Talk Elections

I started thinking about this scenario after hearing about a proposed amendment to the Constituion which would have eliminated illegal immigrants from a state's offical apportionment population.  If illegal immigrants were removed from the equation California would lose 6 seats in the House and Texas, Florida, and New York would each lose one seat based on the 2000 Census data.  (I'm not sure what states would gain seats).  Basically the arguement for the amendment is that people who aren't citizens shouldn't be influencing the balance of house seats between the states.  This also spills over into presidential elections because the number of EV given to a state is directly related to the number of representatives it has.

So then I started thinking that if we're going to eliminate those who aren't allowed to vote, we might as well eliminate those who aren't registered to vote as well.  Here's what the electoral vote map would look like today if we had used the number of registered voters in a state as its official apportionment population in the 2002 reapportionment:
Red-less EVs than current number
Blue-more EVs than current number
Grey-no change from current number
()

This map shows what states would have lost or gained over their 1992-2002 EV count:

Red: loses EVs
Blue: gains EVs
Grey: no change
()

Essentially what I gleaned from these maps is that California and Texas are screwing the Midwest.  In 2004 Texas and California ranked 49th(47%) and 48th(48%) respectively based on the percentage of Voting Age Persons who actually voted.  They were two of only three states to be below 50% in 2004 (Hawaii was 50th with 45%).

Looking at these maps should convince anyone that our reapportionment methods are highly inaccurate and should be re-examined.  Counting those who are unable to vote or are able but don't care enough to do so is unfair to those who actually wish to actively participate in our government.

The only thing I can say about such an idea : "UnAmerican". That kind of idea might fit well into Chavezs' Venezuala or Putins' Russia but not in the USA.

I'm not necessarily for or against the idea.  I was just curious about the implications for the EC if such a method were used. 

I supposed I find it appealing because it could encourage more people to register to vote.  Also it eliminates any illegal immigrants from the equation which I definately support.  California doesn't deserve an extra 6 EVs and house seats just because it is home to millions of illegal immigrants.

On the flip side this could also cause some serious voter fraud.  In extremely partisan states, the parties might be tempted to register phantom or non-existant voters in order to prevent the loss of a seat or to bump their state above another in line to gain a seat.  Also, it would cost the Census millions of dollars to weed out non-citizens from citizens.

The Texas Constitution says that Senate districts are to be based on the number of qualified voters, but this is ignored since no one knows a practical way to determine the number of qualified voters.

It should be noted that there is no requirement of citizenship in order to vote, and up until the early 1900s many states permitted legal permanent residents to vote.  On the frontier, this was a practical matter since the organization of state and local governments was often based on having a certain number of voters.

Illegal Immigrants aren't counted in representation.

Yes they are.  The 14th Amendment calls for all persons, NOT citizens, to be counted with regards to congressional apportionment.  This artificially inflates the representation given to states with large illegal immigrant populations.  The obvious intent of the Amendment was to end the practice of counting blacks as 3/5ths of a person.  If you want further proof do a search on H.J. Res. 53 from the 109th Congress (I beleive the title is correct).  It's a proposed amendment to the Constitution introduced by Rep. Candice Miller MI-10 (R) and it's sole purpose is to reword the 14th Amendment so that it reads all citizens instead of persons thus taking illegal immigrants out of the equation.

Though I don't get this to quite add up, it seems to me that right now there would be next to no partisan change. So why not?

It would require a Constitutional Amendment.

When one of the precursors to the 14th Amendment was debated, there was suggestions that apportionment be changed to be based on voters (or males over 21).  This would have simplified the penalty for disenfranchisement, since apportionment could be based on the number of adult males who could vote.  In the debate, it was quite obvious that everyone had gone through the census reports to determine what effect that change would have on their state's representation.

Overwhelmingly opposed.

States have enough trouble keeping up to date voter rolls now as it is.  I can guarantee you that I'm probably still registered in Pennsylvania, even though my last vote there was in November of 2005.

And it's probably 50/50 that I'm still registered in New Jersey, too.

I support taking illegals out of the equation. The Border states don't deserve more EVs just because they are a haven for illegal aliens.

Try Merkel's Germany.