Utah likely to get another Electoral Vote

[Nym90]

Since when has the Constitution ever stopped Congress from doing anything?

I'm all for "civil rights" giving us an extra electoral vote

And I'll take it too, since we gain an extra House seat for free, and there's no guarantee the extra electoral vote will still be Republican beyond 2008 after the next reapportionment.

Plus, as a practical matter, I think it's desirable to have an odd number of electroal votes so that there can't be a tie. This assures the election can never be thrown into the House unless a 3rd party candidate wins electoral votes.

[Nym90]

Since when has the Constitution ever stopped Congress from doing anything?

I'm all for "civil rights" giving us an extra electoral vote

And I'll take it too, since we gain an extra House seat for free, and there's no guarantee the extra electoral vote will still be Republican beyond 2008 after the next reapportionment.

Plus, as a practical matter, I think it's desirable to have an odd number of electroal votes so that there can't be a tie. This assures the election can never be thrown into the House unless a 3rd party candidate wins electoral votes.

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

Yes.

At the time, it was one potentially bad thing about the amendment, albeit outweighed overall by the positives of that amendment. Now, the positive effects are congruent with an otherwise positive change.

[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?

[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.