Districts and Citizenship

[Darth Executor]

TPM is a pretty factual news site, unlike Breitbart. They favor reporting stories that are good for the left, but their reporting of them is solid and accurate.

Mediabiasfactcheck.com rates Breitbart's level of factual accuracy as "mixed" and rates them at "extreme" end of the right-wing spectrum. Whereas they rate TPM's factual accuracy as "high" and rate them as being about in the center of the left-wing spectrum. So on both accuracy and bias, TPM is superior to Breitbart.

if breitbart is extreme what is the daily stormer?

[carpedm9587]

if breitbart is extreme what is the daily stormer?

They are essentially off the chart...with questionable sources: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-stormer/

Brietbart, by comparison is slightly less right, with mixed accuracy: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

[hedrick]

In this case, I agree with him. Congressional districts should be based on registered, legal voters. They should not be based on simple population numbers.

The constitution defines representation in congress as based on population. In principle, of course, one could allocate representatives among the states using population and to districts within the state based on registered voters, but that would seem an odd procedure.

Personally I'd be willing to base it on legal population, but that's not what the Constitution says. Perhaps illegal immigrants could count as 3/5 of a person.

[carpedm9587]

The constitution defines representation in congress as based on population. In principle, of course, one could allocate representatives among the states using population and to districts within the state based on registered voters, but that would seem an odd procedure.

Personally I'd be willing to base it on legal population, but that's not what the Constitution says. Perhaps illegal immigrants could count as 3/5 of a person.

Wow...I can't believe I missed this. I was thinking "voters" vs" "undocumented immigrants," not "voters" vs. "entire population." You're 100% correct. I do think representation should be based on citizen population but, as you note, I don't think the Constitution specifies. I wonder what would happen is someone took this issue to court? Would SCOTUS ultimately decide that the framers intended "citizens" or would they go by the letter of what is in the constitution?

Anyway, I reverse my original post. I did not think it through completely. Constitutionally, I think it should be entire population. Personally, I think it should be entire citizen population. I'm not sure the 3/5 comment fits here. This was historically done to legal citizens, and should have been struck down as unconstitutional.

[One Bad Pig]

Wow...I can't believe I missed this. I was thinking "voters" vs" "undocumented immigrants," not "voters" vs. "entire population." You're 100% correct. I do think representation should be based on citizen population but, as you note, I don't think the Constitution specifies. I wonder what would happen is someone took this issue to court? Would SCOTUS ultimately decide that the framers intended "citizens" or would they go by the letter of what is in the constitution?

Anyway, I reverse my original post. I did not think it through completely. Constitutionally, I think it should be entire population. Personally, I think it should be entire citizen population. I'm not sure the 3/5 comment fits here. This was historically done to legal citizens, and should have been struck down as unconstitutional.

Er, how can something IN the constitution be struck down as unconstitutional? It was, of course, a compromise done in order to get the slaveholding and free states to both agree; the free states would've rather not counted them at all (because they couldn't vote), whereas the slaveholding states would have preferred them to count fully so they would have greater representation.

[carpedm9587]

Er, how can something IN the constitution be struck down as unconstitutional? It was, of course, a compromise done in order to get the slaveholding and free states to both agree; the free states would've rather not counted them at all (because they couldn't vote), whereas the slaveholding states would have preferred them to count fully so they would have greater representation.

Wow - I always thought that was a Law/Act, not actually in the Constitution. It was repealed by the 14th Amendment.

I just got larned sumpfin!