View Full Version : Defeating the argument that the census ensures adequate "representation"
If the population makes a difference in representation...why is it that the number of congresspersons has been kept by law at 435 since 1919? It obviously does not make a goddamn bit of difference. We have had 9 censuses since then, and the population always goes up, but the number of legislators is never increased.
Not that the "representation" we have now is worth a shit anyway. But at any rate, the oft repeated idea that filling out your census form ensure you are represented is crap.
nobody's_hero
03-26-2010, 05:06 AM
Just in case there is a massive population growth in one state and a loss of growth in another, I think.
I had heard rumors over the past year that Georgia was supposed to pick up another House seat. I'm not sure which states would be losing seats, though.
California May Lose a Seat (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/15/local/me-california-delegation15)
Just in case there is a massive population growth in one state and a loss of growth in another, I think.
I had heard rumors over the past year that Georgia was supposed to pick up another House seat. I'm not sure which states would be losing one, though.
California May Lose a Seat (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/15/local/me-california-delegation15)
That's true, but it doesn't really change the representation. It just shuffles the shit around a bit :D
nobody's_hero
03-26-2010, 05:10 AM
That's true, but it doesn't really change the representation. It just shuffles the shit around a bit :D
Well, maybe they can shuffle out a Nancy Pelosi in California and shuffle in a Ron Paul in Texas. :)
RforRevolution
03-26-2010, 05:56 AM
The average is just gonna change from 1 rep per 700,000 to 1 rep per 850,000 on average. Some rearranging of the deck chairs may occur.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.