Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yea, there math seems off, California is already under represented,
If they gain nothing in 4 years, they will have an estimated 41 million residents being represented by 56 people meaning each district is roughly 732,000.
the current house average is 710,000. That means California should get at least 1 seat.
Maybe they don't count people. Maybe they count citizens.
Maybe they don't count people. Maybe they count citizens.
It's based on a count of people. Doesn't matter if they are citizens.
Keep in mind the number of seats in the US House as been capped since the 1940s and hasn't changed except for when Alaska and Hawaii entered the Union. So it's not a matter of how many people there are/seat but how many people there are/seat relative to the other states.
California's population increase has been slowing down as large numbers of workers have been departing the state for places like Texas.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6038
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Nah, They have been moving there since the 1920s. It hasn't happened because people get more conservative as they get older.
Well that just inst true, Florida was a reliable Republican state even voting for Nixon when the rest of the South voted for Kennedy and Johnson. Same with Eisanhower.
but American elections have pretty much been landslides outside of just a few elections in the last 100 years.
The fact that florida is now considered a swing state compared to its history indeed shows that there has been a change in the electorate.
Well that just inst true, Florida was a reliable Republican state even voting for Nixon when the rest of the South voted for Kennedy and Johnson. Same with Eisanhower.
Nope
In 1960 two Southern states voted for Byrd. 3 others voted with Florida for Nixon. So your point is disproved in that election.
In 1964 Florida voted for the Democrat, LBJ. So again your point is disproved.
In 1956 Florida did vote for Eisenhower, but so did Texas and California and almost every other state in the union. They were voting for the General that won WWII, not the party.
1976 Florida went to Democrat Carter.
So there is nothing in this history that support characterizing them as a reliable Republican state.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6038
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Nope
In 1960 two Southern states voted for Byrd. 3 others voted with Florida for Nixon. So your point is disproved in that election.
In 1964 Florida voted for the Democrat, LBJ. So again your point is disproved.
In 1956 Florida did vote for Eisenhower, but so did Texas and California and almost every other state in the union. They were voting for the General that won WWII, not the party.
1976 Florida went to Democrat Carter.
So there is nothing in this history that support characterizing them as a reliable Republican state.
Your response makes no sense.
First of all, You mentioned in 1956 that it was a land slide election, but not 1964. In 1964, LBJ won 44 States, Eisenhower won 41. If you were going to call Eisenhowers win a landslide, then obviously LBJ's was as well. When you write comments like that, it looks like you are being argumentative just for the heck of it.
Further more, i mentioned landslide elections in my initial comment.
Second, the entire South votered for Carter in 1976, it was a regional divide.
So now we are back to 1960 as the only election without extenuating circumstances, and Florida voted for a Republican.
Your response makes no sense.
First of all, You mentioned in 1956 that it was a land slide election, but not 1964. In 1964, LBJ won 44 States, Eisenhower won 41. If you were going to call Eisenhowers win a landslide, then obviously LBJ's was as well. When you write comments like that, it looks like you are being argumentative just for the heck of it.
Further more, i mentioned landslide elections in my initial comment.
Second, the entire South votered for Carter in 1976, it was a regional divide.
So now we are back to 1960 as the only election without extenuating circumstances, and Florida voted for a Republican.
1956 Election mentioned because you raised Eisenhower. Your characterization of that election was proved wrong
1960 Election mentioned because you raised Nixon vs Kennedy. Your characterization of that election was proved wrong.
1964 Election mentioned because it disproves your notion that Florida is reliably Republican. Ditto 1976
You assert that in past Florida was reliably Republican. That assertion has been disproved. No state is reliably anything. It comes down to the candidates. These elections prove this.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6038
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
1956 Election mentioned because you raised Eisenhower. Your characterization of that election was proved wrong
My post wasnt proven wrong. I specifically said it was a land slide election, that is why the but in the next sentence wasnt capitalized.
Quote:
1960 Election mentioned because you raised Nixon vs Kennedy. Your characterization of that election was proved wrong.
No it wasnt. Show me how you have proven it wrong.
Quote:
1964 Election mentioned because it disproves your notion that Florida is reliably Republican. Ditto 1976
1964 was a land slide election in which the sitting president won 44 states, you disproved nothing.
1976 was an election in which the governor of Georgia was the candidate and the electorate voted accordingly
Quote:
You assert that in past Florida was reliably Republican. That assertion has been disproved. No state is reliably anything. It comes down to the candidates. These elections prove this.
Falsehood, you have changed your argument from circumstance to premise, now debating the very basis of the discussion, If you had truly meant to do so, you would have done it from the very beginning, not after you were proven wrong.
Which is again, why it looks like you are simply arguing for the heck of it.
States can reliably vote for a party while also displaying that the validity of the candidate can sway a state. If we are operating under your premise, then you are arguing that a republican has a decent chance at winning D.C. or Vermont, and while that possibility does exist, they are not likely or fit any probability that anyone would even dream of making such a prediction of them doing so unless they worked for FOX News.
Interestingly, I think this is the first time, in a very long time, that California doesn't gain a seat.
Shocked by the fact Texas might gain 3..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
