Utah likely to get another Electoral Vote

[NewFederalist]

Just combine DC with Virginia

VA already got their chunk back. The remaining portion was ceded from MD.

[bgwah]

^^^
Bush would have still won VA by about 80,000 votes.

Maybe now that the Dems control a majority of them DC will have a chance again.

And we shall fight it to the death.

(unless we can work out a few more EV's for Utah to balance it out)

You would actually deny your fellow Americans the right to have themselves represented in Congress for pety political reasons?

You're disgusting.

[Padfoot]

Maybe now that the Dems control a majority of them DC will have a chance again.

And we shall fight it to the death.

(unless we can work out a few more EV's for Utah to balance it out)

Newsflash.  DC already has 3 EVs and has had them for over 40 years so there is nothing to balance out there.   Try reading the 23rd amendment.  The question of balance only comes into play when you consider congressional representation.  Its fairly obvious that the addition of DC as a state or any granting of full representation to the District would add two Democratic Senators and one Democratic Representative to Congress.  Another issue that arises is that unless the size of the House is increased, one state would be losing a seat in order for DC to gain one.  I beleive the currently proposed bill to grant both Utah and DC a new seat would permanantly increase the size of the house by two.

IMO the size of the House is too small.  No single Representative can accurately represent the wishes of over 750,000 people.  Montana, Delaware, and South Dakota all deserve to have another representative under that assertion.  Either that or the method of apportionment should be changed so that the state with the highest population to representative ratio receives the next seat.  Using that method the 2000 apportionment would change as follows:
CA: -2 instead of +1
CT: -0 instead of -1
DE: +1 instead of +0
FL: +1 instead of +2
MS: -0 instead of -1
MT: +1 instead of +0
NY: -3 instead of -2
NC: +0 instead of +1
OH: -2 instead of -1
OK: -0 instead of -1
OR: +1 instead of +0
SD: +1 instead of +0
TX: +1 instead of +2
UT: +1 instead of +0

If these totals had been in affect during 2004 Kerry gets one less electoral vote so this has little affect in major shifts as far as party power goes.  It just shifts the power slightly in favor of smaller states as evidenced by their gains in my scenario.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The apportionment methods rely on a priority value k, with a state always being guaranteed at least one rep.

The current system of sqrt((n-1)*n)*k required for n reps is already biased in favor of small states.  1.42k gives a state 2 reps, while 53.49k gives a state only 53 reps. That's not fair.

The Jefferson method of n*k require for n reps was much less favorable to small states.

The Webster method was (n-1/2)*k for n reps

The Hamilton method worked slightly differently.

[Gabu]

You do realize that problem wasn't created until the 22nd amendment passed, right?

I think you mean the 23rd, unless George W. Bush's inability to get re-elected somehow induces the ability for a tie in the electoral college.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Newsflash.  DC already has 3 EVs and has had them for over 40 years so there is nothing to balance out there.   Try reading the 23rd amendment.  The question of balance only comes into play when you consider congressional representation.

Welcome, rude new person.  If we added more members of Congress to Utah or another GOP state, then I'd be just plum delighted to add 2 new Senators and a voting rep for DC - hence adding more EV's.

[muon2]

The bill in question is H.R.5388 the constitutional arguments are made here. The argument seems to rest heavily on the broad grant of power to Congress to provide for the District, and on the precedent of the years before 1800 when the District was set up but Congress had not assumed full control.

[True Federalist]

The Constitutional arguments made in the source cited by muon are mush.  It invokes Hepburn v. Ellzey (1805) in a manner contradictory to the plain language of Marshall's opinion.  Marshall explicitly writes: (emphasis added)

On the part of the plaintiffs it has been urged that Columbia is a distinct political society; and is therefore 'a state' according to the definitions of writers on general law.

This is true. But as the act of congress obviously uses the word 'state' in reference to the term as used in the constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the constitution.

What Hepburn v. Ellzey said was that Congress could grant access to the inhabitants of Columbia to the Federal courts in the same manner as it had to the inhabitants of the States and to foreign citizens, but that the law as it was in force then did not and that it was up to the Congress and not the courts to correct the anomaly as Columbia was not a state under the constitution.

Since Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1 clearly states that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,"  Any court that upheld H.R. 5388 would have to overturn an over 200 year old precedent.

The next cited case National Mutual Insurance Co. of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co.  Involved whether when Congress finally chose in 1940 to eliminate that anomaly as Marshall himself practically begged Congress to so , whether it was constitutional.  It did so, not by finding that D.C. could be treated as a State but on the use of other powers, that were not dependent upon D.C. being treated as a State under the Constutution.

[Padfoot]

Newsflash.  DC already has 3 EVs and has had them for over 40 years so there is nothing to balance out there.   Try reading the 23rd amendment.  The question of balance only comes into play when you consider congressional representation.

Welcome, rude new person.  If we added more members of Congress to Utah or another GOP state, then I'd be just plum delighted to add 2 new Senators and a voting rep for DC - hence adding more EV's.

The fact that you would hold ransom the voting rights of over half a million tax paying American citizens just so your party can gain a few extra votes for itself is disgusting.  Although I support the current compromise bill I still find it repulsive that we have to resort to such measures to give DC residents the simple right to vote.  DC should have been granted equal congressional representation back when the 23rd amendment was passed.  They at least should have gotten it in 1978.

[Nym90]

Newsflash.  DC already has 3 EVs and has had them for over 40 years so there is nothing to balance out there.   Try reading the 23rd amendment.  The question of balance only comes into play when you consider congressional representation.

Welcome, rude new person.  If we added more members of Congress to Utah or another GOP state, then I'd be just plum delighted to add 2 new Senators and a voting rep for DC - hence adding more EV's.

The only thing is that while the extra electoral votes might go to GOP states this time, there is no guarantee that would continue beyond 2008 once the next reapportionment occurs. Not to mention that the odds of 1 or 2 EVs tilting the balance of the election are quite small, of course.

It just happens by a nice coincidence that Utah was the state that came closest to deserving an extra EV in the last Census and is also the most Republican state in the nation, thus its extra House seat would balance out DC's politically. But in 2012, whose to say that Massachusetts won't be the state to just bately miss out under the current system and thus get the extra House seat and EV under the new system?

[muon2]

Newsflash.  DC already has 3 EVs and has had them for over 40 years so there is nothing to balance out there.   Try reading the 23rd amendment.  The question of balance only comes into play when you consider congressional representation.

Welcome, rude new person.  If we added more members of Congress to Utah or another GOP state, then I'd be just plum delighted to add 2 new Senators and a voting rep for DC - hence adding more EV's.

The only thing is that while the extra electoral votes might go to GOP states this time, there is no guarantee that would continue beyond 2008 once the next reapportionment occurs. Not to mention that the odds of 1 or 2 EVs tilting the balance of the election are quite small, of course.

It just happens by a nice coincidence that Utah was the state that came closest to deserving an extra EV in the last Census and is also the most Republican state in the nation, thus its extra House seat would balance out DC's politically. But in 2012, whose to say that Massachusetts won't be the state to just bately miss out under the current system and thus get the extra House seat and EV under the new system?

Nym makes a good point. Based on last year's estimates MN is expected to lose a seat, but would have the highest priority to keep that seat with the additional members to the House.

[muon2]

The Constitutional arguments made in the source cited by muon are mush.  It invokes Hepburn v. Ellzey (1805) in a manner contradictory to the plain language of Marshall's opinion.  Marshall explicitly writes: (emphasis added)

On the part of the plaintiffs it has been urged that Columbia is a distinct political society; and is therefore 'a state' according to the definitions of writers on general law.

This is true. But as the act of congress obviously uses the word 'state' in reference to the term as used in the constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the constitution.

What Hepburn v. Ellzey said was that Congress could grant access to the inhabitants of Columbia to the Federal courts in the same manner as it had to the inhabitants of the States and to foreign citizens, but that the law as it was in force then did not and that it was up to the Congress and not the courts to correct the anomaly as Columbia was not a state under the constitution.

Since Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1 clearly states that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,"  Any court that upheld H.R. 5388 would have to overturn an over 200 year old precedent.

The next cited case National Mutual Insurance Co. of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co.  Involved whether when Congress finally chose in 1940 to eliminate that anomaly as Marshall himself practically begged Congress to so , whether it was constitutional.  It did so, not by finding that D.C. could be treated as a State but on the use of other powers, that were not dependent upon D.C. being treated as a State under the Constutution.

I understand the strict argument that can be made from Hepburn. As such I certainly would be more comfortable with a cession of DC back to MD except for those Federal lands on and adjacent to the Mall. OTOH, Hepburn does not seem to clearly address the precedent of voting rights afforded district residents between 1790 and 1800. A current court may weigh those two opposing precedents, and I'm not sure how it would be decided today.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The fact that you would hold ransom the voting rights of over half a million tax paying American citizens just so your party can gain a few extra votes for itself is disgusting. 

You know what, you're exactly right.  I don't want to hold ransom the voting rights of any tax-paying American citizen.  Declare DC a tax-free haven and watch it blossom!

[True Federalist]

OTOH, Hepburn does not seem to clearly address the precedent of voting rights afforded district residents between 1790 and 1800.

What precedent?  Congress did not assume sovereignty over the District until it was ready to move there in 1800. Until that happened, that territory still belonged to Virgina and Maryland.  I agree that retrocession would be a desirable course of action.  However that gets complicated by the 23rd Amendment.  If you remove all the residents of D.C., who gets to decide who those 3 electors D.C. has under the 23rd are?  Does Congress get to pick them?

[Padfoot]

What precedent?  Congress did not assume sovereignty over the District until it was ready to move there in 1800. Until that happened, that territory still belonged to Virgina and Maryland.  I agree that retrocession would be a desirable course of action.  However that gets complicated by the 23rd Amendment.  If you remove all the residents of D.C., who gets to decide who those 3 electors D.C. has under the 23rd are?  Does Congress get to pick them?

I think it would require a new Constitutional Amendment to retrocede DC to Maryland because the 23rd Amendment would have to be undone.  I don't think Maryland or DC have any desire to reunite though.  We shouldn't force it on them either.  I think a better course for those who favor the retrocession option would be to give DC its own Congressional District, allow DC residents to vote and run for office as Maryland Senators, and maintain its current 3EVs. 

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

What precedent?  Congress did not assume sovereignty over the District until it was ready to move there in 1800. Until that happened, that territory still belonged to Virgina and Maryland.  I agree that retrocession would be a desirable course of action.  However that gets complicated by the 23rd Amendment.  If you remove all the residents of D.C., who gets to decide who those 3 electors D.C. has under the 23rd are?  Does Congress get to pick them?

I think it would require a new Constitutional Amendment to retrocede DC to Maryland because the 23rd Amendment would have to be undone.  I don't think Maryland or DC have any desire to reunite though.  We shouldn't force it on them either.  I think a better course for those who favor the retrocession option would be to give DC its own Congressional District, allow DC residents to vote and run for office as Maryland Senators, and maintain its current 3EVs. 

Yeah you'd like that wouldn't you.... that way you get 3 Dem EV's instead of just basically adding 1 to Maryland (which is about all that the population of DC would be entitled to)

[Padfoot]

Yeah you'd like that wouldn't you.... that way you get 3 Dem EV's instead of just basically adding 1 to Maryland (which is about all that the population of DC would be entitled to)

Well I suppose we could use your preferred method of equalization.  If your willing to force North and South Dakota together I'll gladly force DC and Maryland together.  I'm sure neither of those parties will mind us forcing them together at all.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Yeah you'd like that wouldn't you.... that way you get 3 Dem EV's instead of just basically adding 1 to Maryland (which is about all that the population of DC would be entitled to)

Well I suppose we could use your preferred method of equalization.  If your willing to force North and South Dakota together I'll gladly force DC and Maryland together.  I'm sure neither of those parties will mind us forcing them together at all.

Hmm... that might get rid of at least one, and probably two Dem Senators

[bgwah]

Should Maryland actually want to annex DC then that would be acceptable.

However, when it comes down to it, neither Maryland nor Virginia are interested in annexing a big crime-infested city full of poor people.

Regardless of that, I, as any real democracy and freedom loving American would, of course support their right for representation in Congress.

True, some people like McDONalds are democracy-loathing Nazi scumbags who have absolutely no problem suppressing their fellow Americans. Afterall McDONalds, they're just a bunch of black people, right? I'm sure deep down inside you're thinking it would be easier to just kill everyone there and turn it into a national park.

[Padfoot]

Jesus has spoken and his word is true and good.  LOL

[Nym90]

Obviously Maryland isn't going to want DC. It's nothing but a liability for them; all of that government property of course brings in zero tax revenue and has to be maintained, you need lots of police due to the high crime rate, and the poor folks who live there don't pay much in taxes anyway. It's obviously a net loss financially, lots of expenses and little revenue.

Clearly DC should have representation in Congress. I'd prefer it have 2 Senators and a Representative of its own (i.e., make it a state in all but name), but making it a part of Maryland for purposes of the House and Senate would be acceptable. I don't think it should lose the 3 Electoral Votes that it already has now, however.

[Vasall des Midas]

A third of the city is actually White, and large parts of that are extremely rich...

[ag]

A third of the city is actually White, and large parts of that are extremely rich...

Actually, in terms of land area the "white third" occupies, probably, about a half of DC. And of the "black" neighborhoods, quite a few are pretty middle class.  The poor black neighborhoods are a well-defined chunk of the city. Of course, Anacostia is a nasty ghetto, but DC is not just Anacostia.  I am pretty sure Maryland would be happy to get back Georgetown, Dupont Circle, Adams Morgan and quite a few other places .

[Padfoot]

Even if Maryland was willing to take back DC I doubt that DC residents are ready to give up their fight for complete autonomy and representation.  Especially not since they've been so close to gaining some of their major goals in recent years.

[jimrtex]

What precedent?  Congress did not assume sovereignty over the District until it was ready to move there in 1800. Until that happened, that territory still belonged to Virgina and Maryland.  I agree that retrocession would be a desirable course of action.  However that gets complicated by the 23rd Amendment.  If you remove all the residents of D.C., who gets to decide who those 3 electors D.C. has under the 23rd are?  Does Congress get to pick them?

Under the 23rd Amendment, Congress determines the method of appointment of electors.  In the legislation that proposed combining DC with Maryland for congressional voting, Congress would determine that no electors be chosen from DC.

Or perhaps they could apportion them on the basis of the national popular vote.