Super large House (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2024, 02:44:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  Super large House (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Super large House  (Read 4049 times)
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« on: May 30, 2005, 03:04:45 AM »

OK, my bad this would be irrelevant.  It wouldn't have made a difference since the 1912. It's possible that under the 1900 census, Nevada would not be entitled to a represenative since it had only 42,335 people.

http://txsdc.utsa.edu/txdata/apport/hist_a.php
Nevada was ineligible to be a state for a while...that also requires 50,000 people.

Of course Philip's point is valid. The "every state gets a member regardless" rule in the original constitution is not explicitly repealed by this amendment. Just as the "electors have to cast their two votes for two different people" rule is not explicitly repealed by the XIIth amendment, so the counting of the Electoral Votes in 2004 was done in an unconstitutional manner.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2005, 04:15:43 AM »

Yeah, IIRC it had an automatic progression:
30,000 per seat til one hundred
40,000 per seat til two hundred
50,000 per seat til three hundred
60,000 per seat til four hundred
And so on at infinitum
On those figures, congress would now have about 1600 Representatives.

Jfern, you fleshed out the details on Jim, but didn't contradict him.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2005, 10:42:23 AM »

No. It was not replaced. Where in the XIIth Amendment does it say that?
Also, note that in 1872, when the Dem Electoral vote widely splintered because the Dem candidate died before between the General and the Electoral vote, Electors either voted his running mate either for president or for vice president, but not both.
It is illegal to vote for only one candidate. The electoral count should be:
Bush 286 - Kerry 251 - invalid 1
Cheney 286 - Edwards 251 - invalid 1, rather than the officially certified
Bush 286 - Kerry 251 - Edwards 1
Cheney 286 - Edwards 252.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2005, 11:09:32 AM »

Exactly. Two[/b] candidates. The original text explicitly mentions that you can't cast your two votes for the same person, the amendment's text does not repeal or contradict that.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2005, 11:58:11 PM »

I know they've established a precedent now. I wonder how long until somebody finds a tactical use for it.
Of course Kerry didn't object - it was totally irrelevant.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 10 queries.