Republicans may gain one extra EV in '08

[minionofmidas]

To make the Republicans happy (one seat for one seat)...otherwise the thing wouldn't have a chance.

Of course, the Democrats will have the last laugh, won't they...when they win Utah in 2008...

In terms of EVs, then yes.  But at the congressional level, who knows?  The most rabidly conservative part of Utah currently has a Democratic congressman.

No...the district (while still safely Republican at the presidential level) has basically all the areas in Utah that might ever be persuaded to vote for a Democrat again.
-inner Salt Lake City
-the old mining area (a former Dem stronghold)
-the most touristy parts

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's a bad idea.  If you give them a Rep, soon they'll be demanding two Senators as well.  How is the GOP going to counter  that?   

Federal district can demand representatives, then what is to stop the Indian nations from doing the same thing?

why not just give them two senators and give them equal representation?

the Indian nation example doesn't work because they are still considered part of their respective states and thus already have a representative and two senators.

[Joe Republic]

Another thing I'm still a little hazy on.  This has probably already been brought up, but I'm still not sure about it.  Basically, I thought the limit for the number of representatives was 435.  So if DC gets an actual voting representative, wouldn't that mean that one gets deducted from another state to make up for it?

[zorkpolitics]

Another thing I'm still a little hazy on.  This has probably already been brought up, but I'm still not sure about it.  Basically, I thought the limit for the number of representatives was 435.  So if DC gets an actual voting representative, wouldn't that mean that one gets deducted from another state to make up for it?

No, the number of Representatives is set by law and can be changed at any time with a new law, such as this one.

[jimrtex]

Another thing I'm still a little hazy on.  This has probably already been brought up, but I'm still not sure about it.  Basically, I thought the limit for the number of representatives was 435.  So if DC gets an actual voting representative, wouldn't that mean that one gets deducted from another state to make up for it?

The number of representatives is set by law by Congress.  The only limit in the Constitution is that there may not be more than one representative per 30,000 persons (with current population, this is just short of 10,000 representatives).

Generally, the number of representatives was increased each census.  This kept eastern states from losing too many representatives, and kept the size of districts relatively small.  Following the 1910 census the number of representatives was set at 435 (including one each for Arizona and New Mexico which became states in 1912).

The 1920 census was after a drought, which had hurt growth in agricultural areas, along with more industrialization, WWI, a period of high immigration including non-traditional areas in Eastern and Southern Europe.  States that had generally gained representatives might lose representatives, and cities with high immigration would gain.  Congress could not decide on a size for the House, and no apportionment took place after the 1920 census.

Finally a compromise was reached, and an agreement to reapportion after the 1930 census keeping the House the same size, and also triggering automatic reapportionment based on the census.  This got the Congress out of having to do anything, and having 435 members has become an entrenched custom.

In 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii were addmitted, the House was increased to 437 members.  After, the 1960 census the size reverted to 435.  As it happened, Hawaii was also apportioned a 2nd representative, so there were actually 3 losses associated with Hawaii and Alaska.

There were 537 electoral votes in 1960, 437 + 50x2.  This changed to 538 in 1964, a net gain of one, due to the 3 additional electoral votes for DC following ratification of the 23rd amendent, and the loss of 2 electoral votes associated with the temporary expansion of the House.

If Puerto Rico is admitted as a State (probably with 6 representative), the size of the House might be reconsidered, since the effect of 1960 will be more pronounced.  In 2000, there were 12 increases and 12 decreases.  If there had been a temporary increase of 6 during the 1990s, there would have been perhaps 9 increases and 15 decreases. 

[jimrtex]

I'm sorry but this just doesn't make any sense at all.  Why will they need to 'balance' the new seat by adding one to another state?

The same reason that the Hawaii and Alaska were admitted to the Union at the same time.  The Republican-leaning Hawaii would balance the Democrat-leaning Alaska (they swapped sides almost immediately after statehood).

There is also a feeling that Utah was somehow cheated out of its 4th Congressman.  It was almost tied with North Carolina.  Utah sued in a case that went to the Supreme Court, arguing that the census should count Mormon missionaries that are overseas, just as it counts persons in the US military and federal government employees who are resident overseas at the time of the census.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The Republican-leaning Hawaii would balance the Democrat-leaning Alaska (they swapped sides almost immediately after statehood).

Good, I'm looking forward to a Republican D.C. and Democratic Utah

[A18]

It's a bad idea.  If you give them a Rep, soon they'll be demanding two Senators as well.  How is the GOP going to counter  that?   

Federal district can demand representatives, then what is to stop the Indian nations from doing the same thing?

why not just give them two senators and give them equal representation?

the Indian nation example doesn't work because they are still considered part of their respective states and thus already have a representative and two senators.

Because they're a dysfunctional hellhole, and because cities are different in nature from states.

Obviously give them to Maryland. That's their state just as much as Indian "nations" belong to their respective states.

[elcorazon]

I'd put D.C. into Virginia.  That'd turn it into a blue state and swing the electoral balance quite a bit.

[Downwinder]

Good, I'm looking forward to a Republican D.C. and Democratic Utah

Me too!!

[Downwinder]

In terms of EVs, then yes.  But at the congressional level, who knows?  The most rabidly conservative part of Utah currently has a Democratic congressman.

No...the district (while still safely Republican at the presidential level) has basically all the areas in Utah that might ever be persuaded to vote for a Democrat again.
-inner Salt Lake City
-the old mining area (a former Dem stronghold)
-the most touristy parts

Very close, Lewis.  Actually, after the last redistricting, Salt Lake City and the other Dem-leaning parts of Salt Lake County were carved up between Utah's three Congressional Districts.  A bit of Salt Lake City is in the 1st and the rest is in the 2nd.  West Valley City is in the 3rd.  True, the 2nd district also includes the old mining areas (Eastern Utah, around the city of Price) and the touristy parts (Park City), but they are balanced out with the rural west and south, and also includes the high-growth area of St. George.  It creates a toss-up district, or a leaning-Rep. district, even though the current Rep. (Matheson) is a Democrat (very independent, conservative, and the son of a very popular former governor.)

I believe, if a fourth Representative is added, then the 2nd district reverts back to just Salt Lake City and eastern Salt Lake County, becoming reliably Democratic, and the other three districts would be strongly Republican. 

The most rabidly conservative part of Utah (Utah County, including Provo) is in the 3rd district.

[MODU]

I'd put D.C. into Virginia.  That'd turn it into a blue state and swing the electoral balance quite a bit.

Virginia alread took Arlington (remember, DC was suppose to be a square across the Potomac).  Maryland would take what's left of DC, since that is where the land originially came from.

Besides, there isn't enough voters in DC to swing VA comfortably to Democratic.  It's too conservative of a state . . . hence the reason why it's still a Commonwealth.

[elcorazon]

well, it'd certainly be a legit swing state with D.C. added.  Kerry won it by over 180,000 votes and I've got to believe there was little effort to GOTV there given the result was never in doubt.  Bush won VA by about 250,000 votes I think.  It could have been very close this year, when Bush won the popular vote.  If the total vote is a tad closer, that'd likely swing VA + DC.

What makes VA a commonwealth?  I thought only MD & KY were commonwealths.  What is a commonwealth? 

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

"Four states in the United States designate themselves "commonwealths": Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. They do this to emphasize that they have a "government based on the common consent of the people", instead of a government legitimized through their earlier Royal Colony status that was derived from the King of England. This transition occurred in 1776, when the need arose to express a change in their legal status consistent with the Revolutionary War. Kentucky, at this time, was but a county of Virginia, but chose to retain the Commonwealth descriptor when it became a separate state. While the term "commonwealth" has the same legal and economic meaning as "state," the four regions that chose to designate themselves commonwealths probably did so as a reference to the earlier Commonwealth period in England which ended in 1660, when that nation was not ruled by a king. "

-- Wikipedia

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

My guess if this plan goes through
1. DC and Utah each get an extra Rep, with Utah getting an extra EV until 2012
2. In 2012, this gets declared unconstitutional because it gives a Rep to DC

[jimrtex]

In terms of EVs, then yes.  But at the congressional level, who knows?  The most rabidly conservative part of Utah currently has a Democratic congressman.

No...the district (while still safely Republican at the presidential level) has basically all the areas in Utah that might ever be persuaded to vote for a Democrat again.
-inner Salt Lake City
-the old mining area (a former Dem stronghold)
-the most touristy parts

Very close, Lewis.  Actually, after the last redistricting, Salt Lake City and the other Dem-leaning parts of Salt Lake County were carved up between Utah's three Congressional Districts.  A bit of Salt Lake City is in the 1st and the rest is in the 2nd.  West Valley City is in the 3rd.  True, the 2nd district also includes the old mining areas (Eastern Utah, around the city of Price) and the touristy parts (Park City), but they are balanced out with the rural west and south, and also includes the high-growth area of St. George.  It creates a toss-up district, or a leaning-Rep. district, even though the current Rep. (Matheson) is a Democrat (very independent, conservative, and the son of a very popular former governor.)

I believe, if a fourth Representative is added, then the 2nd district reverts back to just Salt Lake City and eastern Salt Lake County, becoming reliably Democratic, and the other three districts would be strongly Republican. 

The most rabidly conservative part of Utah (Utah County, including Provo) is in the 3rd district.

Here is the legislation that the Utah legislature passed in 2001 for 4 districts (its implementation is contingent on them winning their appeal/lawsuit).  The current federal legislation says that it it were to take effect, that the state that gains the extra representative (it is not mentioned by name, but it is clear that it is Utah) would use the district map that its legislature passed in 2001.  For Maryland + DC, it says that DC must be wholly contained in a single CD (unless its population was more than for a CD, in which case a whole CD must be contained in DC), but until the Maryland legislature adopts a redistricting plan, that DC will be its own CD.

Utah 4 District Plan

The maps are on pages 3 and 4.   There is a whole district in the southern part of Salt Lake County.  SLC and a couple of other cities is included in a district that wraps around to the west, then takes in the southern part of the state.  Another district takes in eastern parts of the county (apparently up in the Mountains, and then wraps around to take Utah County, and other areas to the east.  The final district is in the north, starting from Davis County.

[elcorazon]

Right now citizens who are registered to vote in DC have no representation. This violates the principle of 'no taxation without representation'.

they should be exempt from federal taxes until they have representation.  Although that principle is not specifically enumerated in the constitution (and I doubt it's even been construed that way ever by the courts).

[skybridge]

Gee, this topic really shocked me. Oh wait, did the Republicans plan to obey our election rules in the first place? No? Hm. I guess I'm not all that shocked then.

[MODU]

Right now citizens who are registered to vote in DC have no representation. This violates the principle of 'no taxation without representation'.

they should be exempt from federal taxes until they have representation.  Although that principle is not specifically enumerated in the constitution (and I doubt it's even been construed that way ever by the courts).

They have Representation, but not voting power.  Congressional voting power is assigned solely for States, not territories (which DC would be considered in this case).  Additionally, DC is ran by Congress, with a token city council to focus on the detailed issues of operating the city.  

That's why I think that, if people want to live in DC, they should be able to vote in Maryland elections.  

[A18]

DC can not constitutionally be given to Virginia without its approval, because it wasn't ceded by Virginia. And since we'd obviously never accept it, there goes your idiotic BS idea.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I think DC ought to have voting rights in Maryland politics also.  They are just as much American as anybody else is.  In fact, it seems that overseas Americans have more say so in American government than DC residents.  They may be 90% Democrat, but they are still American citizens and should be afforded the same rights as I enjoy in Oklahoma.

[zorkpolitics]

Right now citizens who are registered to vote in DC have no representation. This violates the principle of 'no taxation without representation'.

they should be exempt from federal taxes until they have representation.  Although that principle is not specifically enumerated in the constitution (and I doubt it's even been construed that way ever by the courts).

Actually they do have representation:  They have a nonvoting Delegate to the House, and they elect three electors to the Electoral college

[Joe Republic]

DC can not constitutionally be given to Virginia without its approval, because it wasn't ceded by Virginia. And since we'd obviously never accept it, there goes your idiotic BS idea.

Who said anything about DC going to Virginia?

[MODU]

DC can not constitutionally be given to Virginia without its approval, because it wasn't ceded by Virginia. And since we'd obviously never accept it, there goes your idiotic BS idea.

Who said anything about DC going to Virginia?

Elcorazon had proposed it.

[Joe Republic]

Oh yeah.  I had to track back to find it.  I thought he was talking to you!

Anyway, I think Elcorazon was joking.