Supreme Court rejects conservative bid to count only voting-age population for districts

[Crabtownboy]

O
Alright, David was evil, so Israel was evil for not bumping him off, let alone still honoring him today with that star associated with him.

David repented when he realized he had sinned.

 

[Zaac]

Oh, thanks. You spared me a little trouble if we ever meet in person.

Yeah.

Alright, David was evil, so Israel was evil for not bumping him off, let alone still honoring him today with that star associated with him.

Nice try. There is a marked difference between David and the unrepentant radicalized right.

 

[Sapper Woody]

What kind of taxes are we talking about? Income? Property?Sales,etc?

Should old folks who have retired be excluded, if we're talking income tax?

I realize that I made a statement that would have to have a lot of qualifiers, or caveats. It's not a fully fleshed out solution, but rather a way of thinking I believe we should lean toward.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[Zaac]

I realize that I made a statement that would have to have a lot of qualifiers, or caveats. It's not a fully fleshed out solution, but rather a way of thinking I believe we should lean toward.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

I understand. I just think we should do those things that allow more people to participate in the selection process rather than fewer.

One of the reasons the Founders gave every state two representatives in the Senate was to not undervalue the say so of the smaller populated states.

The allocation of House representatives is by population. So unless states are gonna start giving back seats, those reps need to remain for all of the population and not just those of voting age.

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution was put in place to specifically stop the type of malapportionment that the GOP is trying to do.

 

[Zaac]

I would venture that at some point, everyone is paying some kind of tax that goes into the federal coffers. Maybe not income tax, but some other tax.

It just doesn't seem like districts /states etc should be able to use the total populations to their advantage when it comes to getting representation or receiving federal dollars. But then be able to turn around and say "BUT We're not gonna allow some of those some folks to be counted in another way.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I understand. I just think we should do those things that allow more people to participate in the selection process rather than fewer.

One of the reasons the Founders gave every state two representatives in the Senate was to not undervalue the say so of the smaller populated states.

The allocation of House representatives is by population. So unless states are gonna start giving back seats, those reps need to remain for all of the population and not just those of voting age.

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution was put in place to specifically stop the type of malapportionment that the GOP is trying to do.

I can agree with your reasoning, however I disagree with the implementation. If you'll indulge a little ad absurdum, if we follow this logic, then we shouldn't have a minimum age to vote. The problem is, either way is going to be advantageous to one party over the other, and sadly it kind of comes down to urban vs suburban. People in urban areas tend to have more children, and so their vote counts more.

For instance, I have 3 children who haven't yet reached voting age. This adds three to the population of my area, meaning that effectively I have 2.5 votes and my wife has 2.5 votes, versus my father and mother who each have 1 vote, because their children are all of voting age.

Children have representation through their parents, and not the government. Children shouldn't count towards the vote. If they do, the Duggers have more voting power than anyone else in America.

I know that I have not adequately stated my side of the argument in this post, and for that I apologize. I had to take some medications today, and so my thoughts are clear, but my ability to articulate those thoughts has diminished. I'd like to revisit this with you once my head has cleared somewhat.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

A bit of history on this question, the one man one vote doctrine arose back in the 60s. Many states had organized their state legislatures after the US Congress with a population based lower house and an upper house based on counties. This gave rural less populated counties a boost over denser urban ones. After the SCOTUS ruling, upper house districts need to have the same population. So, rural districts can cover multiple counties. Urban counties can be divied up between two or more upper house districts.

 

[Alcott]

Yes, I' ve always bitterly opposed that. Why should city dwellers in NYC have control over the farms and forests, which they only despise? Those who live there should have greater control.

 

[Zaac]

I can agree with your reasoning, however I disagree with the implementation. If you'll indulge a little ad absurdum, if we follow this logic, then we shouldn't have a minimum age to vote. The problem is, either way is going to be advantageous to one party over the other, and sadly it kind of comes down to urban vs suburban. People in urban areas tend to have more children, and so their vote counts more.

Federal and state dollars aren't allocated based on urban vs suburban. They are allocated based upon total population in a county, state or other jurisdiction.

For 200+ years we have done this the same way. It hasn't been an issue so long as white Americans were the majority and their votes counted more. My gosh at one point, we didn't even count Blacks as an entire person because we didn't want them too have to much say when it came to these things.The only reason that people are attempting to change it now is because of the blacking and browning of the country

For instance, I have 3 children who haven't yet reached voting age. This adds three to the population of my area, meaning that effectively I have 2.5 votes and my wife has 2.5 votes, versus my father and mother who each have 1 vote, because their children are all of voting age.

So? How is this different from what has always been done?

Children have representation through their parents, and not the government. Children shouldn't count towards the vote. If they do, the Duggers have more voting power than anyone else in America.

Again it's a nice attempt for the majority to marginalize the lives of those they believe to be getting ready to become the majority. The GOP is looking for ways to maintain control now that they are losing the numbers game.

I know that I have not adequately stated my side of the argument in this post, and for that I apologize. I had to take some medications today, and so my thoughts are clear, but my ability to articulate those thoughts has diminished. I'd like to revisit this with you once my head has cleared somewhat.

Hope you get to feeling better. And I haven't had a problem following what you're saying. I just don't think it's right to change the rules midstream just because the benefit that used to favor one party is eroding and going to the other.