Do we need additional Congressmen?

[Salty]

No. people under the jurisdiction of a State are given equal protections under the law. Not just the citizens.

I agree - but representation should only be based on American Citizens.

Let me add a question -

Military persone, college students, ect -
where Should the vote - where they temporary live or their permanent residence

And for the Census - prisoners - counted where they are incarcerated or their permanent residence?

 

[Salty]

I read a story of a few college students who were upset that they could not vote for the city mayor. What happened is that their dorm was just outside the city limits. Evidently they did not research their voting responsibility.

IMHO - students should vote in their permanent residence. -- unless they have made provisions to make that city their permanent residence ie - obtain drivers licence, open local bank account, ect..

 

[37818]

I agree - but representation should only be based on American Citizens.

The representation was voted on by the People. Which citizens have always been understood. Because of slavery there was that constitutional compromise.
What Do You Know about Congress? | PragerU

 

[Reynolds]

I read a story of a few college students who were upset that they could not vote for the city mayor. What happened is that their dorm was just outside the city limits. Evidently they did not research their voting responsibility.

IMHO - students should vote in their permanent residence. -- unless they have made provisions to make that city their permanent residence ie - obtain drivers licence, open local bank account, ect..

I don't have a bank account in the County I live in.

 

[Salty]

I don't have a bank account in the County I live in.

Not saying that is the sole indicator of residency - but one of many

 

[AustinC]

Article 1; Section 2 of the US Constitution

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;"

In the 1920's the number of Representatives was set at 435. At first blush, it seems that we should have a representative for ever 30,000 people. This would make for an insanely high number of Representatives to the point that a huge stadium would be needed to contain them. The way the law got around this issue was to interpret the 30,000 representatives as the floor for which a representative was needed, not the ceiling. It was decided that there was no ceiling and therefore the number of Representatives could be set at 435 and then reapportioned according to movement of people from State to State with the assurance that a State would have at least one Representative.

In theory you could increase the number or decrease the number as long as the floor was met.
What benefit would be gained by changing the number? Well, if we increased it, you would likely see a strong shift to the Democrats since the vast number of people are in large cities that are more liberal. If we reduced it, then the district lines would become even more heated as gerrymandering took place.

As it is, I see no reason to change the number. 435 is fine.

 

[Salty]

IMHO - seeing that each Rep has about 700,000 - that is a lot of folks.
by making it 600 - it would drop the ratio to about 1:500,000

” But opponents, such as William B. Bankhead of Alabama, who doubted its constitutionality, had earlier described the plan as “the abdication and surrender of the vital fundamental powers vested in the Congress of the United States by the Constitution itself.”

and another thought

 

[AustinC]

IMHO - seeing that each Rep has about 700,000 - that is a lot of folks.
by making it 600 - it would drop the ratio to about 1:500,000

” But opponents, such as William B. Bankhead of Alabama, who doubted its constitutionality, had earlier described the plan as “the abdication and surrender of the vital fundamental powers vested in the Congress of the United States by the Constitution itself.”

and another thought

This would benefit the Democrats unless the Republicans gerrymander the districts something fierce.

 

[Salty]

This would benefit the Democrats unless the Republicans gerrymander the districts something fierce.

How about this system:
(a new BB thread!)