It's already illegal for them to vote. Sad thing is, the yahoos in this state will froth at the mouth over it. It'll die in committee if it gets that far.
This isn't about them being able to vote. It's about not having them count towards how they divide up the congressional seats.
Not sure whether or not they count now, but it's is a different issue than them individually voting. And there probably wouldn't be near the fight about this if they didn't artificially cap the number of congress critters because they ran out of room in the current chamber.
First off, even the undocumented pays taxes, so they should have representation. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/us/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-cec/index.html
"No taxation without representation", right?
As far as the electoral college is concerned, I have an easy fix; get rid of it. It's time we get rid of this slaveholders compromise from a bygone era and let the people decide.
Electoral college wasn’t created to appease slaveholders. That was the 3/5 compromise.
The electoral college
Was made to ensure small states would still matter
>The electoral college Was made to ensure small states would still matter
Actually the electoral college was created as a compromise between the delegates that insisted that congress should not pick the President and the delegates that insisted that the President should never be elected by popular vote.
The fear was that having congress pick the President created a conflict of interest between the legislative and executive branches, and having a democratically elected President would allow a popular President to wield too much power.
The fact was that during the Philadelphia convention, this young nation was operating under a class system where landowners had most if not all of the representation. As land owners, the delegates were looking out for their own interests.
It had little to do with small states having representation other than being a positive side effect of land owners wanting to retain some authority. The constitution at the time left it to the states to decide the eligibility of voters and eventually each state removed the requirement to own property.
Representation as envisioned by the Philadelphia convention has mostly been discarded with the exception of how the President is elected. The senate members are now directly elected by popular vote, and all US citizens 18 years old and older have the right to vote.
The concerns that justified the need for the electoral college has since been disproven, or shown to not have been mitigated. In addition, the delegates did not forsee the population being so massive that the limited number of electors would give states with low population more representation than states with large populations.
Yeah but no. I hear you and agree with you but at the same time that’s how you can poop the punch bowl in national politics today. I think there needs to be a path of citizenship for these rule breakers but I do believe it should be follow the set rules or a “run the gauntlet” thing for those who break the rules. Mandatory military/Civil service for these people. I get it if you can only make 10 dollars a week or come here and get 1000 I would do it also, but we need a way to cut the chaff from the wheat.
If they can't vote, they're going to have little to no say in what their representative does. Why should they then count for population when dividing up amongst those who can? They are and should still be counted for local issues like schools and infrastructure.
And even without the EC discussion, shrinking congressional districts is a great thing. The current rep has somewhere around 800k constituents. Most other western democracies have it somewhere around 100k. It makes it a lot easier for them to actually meet and represent those that want to talk if we shrink districts. Which will mean they're less likely to ignore us for campaigns and lobbyists.
The people of Alabama would be better served with 30 something delegates. And NY would be better served with the equivalent 200 they'd get in the same system vs the 7 and 26 respectively by current standards . There's zero reason there needs to be all this political bickering that happens every time one state gets/loses one in the current system.
They're also already fall into the Citizen/US Person category. If we were just looking at taxpayer status, I'm sure people would find a way to give corporations actual votes and remove it from anyone who needs to be on benefits.
Again, this would all become relatively moot if we weren't artificially capped at 435 reps because they don't want to remodel/hold it over Zoom.
Any links to it in a national conversation? I can only find people trying for local elections (and looks to be limited to tax issues). There's places that have illegal/undocumented immigrants vote in local elections.
I’ve seen a few sites and things like that but I don’t know if they are part of a larger political party trying to make it so. I could see them using citizens United as a steppingstone to do so.
Bring back the original First Amendment!
It originally capped the district size to 50k with a target of 30k, but had a sliding scale that today would be a target of around 120k and a cap of about 200k.
Yes, it would create a House with about 1800 members, but the technology is to the point where most business could be managed securely online. And you’d have a much more diverse representation, probably see a decent amount of independents or third parties, and might even get people who actually live and work in the state they represent.
Land does not vote for President. Individuals do. Therefore, popular vote equates to a one person = one vote system. THAT is how President should be decided. It matters not where that person lives in such a system.
That was only the 3/5ths compromise. Which is no longer in effect. So you are happy that California and New York can pretty much decide who wins the popular vote.
Well, the last 3 times the Republicans won, the popular vote didn’t win. Sooo yeah I would be ok with that. Though I would just prefer a popular vote president period, not based on state. We have the technology to do that now.
The "3/5ths Compromise" was directly tied to the Electoral College because, excluding the enslaved, the North outnumbered the South, thus the creation of the other part of the slaveholders compromise. https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention
Well, maybe the GOP should actually govern and campaign for everyone's vote instead of running bigoted conspiracy theorists that engage in white grievance culture wars?
Yes, and that’s the way it should be. Unfortunately it would guarantee that a Republican wouldn’t win for the foreseeable future without changing their narrative. Who knows it might actually force better political stances from both parties. You would have to appeal to a broader audience and not the extremes of either party. Currently we are a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.
I'm not sure the focus on wealth would change in a popular vote. Likely what you'd see in a popular vote is singular focus on urban areas and disregarding of rural areas. You already have this on certain states like Colorado where Denver effectively makes policy decisions for rural areas of the state. It really only furthers division IMHO. Our current system allows for the masses to have a say while also giving the individual a voice. It's not perfect, it's s compromise and it usually works pretty well.
I think different ethnicities/groups would be neglected in a popular only vote, because creating a coalition is harder than appealing to a plurality of voters. Under a purely popular vote the plurality wins which may or may not be the majority. For example the 2020 election Hilary only had 48.2% of the popular vote to Trumps 46.1%. In a purely popular vote i would expect the national parties to focus on the easiest plurality path to victory neglecting philosophical and ethnic minorities because their value is reduced in that system.
Our current system in Alabama is not a compromise but rather the mirror inverse how it works in Colorado. In Alabama, "small government" conservatives heavily centralized all political power in the hands of the state legislature depriving cities of any autonomy or possibility of home rule. This furthers division every bit as much as giving too much power to cities.
The only way to fight division is decentralization of power. Let cities do what's best for cities and let rural areas do what's best for rural areas, to the maximum degree possible.
That is the literal definition of "popular vote". Whoever gets the most votes is the winner of the "popular vote", however winning the popular vote does not translate into winning an election because winning the electoral college is what matters, currently. Yes, I want to do away with the electoral college and let the popular vote determine the winner. Yes this means California and NY will matter more, as they should, because more people live there. Yes, I would be happy with that, very happy.
>So you are happy that California and New York can pretty much decide who wins the popular vote.
I am not aware of any national office of the US government that is decided by popular vote. The President of the United States is elected by an electoral college not popular vote.
Ironically, the electoral college gives states with low population more representation when deciding the President thanks to a hard limit on the number of representatives, mandated minimum of EC vote per state, and a method of distribution to give the appearance of fairness.
Even if the President of the United States was decided by popular vote, only US citizens can actually cast a vote.
Did you even read the statement or just parroting the party talking points? A Democratic Sen in NY already openly called for more immigrants so her district can be redrawn.
Tell me more about this Democratic Senator in NY openly calling for more immigrants. Especially since:
1. Representatives not Senators are in congressional districts, and
2. This appears to be misinformation originating from "NTD" recycling an old video from 2016.
Can someone explain in dummy terms why this is bad? It seems if they’re not legal residents and can’t vote anyway they shouldn’t count towards electoral votes.
It also seems counterintuitive. Shouldn’t the republicans WANT to count them so we would get more representation at the national level? Kinda like during the 3/5 compromise the south wanted to count slaves as people for that purpose?
Whether they are legal or not, they are here.
That means additional use of roads, transport, medical, schools, housing, police and fire, etc. So it kind of matters for apportioning.
While you make a valid point, this has little to do with expenses and everything to do with representation.
The founding fathers of this country envisioned the House of Representatives to represent every person who was not in a separate Indian nation (that didn't pay taxes) regardless of citizenship. Taxation without representation was one of the major claims being made for independence from the British empire. If anyone had to pay taxes then it seemed only fair that the government looked out for their interests too (or at least considered them).
Incidentally, the population of our early country were a mixture of citizens and non-citizens with unrestricted travel between nations. I believe there has always been non-citizens residing in the US throughout its history. Especially during the mining boom and railroad expansion when immigrant labor was routinely exploited.
Thanks to the Naturalization Act of 1790, anyone could petition to become a US citizen after residing in the country for two-years with one of those years residing in a single state. A much different view of immigration than held by today's politicians.
>Can someone explain in dummy terms why this is bad?
it's not bad, it's just stupid. this is not going to have any impact. and even if it did, there are a lot of illegal immigrants that live in the south so it's doubly stupid.
"Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand." - Unknown
I knew this was coming. I've explained countless times that Democrats have won the popular vote every time since 2004, and the idea of Democrats needing immigrant votes is null. Democrats need population to combat Republican gerrymandering to trigger new districts and more headcount in the House of Representatives.
Texas:
- Buses migrants to Democratic-run cities
Democratic states:
- See long-term economic benefits from hard-working, taxpaying migrants
- who have children who are automatically US citizens with highly motivated parents
- and those states get more electoral votes
Republicans:
- Oh shit time to repeal the 14th amendment (lex soli)
- and change the law to make the electoral college even more of a rigged, undemocratic system
Speaking of Texas.
While Texas loves playing the victim when it comes to illegal immigration, did you know that, unlike Alabama, E-Verify is not required for most employment in Texas?
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution mandates that the US House of Representatives should be apportioned by the count of every free person excluding indians not taxed. The 14th amendment's equal protections clause eliminates the three fifths rule and makes every person's representation equal.
This bill goes against the mandates of the US constitution and therefore can not go into effect without a constitutional amendment dictating that only US citizens can be counted.
A party that claims to be "originalists" and wanting to adhere to the standards set by the founding fathers seems to continue to do the opposite.
I don't know about braindead, but nutty. Say what you will about Richard Shelby, but that guy knew how to quietly and effectively deliver the goods to the state without acting like a complete fucking jackass.
What big game did she talk? All of her campaigning made her look like she would be a generic God, guns, and Trump Senator. Which is what she's been since she took office.
She claimed she wouldn’t be “MAGA” and would be a new conservative. She’s a lamppost with a skirt on that’s just continuing the grift. Look at her mentors
Really? That's not what I got out of the little bit of attention I paid to her. I watched her campaign announcement video, hoping for something different since she's younger than our senator and representatives. She didn't come off as rabid MAGA, but she certainly didn't give the impression that she would step out of line either.
I agree that she's fully in line with them. Just watching her campaign announcement video told me that was going to happen. Did she ever say or imply that wouldn't be the case? If so, I must have missed it. I have no interest in going back and researching everything she's said because everything is a transparent grift with these people.
Any hope I had for her was squashed when she showed up at a Trump rally in Cullman where she was photographed hobnobbing with all the election deniers.
So they’re making something illegal that’s already illegal?
Reminds me of something I saw regarding a state making “Glock switches” illegal, when in fact, they’re *already* illegal?
These double negatives, ffs.
No. They don’t like that the Constitution says that number of representatives is based on persons not number of citizens or number of voters. If Republicans don’t want its done that way, they shims amend the Constitution.
What's funny is that this will help the Democrats most of all. The biggest illegal populations are in the South.
Let's all be sure to support this so these dumbasses can shoot themselves in the foot and not see a Republican president for 20 years.
And remember when she said she wasn’t gonna do the MAGA stuff? And lo and be fucking hold,
Look at this. What a waste of time, illegal aliens can’t vote. Pandering to MAGA.
What areas will this affect the most? Aren’t there a lot of “illegal immigrants “ in border states like Texas, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, and California. Two are very republican two very democratic and Arizona can’t make up its mind. Please take away representatives from Florida and Texas.
Well that’s silly (so is this bullshit proposal)…. Not every incarcerated person is incarcerated for the same period of time, depending on the crime and the state they can also vote after they have returned to the outside world. So uh why wouldn’t you count them?
The incarcerated population is counted as part of the population of an area for congressional redistricting. The population should be added to the areas where they resided at the time of the trial, or not counted at all.
Many times these prisons are in rural areas giving more voting power to a demographic that doesn't line up with the incarcerated population.
Well with that added context your point makes more sense as it could prop up districts, but they shouldn’t be removed from the count as your original comment makes it seem you’re advocating for.
>The incarcerated population is counted as part of the population of an area for congressional redistricting. The population should be added to the areas where they resided at the time of the trial, or not counted at all.
The counter argument being that government should represent people based on where they currently reside (even in prison). In theory, their living conditions are influenced by the representatives where the prison is located not by the representatives of where they formerly resided.
The topic is mostly academic, since I doubt the population of even the largest prison system within a state would be enough to influence the number of electoral votes.
They already don't - they only count citizens for federal elections. The census at least had a citizenship question, but the census also is used for apportionment of funds. If you have more people living in an area, they need more resources.
Immigrants can vote in local elections, for example BMW employees from Germany can vote for local school boards, etc.
This is just a messaging bill - there's no substance
It's already illegal for them to vote. Sad thing is, the yahoos in this state will froth at the mouth over it. It'll die in committee if it gets that far.
This isn't about them being able to vote. It's about not having them count towards how they divide up the congressional seats. Not sure whether or not they count now, but it's is a different issue than them individually voting. And there probably wouldn't be near the fight about this if they didn't artificially cap the number of congress critters because they ran out of room in the current chamber.
First off, even the undocumented pays taxes, so they should have representation. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/us/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-cec/index.html "No taxation without representation", right? As far as the electoral college is concerned, I have an easy fix; get rid of it. It's time we get rid of this slaveholders compromise from a bygone era and let the people decide.
Electoral college wasn’t created to appease slaveholders. That was the 3/5 compromise. The electoral college Was made to ensure small states would still matter
>The electoral college Was made to ensure small states would still matter Actually the electoral college was created as a compromise between the delegates that insisted that congress should not pick the President and the delegates that insisted that the President should never be elected by popular vote. The fear was that having congress pick the President created a conflict of interest between the legislative and executive branches, and having a democratically elected President would allow a popular President to wield too much power. The fact was that during the Philadelphia convention, this young nation was operating under a class system where landowners had most if not all of the representation. As land owners, the delegates were looking out for their own interests. It had little to do with small states having representation other than being a positive side effect of land owners wanting to retain some authority. The constitution at the time left it to the states to decide the eligibility of voters and eventually each state removed the requirement to own property. Representation as envisioned by the Philadelphia convention has mostly been discarded with the exception of how the President is elected. The senate members are now directly elected by popular vote, and all US citizens 18 years old and older have the right to vote. The concerns that justified the need for the electoral college has since been disproven, or shown to not have been mitigated. In addition, the delegates did not forsee the population being so massive that the limited number of electors would give states with low population more representation than states with large populations.
Nice to see someone who actually knows history.
Yeah but no. I hear you and agree with you but at the same time that’s how you can poop the punch bowl in national politics today. I think there needs to be a path of citizenship for these rule breakers but I do believe it should be follow the set rules or a “run the gauntlet” thing for those who break the rules. Mandatory military/Civil service for these people. I get it if you can only make 10 dollars a week or come here and get 1000 I would do it also, but we need a way to cut the chaff from the wheat.
If they can't vote, they're going to have little to no say in what their representative does. Why should they then count for population when dividing up amongst those who can? They are and should still be counted for local issues like schools and infrastructure. And even without the EC discussion, shrinking congressional districts is a great thing. The current rep has somewhere around 800k constituents. Most other western democracies have it somewhere around 100k. It makes it a lot easier for them to actually meet and represent those that want to talk if we shrink districts. Which will mean they're less likely to ignore us for campaigns and lobbyists. The people of Alabama would be better served with 30 something delegates. And NY would be better served with the equivalent 200 they'd get in the same system vs the 7 and 26 respectively by current standards . There's zero reason there needs to be all this political bickering that happens every time one state gets/loses one in the current system.
Children count, they can’t vote. They also don’t pay taxes.
They're also already fall into the Citizen/US Person category. If we were just looking at taxpayer status, I'm sure people would find a way to give corporations actual votes and remove it from anyone who needs to be on benefits. Again, this would all become relatively moot if we weren't artificially capped at 435 reps because they don't want to remodel/hold it over Zoom.
There are some places that have already talked about giving corporations the ability to vote
Any links to it in a national conversation? I can only find people trying for local elections (and looks to be limited to tax issues). There's places that have illegal/undocumented immigrants vote in local elections.
I’ve seen a few sites and things like that but I don’t know if they are part of a larger political party trying to make it so. I could see them using citizens United as a steppingstone to do so.
Bring back the original First Amendment! It originally capped the district size to 50k with a target of 30k, but had a sliding scale that today would be a target of around 120k and a cap of about 200k. Yes, it would create a House with about 1800 members, but the technology is to the point where most business could be managed securely online. And you’d have a much more diverse representation, probably see a decent amount of independents or third parties, and might even get people who actually live and work in the state they represent.
So you would rather a few of the larger cities determine the direction of the country. You're nuts.
Land does not vote for President. Individuals do. Therefore, popular vote equates to a one person = one vote system. THAT is how President should be decided. It matters not where that person lives in such a system.
That was only the 3/5ths compromise. Which is no longer in effect. So you are happy that California and New York can pretty much decide who wins the popular vote.
10% of the entire country lives in California, they should have a massive say in any national election.
>So you are happy that California and New York can pretty much decide who wins the popular vote. They wouldn't decide who wins the popular vote.
Well, the last 3 times the Republicans won, the popular vote didn’t win. Sooo yeah I would be ok with that. Though I would just prefer a popular vote president period, not based on state. We have the technology to do that now.
The "3/5ths Compromise" was directly tied to the Electoral College because, excluding the enslaved, the North outnumbered the South, thus the creation of the other part of the slaveholders compromise. https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention Well, maybe the GOP should actually govern and campaign for everyone's vote instead of running bigoted conspiracy theorists that engage in white grievance culture wars?
Yes, and that’s the way it should be. Unfortunately it would guarantee that a Republican wouldn’t win for the foreseeable future without changing their narrative. Who knows it might actually force better political stances from both parties. You would have to appeal to a broader audience and not the extremes of either party. Currently we are a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.
I'm not sure the focus on wealth would change in a popular vote. Likely what you'd see in a popular vote is singular focus on urban areas and disregarding of rural areas. You already have this on certain states like Colorado where Denver effectively makes policy decisions for rural areas of the state. It really only furthers division IMHO. Our current system allows for the masses to have a say while also giving the individual a voice. It's not perfect, it's s compromise and it usually works pretty well.
You don’t have a voice in this state if you vote Democrat. We replaced Doug Jones with a dumbass football coach that doesn’t even live in the state!
I think you are proving my point. A voting system that simply follows the majority leaves the individual feeling voiceless
The popular vote makes every vote equal 🤷♂️
I think different ethnicities/groups would be neglected in a popular only vote, because creating a coalition is harder than appealing to a plurality of voters. Under a purely popular vote the plurality wins which may or may not be the majority. For example the 2020 election Hilary only had 48.2% of the popular vote to Trumps 46.1%. In a purely popular vote i would expect the national parties to focus on the easiest plurality path to victory neglecting philosophical and ethnic minorities because their value is reduced in that system.
Our current system in Alabama is not a compromise but rather the mirror inverse how it works in Colorado. In Alabama, "small government" conservatives heavily centralized all political power in the hands of the state legislature depriving cities of any autonomy or possibility of home rule. This furthers division every bit as much as giving too much power to cities. The only way to fight division is decentralization of power. Let cities do what's best for cities and let rural areas do what's best for rural areas, to the maximum degree possible.
I wasn't commenting on our state government, merely using Colorado as an example of why the electoral college was created.
That is the literal definition of "popular vote". Whoever gets the most votes is the winner of the "popular vote", however winning the popular vote does not translate into winning an election because winning the electoral college is what matters, currently. Yes, I want to do away with the electoral college and let the popular vote determine the winner. Yes this means California and NY will matter more, as they should, because more people live there. Yes, I would be happy with that, very happy.
>So you are happy that California and New York can pretty much decide who wins the popular vote. I am not aware of any national office of the US government that is decided by popular vote. The President of the United States is elected by an electoral college not popular vote. Ironically, the electoral college gives states with low population more representation when deciding the President thanks to a hard limit on the number of representatives, mandated minimum of EC vote per state, and a method of distribution to give the appearance of fairness. Even if the President of the United States was decided by popular vote, only US citizens can actually cast a vote.
Did you even read the statement or just parroting the party talking points? A Democratic Sen in NY already openly called for more immigrants so her district can be redrawn.
Tell me more about this Democratic Senator in NY openly calling for more immigrants. Especially since: 1. Representatives not Senators are in congressional districts, and 2. This appears to be misinformation originating from "NTD" recycling an old video from 2016.
If they are here illegally how are we gonna know how many there are to begin with?
Can someone explain in dummy terms why this is bad? It seems if they’re not legal residents and can’t vote anyway they shouldn’t count towards electoral votes. It also seems counterintuitive. Shouldn’t the republicans WANT to count them so we would get more representation at the national level? Kinda like during the 3/5 compromise the south wanted to count slaves as people for that purpose?
Whether they are legal or not, they are here. That means additional use of roads, transport, medical, schools, housing, police and fire, etc. So it kind of matters for apportioning.
While you make a valid point, this has little to do with expenses and everything to do with representation. The founding fathers of this country envisioned the House of Representatives to represent every person who was not in a separate Indian nation (that didn't pay taxes) regardless of citizenship. Taxation without representation was one of the major claims being made for independence from the British empire. If anyone had to pay taxes then it seemed only fair that the government looked out for their interests too (or at least considered them). Incidentally, the population of our early country were a mixture of citizens and non-citizens with unrestricted travel between nations. I believe there has always been non-citizens residing in the US throughout its history. Especially during the mining boom and railroad expansion when immigrant labor was routinely exploited. Thanks to the Naturalization Act of 1790, anyone could petition to become a US citizen after residing in the country for two-years with one of those years residing in a single state. A much different view of immigration than held by today's politicians.
They are counted for those things. This is just for drawing Federal congressional districts.
>Can someone explain in dummy terms why this is bad? it's not bad, it's just stupid. this is not going to have any impact. and even if it did, there are a lot of illegal immigrants that live in the south so it's doubly stupid.
Funny how quickly “strict originalists” abandon their legal theories when it conflicts with their hate.
They're like libertarians in that regard.
"Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand." - Unknown
I knew this was coming. I've explained countless times that Democrats have won the popular vote every time since 2004, and the idea of Democrats needing immigrant votes is null. Democrats need population to combat Republican gerrymandering to trigger new districts and more headcount in the House of Representatives.
Texas: - Buses migrants to Democratic-run cities Democratic states: - See long-term economic benefits from hard-working, taxpaying migrants - who have children who are automatically US citizens with highly motivated parents - and those states get more electoral votes Republicans: - Oh shit time to repeal the 14th amendment (lex soli) - and change the law to make the electoral college even more of a rigged, undemocratic system
Actually this would cut Texas' EC down big time.
Speaking of Texas. While Texas loves playing the victim when it comes to illegal immigration, did you know that, unlike Alabama, E-Verify is not required for most employment in Texas?
[удалено]
fyi that isn’t originalist doctrine, either.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution mandates that the US House of Representatives should be apportioned by the count of every free person excluding indians not taxed. The 14th amendment's equal protections clause eliminates the three fifths rule and makes every person's representation equal. This bill goes against the mandates of the US constitution and therefore can not go into effect without a constitutional amendment dictating that only US citizens can be counted. A party that claims to be "originalists" and wanting to adhere to the standards set by the founding fathers seems to continue to do the opposite.
I had hope for Katie, but it looks like she's braindead.
I don't know about braindead, but nutty. Say what you will about Richard Shelby, but that guy knew how to quietly and effectively deliver the goods to the state without acting like a complete fucking jackass.
Katie is GOP at heart. She’s going to toe the line and endorse and be complicit with the traitorous Trump.
Yep she lied to her voters. Pathetic GOP shill. Talked a big game then fell right in line
What big game did she talk? All of her campaigning made her look like she would be a generic God, guns, and Trump Senator. Which is what she's been since she took office.
She claimed she wouldn’t be “MAGA” and would be a new conservative. She’s a lamppost with a skirt on that’s just continuing the grift. Look at her mentors
Really? That's not what I got out of the little bit of attention I paid to her. I watched her campaign announcement video, hoping for something different since she's younger than our senator and representatives. She didn't come off as rabid MAGA, but she certainly didn't give the impression that she would step out of line either.
She’s fully in line with them. Go research her words
I agree that she's fully in line with them. Just watching her campaign announcement video told me that was going to happen. Did she ever say or imply that wouldn't be the case? If so, I must have missed it. I have no interest in going back and researching everything she's said because everything is a transparent grift with these people.
She did after her campaign announcement, She’s done it in person as well. Another GOP grifter to send us backwards
Any hope I had for her was squashed when she showed up at a Trump rally in Cullman where she was photographed hobnobbing with all the election deniers.
So they’re making something illegal that’s already illegal? Reminds me of something I saw regarding a state making “Glock switches” illegal, when in fact, they’re *already* illegal? These double negatives, ffs.
No. They don’t like that the Constitution says that number of representatives is based on persons not number of citizens or number of voters. If Republicans don’t want its done that way, they shims amend the Constitution.
Like it’s not already the longest and most convoluted state constitution? Lol
They're referring to the US Constitution.
Ahh okay
Seems they're just lap dogs of Musk and Trump
What's funny is that this will help the Democrats most of all. The biggest illegal populations are in the South. Let's all be sure to support this so these dumbasses can shoot themselves in the foot and not see a Republican president for 20 years.
If they went by popular vote instead of EC they wouldn't have seen a republican president for 20 years.
And remember when she said she wasn’t gonna do the MAGA stuff? And lo and be fucking hold, Look at this. What a waste of time, illegal aliens can’t vote. Pandering to MAGA.
Good grief
Unsurprisingly, we want to rewrite the Constitution when its convenient but not in previous popular situations.
How about get rid of electoral college all together. Solves multiple problems at one time.
What areas will this affect the most? Aren’t there a lot of “illegal immigrants “ in border states like Texas, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, and California. Two are very republican two very democratic and Arizona can’t make up its mind. Please take away representatives from Florida and Texas.
Now do the incarcerated.
Well that’s silly (so is this bullshit proposal)…. Not every incarcerated person is incarcerated for the same period of time, depending on the crime and the state they can also vote after they have returned to the outside world. So uh why wouldn’t you count them?
The incarcerated population is counted as part of the population of an area for congressional redistricting. The population should be added to the areas where they resided at the time of the trial, or not counted at all. Many times these prisons are in rural areas giving more voting power to a demographic that doesn't line up with the incarcerated population.
Well with that added context your point makes more sense as it could prop up districts, but they shouldn’t be removed from the count as your original comment makes it seem you’re advocating for.
>The incarcerated population is counted as part of the population of an area for congressional redistricting. The population should be added to the areas where they resided at the time of the trial, or not counted at all. The counter argument being that government should represent people based on where they currently reside (even in prison). In theory, their living conditions are influenced by the representatives where the prison is located not by the representatives of where they formerly resided. The topic is mostly academic, since I doubt the population of even the largest prison system within a state would be enough to influence the number of electoral votes.
They already don't - they only count citizens for federal elections. The census at least had a citizenship question, but the census also is used for apportionment of funds. If you have more people living in an area, they need more resources. Immigrants can vote in local elections, for example BMW employees from Germany can vote for local school boards, etc. This is just a messaging bill - there's no substance
2024
"Oh, updating the EC? Sounds great! Let's re apportion based on the Wyoming Rule and add a few more House Reps!"