of no consequence. Abolitionist were radical at their time because the prevailing opinion was "slavery is horrible let's give them better wages and not split families up and abuse them"

- - - Updated - - -

So we don't think people organizing into state governments in order to help balance against the possible oppression of a federal government is a good idea anymore? Or that people's needs and tastes can differ by region? Or is it just that you don't think those political entities deserve any representation in the process?

So far that hasn't been a thing..

[Kathranis]

I had to google what the PGA was. He's angry because of the impeachment, but he's 'gutted' because of fucking Golf? I have no words.

I'm sure he was counting on the revenue PGA tour stops would generate.

[Kaleredar]

I had to google what the PGA was. He's angry because of the impeachment, but he's 'gutted' because of fucking Golf? I have no words.

I mean it is pretty clear Trump was always more interested in playing golf than being president.

[NoiseTank13]

Bill Bellicheck from the New England Patriots is declining his Medal, lol

That and the PGA are the things Trump cares most about I reckon.

[beanman12345]

I had to google what the PGA was. He's angry because of the impeachment, but he's 'gutted' because of fucking Golf? I have no words.

Golf, diet coke, kfc/mcdonalds, and people praising and adoring him are the only thing he cares about. And no he doesn't even care about Ivanka, he just wants in her pants.

[Breccia]

I had to google what the PGA was. He's angry because of the impeachment, but he's 'gutted' because of fucking Golf? I have no words.

The PGA thing would be money given to him consequence free.

[Machismo]

Costa Rica apparently has no land.

Good for them, I guess.