If you want to end the redistricting insanity, you have to emulate what many other countries do - stop classifying your citizens by their melanin levels, i.e. race. Then, lo and behold, we’re all just Americans.
Yes, they have very granular data for this. I took part in a proposed redistricting for our little town (the town Dems wanted to appoint someone who didn't live in the open district, so they (had a majority to) change the district. I was amazed at how much data exists around race, voting, etc.
Sea Sentry - What you say about the classification of citizens by melanin levels is so obviously true. But who are the classifiers who need to stop classifying? At first glance the root cause might seem to be the politicians who are pushing redistricting.
However, politicians are all thoroughgoing, somewhat craven political animals. They would drop gerrymandering like a hot potato if they thought it would cost them votes or perhaps their offices because of disapproval of voters back home.
The politicians are still doing it, so obviously the voters back home do not disapprove. Therefore, gerrymandering can be laid squarely on the voting citizens of both parties and every ethnicity who seek to gain an electoral advantage over their opponents. A not-so-fine old American tradition going back more than 200 years.
Fair comments, Alvie. At the end of the day, the buck stops with us voters. I naively assume most politicians will show the courage to do what’s in the national interest, not their own. Silly me.
Redistricting commissions are not a panacea. New York has one but that hasn’t stopped the Dems, with supermajorities in the legislature, from attempting the most egregious gerrymandering.
I frequently hear fellow Trump supporters lament that he will probably lose the House in the midterms, because that's what usually happens. But why does that usually happen? Because most presidents disappoint their voters by not following through on the promises they made while campaigning. That can't be said of Trump. Also, as far as precedent, the Democrats held the House for 40 years, from 1955 to 1995, through several Republican administrations.
It also happens because many people don't vote in the midterms. If you voted for Trump, you need to keep voting in the midterms. In fact, if every Trump voter DID VOTE in the next midterms, there would likely be a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a sizeable majority in the house. This is no time to go wobbly. Time to show up early and spend the rest of the Voting "season" getting all your friends to the polls. Harvest where you can.
Well, he's kind of not lived up to ending wars and not starting new ones. He's not lived up to his promises about the First Amendment.
The wars one would bite him in the ass. He knows it, and is trying to plan accordingly. Vance's point is the best--that many Democratic-run states are already a hell of a lot more gerrymandered than Texas would be even if it succeeds. MTG's already about to jump ship on the war shit.
There is no switch to flip to end wars. Of course he did end several before they started. We will see if the world will get serious on Russia. If so, that one will end too. Israel should be done in a year. Notice all the quiet while they do their work.
Technically, it's not a switch. It's a Yes/No question. Do we bomb people in X-country? Yes or No. No one ever says no, including Trump.
I'm not comparing him to the likes of Hillary, the Cheneys, or even the hordes of both Republicans and Democrats who seem to love forever war, but he's bombed Yemen, he's still shipping weapons to Ukraine, he's supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and when Netanyahu asked him to, he happily bombed Iran. Which kind of makes him look like Bibi's bitch.
And I notice you didn't have a rejoinder on the First Amendment.
I think it would be a really good idea to do a new census mid decade and do what has been recommended: two counts one that is for representation and the other one is just a head count . The one for representation would not include people who are not here legally. Also, I had ChatGPT make a chart comparing the percentage votes for Trump to the percentage of Republican representatives by state. nine states have about 40% votes for Donald Trump in 2024 and zero house Republican representation. even in light of split votes and such, it doesn’t seem good.
The problem you'll run into is that there actually isn't legal basis for counting or not counting illegals because the concept wasn't historically significant. Republicans absolutely should codify that only citizens count for the census, particularly because lawbreaking shouldn't be rewarded.
But Democrats will call it a "change" and fight it, and their case isn't terrible.
You have highlighted a very important factor of the census and our overall population. Who and how to count for the census exploded with the huge influx of illegals. Ditto was the aspect of entitlements. Sometimes the two go hand in hand, but the massive amounts of illegals into the country the past several years, especially under Biden, have totally changed the calculus for many aspects of our government. Many times, such as with voted representatives or the distribution of government benefits such as food stamps (SNAP). unemployment benefits, hospital and health care. Or. I've seen reports that in some cases, even some social security benefits like disability have been paid out to non-citizens. This is why laws restricting illegals from US government benefits need to be codified by Congress. Especially while the GOP has the votes they do in each house of Congress. From what I've seen, most Dems want illegals to receive benefits. At least in the past, they have used the aspect of those as an attraction for more illegals into the country.
I forgot to mention that I feel giving illegal immigrants driver licenses is dangerous because often these are used as valid ID for the particular illegal immigrant.
The text of the 14th Amendment is very clear in stating that representatives are to be allocated among the states based on "whole number of persons" -- not limited to citizens, and not limited to persons legally present. It may not make sense to us today, but I think we have to follow the text if we want to have a constitution at all.
I think Congress could call for an extra census, and I think Congress could require respondents to state their immigration status, but I don't think there's any basis to exclude people from the representative allocation just because they're not here legally.
A person is a person. The term "citizen" is used elsewhere in the amendment. If the drafters wanted to refer to citizens only, they would have.
well, I accept your argument that the 14th amendment is clear, but I don’t think it makes sense at this point so I think we need to amend the amendment so that representatives are allocated according to people here legally otherwise there’s a huge benefit of bringing 10,000 illegals in a day as we were doing and then they get more representatives in Congress and then they bring another 10,000 illegals a day and they get more representatives in Congress and so on. not to even mention the electoral college. I’m pretty certain that wasn’t the intention of the amendment. I believe the intention was to include slaves, which made sense 175 years ago.
Perfect — let’s walk through what a citizen-based apportionment system would look like, compared to the current “all persons” system.
⸻
1. Current System (All Persons Counted)
• Based on the 2020 Census, House seats are divided among states according to their total population — citizens + legal immigrants + undocumented immigrants.
• States with large immigrant populations (California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois) benefit.
⸻
2. If Apportionment Were Based on Citizens Only
We don’t have exact numbers (since the Census doesn’t ask everyone about citizenship), but the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) estimates the non-citizen population at ~20–22 million in 2020, including both legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants.
If those non-citizens were excluded from apportionment:
Likely Losers (lose seats in the House / Electoral College votes):
• California (largest immigrant population, ~5–6 million non-citizens) → could lose 2–3 seats
• Texas (~4.5 million) → could lose 1–2 seats
• Florida (~2.5 million) → could lose 1 seat
• New York (~2 million) → could lose 1 seat
• New Jersey, Illinois → each could lose 1 seat
Likely Winners (gain seats, because their populations are mostly citizens):
• States in the Midwest, Mountain West, and parts of the South would gain.
• These are states with relatively few immigrants but solid citizen populations.
⸻
3. Electoral College Impact
• Since Electoral College votes = House seats + Senate seats, the shift would reduce the power of immigrant-heavy states (mostly blue or purple) and increase the power of citizen-heavy states (mostly red or swing).
• Example:
• California currently has 54 electoral votes. Under a citizens-only count, it might drop to ~51.
• Ohio (which lost a seat after 2020) might get one back.
• Montana and West Virginia, which each only have 1 seat, might gain a second.
⸻
4. Political Consequences
• Blue states lose influence, red/swing states gain influence.
• That’s why this issue is so politically charged — it isn’t just about fairness in counting; it could literally flip outcomes in close presidential elections and shift the balance of power in Congress.
⸻
✅ So bottom line:
• The current system benefits immigrant-heavy states by giving them more seats and electoral votes, even though non-citizens don’t vote.
• A citizens-only system would redistribute power toward states with fewer immigrants — mostly Midwest and smaller-population states — and reduce representation for big coastal states.
⸻
Would you like me to put together a map or table showing roughly how many seats each state would gain or lose if we switched to citizen-only apportionment?
Nice work. I like your handle too, though I'm not sure what Liberal or Leftist is anymore. I always thought I was a leftist, because I'm not OK with the $75 trillion the top 10% stole from the bottom 90% of our population in the past 50 years, due to globalization. People who call themselves leftists but spend all day looking for things to be offended by don't give a shit that all the jobs suck, and more and more of the money is going to the rich and super-rich. I don't know WHAT to call them.
Those things that you mentioned are promoted by elite globalists. They’re on the creepy and slippery slope of progressivism. basically, the constitutional line separates them from liberals when you scratch the surface.
I understand your point. Of course the drafters of the amendment didn't anticipate our situation, because there was literally no immigration law at the time. The 14th amendment passed Congress in 1867. The first law restricting immigration was passed in 1872.
I think passing a new amendment is unlikely, but you could try.
I might. Since it would take 60% super majority vote of the House and Senate, we shouldn’t hold our breath, but now is a good time to start talking about it. It’s probably beyond my lifetime before it could happen, but I do think it’s time to talk about it.
The clause excludes "Indians not taxed". "Indians" refer to indigenous people of North America. Is there a "One Drop Rule" that is applied to migrants from Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, etc. who may be of mixed race of "Indians" with European or African ancestors? Is an illegal alien without a legal SS number considered "not taxed"?
Seems to me the simplest way to administer the Census is to count only those with legal Social Security numbers.
You’re probably right. I was just thinking to myself this evening that all of those kazillion visa people that just come over for work visas or whatever I think they’re also in the count. Yikes.
I figure if you're legally paying into the system, you probably ought to be counted. Still can't vote unless you're a citizen. If you're here illegally and evading the law, no way you should be counted for apportionment or districting.
As a thought: Illegal/legal makes no difference in France, England or Germany. The NGO wielding Davos/CCP totalitarianism (at a profit) simply floods the targeted nation with uneducated military aged males to destabilize the society/bankrupt the social system while simply arresting any citizen who protests the crime. Civil liberty disappears and "the people" find themselves without a voice, nation or culture. The Soros/Mayorkas NGO perps, with the help of the Biden/Harris travesty flooded the American Republic with 20 million illegals. If they'd won the election there would have been another 20 million and another 20 million after that.
The Wall Street/Brussels/EU/WEF Davos crowd loves CCP style totalitarianism and Silicon Valley AI is here to help install the managerial/surveillance apparatus that will provide the necessary criminalization of We the People and topple the American Republic.
American infrastructure is in collapse and her industrial cities are crime ridden gutted hulks because International CAPITAL --with the complicity of faux communist political perps like the Clinton/Obama criminals looted the American economy and split town. And they did it/are doing it with the totalitarian machine built with American tax treasure--- crisis to crisis no solutions forthcoming. Example: The DOGE exposure of the USAID spook land creation and placement of political operatives in "pretend" social service organizations inside the American Republic, and out, blew by like nothing was there.-- Our tax dollars at work? The communist mayor of L.A. Karen Bass, the distribution of riot gear to tax funded "rent-a-riot" protestors. And MSM psyop headline after MSM psyop headline that manipulates the American psyche, fills citizens with fear and apprehension draws no conclusion and says nothing.
The "great replacement" is a real thing. Billionaire perps are colonizing the West and destroying its culture--the civilization--and the lives of free peoples everywhere. It's not something else.
Okay, but that is not what the text says. It says whole number of persons. I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for your constitutional amendment, but I am saying that you are proposing one.
If the Constitution says suicide pact including slow suicide or if the Constitution gives away my country or cheapens my citizenship then the very parchment itself can burn and we shall have rule of the strongest.
I and anyone else can recant our Oaths and proceed to live on our land without permission from courts, legislatures or any conventions at all…
Who is defined as that "person"? Is a tourist a person? Is someone connecting on a flight through an airport a "person"? Can a person be counted in multiple states? Simple words often have several meanings.
If it is a certainty that the meaning of the 14th Amendment is clear, then there is no better argument for the urgent need for mass deportations. We can no longer allow the Democrats to game the system.
maybe let’s worry about the constitutional amendment to the 14th later. For now I do think we have a representation crisis and also a dependence crisis, so let’s take the mid-decade count a couple ways. Sure maybe it’s just only people with Social Security numbers versus those that don’t have Social Security numbers whatever it is I think we should do the counts and the analysis and that will help inform whether an amendment needs to happen or how it should happen, but let’s just do the count and not worry about the amendment part up front.
The real issue is fiscal bankruptcy-state and city. Not sure how states cannot go into bankruptcy if they’re unable to pay their obligations or bills (states cannot print money). The federal level is bankrupt too, by both parties.
They’ll squeeze every single penny from the working and professional classes until the U.S. is pre-Meili Argentina.
Democrats have dominated the gerrymandering wars historically, spending much of the latter half of the 20th century garnering far more seats than their vote share suggested. For example, in 1976 they had 55.9% of the nationwide house vote and got 67.1% of the seats.
Republicans finally fought fire with fire in the 1990s, and recent decades have seen the two sides each get about the number of seats that their vote share suggests. Overall, though, there are about 25 blue state Republicans and 50 red state Democrats, so if both parties go all out, Republicans have more to gain. Which is expected, since they have more small states.
Gerrymandering is one of those wedge issues that the parties like to keep in their back pocket go whip out to stir up their voters. If either side actually cared about representative democracy, they'd be pushing for more districts like the framers intended.
This is really just a resolution problem. The more smaller districts you have, the harder it is to gerrymander them. There are so many problems that would be solved or minimized if we just increased the number of house seats.
Or decrease the size, control, and power of the federal government and let states and local governments handle more. The fed should do the absolute bare minimum such as border security, national defense, etc. A whopping 80% of the money raised/spent in the 2020 Georgia run off election for senate came from out of state. So who really chose the senators for Georgia? Keep politics local.
One reason not to add representation is because the salary for each congressperson is $174k per year plus benefits/perks. Then you add in the staff, additional office space, larger chambers, etc. and the costs really start to add up. Plus, if one of the objectives is to minimize the role/control of the federal government and boost the role of state and local governments, it would make more sense to let states and locals decide to expand their state representation if they desire. It doesn't make sense to me to increase federal representation while shrinking the role/control of the federal government. Some state legislatures only meet a few weeks a year and still manage to handle the issues of their state. That's what's great about empowering the states to operate how they see fit... no one size fits all. This way, ones that are successful will attract more residents/businesses, and ones that are not will likely lose residents and be forced to adapt to more successful governing. We're seeing that to some degree now with people fleeing CA and NY for other states with more affordable cost of living, better business environments, etc.
That's a good point. I wonder how many Congressional districts we would have, if each one were representing the same average number of registered voters as it did when the number first became 435.
It's not really fair to start a redistricting timeline with the Texas redistricting, because that is mostly a reaction to countless decades of heavy Democrat gerrymandering. It wasn't the first tit by a longshot. Gerrymandering is only becoming an issue now that the Republicans finally decided to respond.
And the Democrats did a particularly heavy round of gerrymandering after the 2020 census, while the Republicans did not. (And let's not forget that everyone agrees that the last census "accidentally" overcounted all of the big blue states, and undercounted most of the big red states, which is also giving the Democrats a completely unjustifiable overrepresentation). As things stand now, my understanding is that North Carolina is the only red state that has a significant gerrymander. And I've read that if everyone dropped gerrymandering, that would likely net the Republicans between 20 and 30 seats. But who knows if that was accurate. But it's still pretty clear that our current map is heavily gerrymandered in the Democrats favor.
And it would be great to get rid of gerrymandering altogether, and not just because I'm a Republican so that would work to my partisan advantage. Everyone hates it. And I suspect that representatives would be much more responsive to community needs if they were subject to competitive elections. It's also very undemocratic to have the govt choose its constituents rather than the other way around. (And the whole illegal immigration controversy is another manifestation of that problem, as the Democrats attempt to replace the nation's current population with one that is more likely to support them).
The big problem though is finding an effective mechanism to prevent gerrymandering. The supposedly independent "nonpartisan" commissions that some states use don't seem to provide any benefit, because then issue just becomes who gets to select the members of these commissions, and what kind of a say the minority has. And it's likely to be the legislature that does this, or some other body controlled by the legislature. So it's just the legislature pretending to delegate the work to someone else. Take the examples of Texas and California. Even after the current gerrymander, Texas will still be less gerrymandered than California currently is, and the California districts were drawn by an independent commission. And California will be insanely more gerrymandered than Texas if they pass the proposed changes.
The only thing that I can think of that might work is to develop some reasonably objective criteria that everyone agrees on for boundary-drawing, and then just apply those criteria mechanically. This way there would be no discretion on the part of the legislatures. Some obvious criteria here would be following city, community and county boundaries, rivers, mountains, etc, as well as keeping districts as compact as possible. Although it's hard to imagine the Democrats ever agreeing to something that doesn't give them a big advantage. And I can also see this approach failing miserably.
Wouldn't tit-for-tat be unnecessary if only actual citizens voted? Why not focus on an "election day" and in-person voting with legitimate (not Soros funded folks) ids? Until we ditch the mail-ins and machines, this will all be for naught and Gavin might have to look at the state of his state.
Gerrymandering on it face seems undemocratic. Manipulating districts for the sole purpose of political gain doesn't fit easily into a democratic electoral process. Both parties are guilty. The fact that the Supreme Court court, other than prohibiting gerrymandering on racial lines, has never taken a principled stand on gerrymandering by either side, except to say its not judicially feasible to create a judicial standard which, IMO, is an abdication of its authority, not to mention spineless. It would seem that every election becomes more about winning and less about participating in a democratic process where citizens have the real freedom to choose.
Simple game theory says that CA passing the new map is the end of its Independent Redistricting Commission.
If the new map passes, CA will be D +44 through 2030.
CA is expected to lose four seats after the 2030 census, dropping them to 48. Maintaining D+44 will be critical because red states will gain seats and increase their gerrymanding. CA Dems will not accept "adding" to the Republican majority, but the independent commission will not accept a D46/R2 map.
The precedent to override the commission had been set in 2025 and a 2031 special election will be held to use D+44 maps.
One nit: The KCRA reporter is Ashley Zavala (with an "L"). She is an outstanding reporter who tries to hold CA government accountable.
It's the system, stupid! Remember, there's a reason that people can believe anything, it's baked in to the genome. That being said, the system is becoming so egrigeously corrupt it's amazing that people still believe in it
Nobody should decide districts/ pick their voters, instead of the other way around. In today's world everybody's a partisan, judges it appears especially. There should be some kind of generic formula, a division of each state into rectangles with x number of voters. Kind of like pin the tail on the donkey.
In the 2020 Census illegal aliens were counted in California which gave Californa two extra congressional seats. Lots of rumors that they were also registered to vote. California now only has mail in voting so there is a lot of opportunity for voter harvesting and manipulation of ballots as there doesn't seem to be much in the way of validating voter signatures.
If you want to end the redistricting insanity, you have to emulate what many other countries do - stop classifying your citizens by their melanin levels, i.e. race. Then, lo and behold, we’re all just Americans.
Of course unemployment would rise as all the race hustlers would be put out of business.
Totally the next cannot mention race. Race is a construct. We are Americans.
Melanin, not melatonin.
Right you are. My bust - will edit.
Totally agree our obsession with skin tone is unhealthy. However, with districting they look at party affiliation. Or so they’ll say.
Yes, they have very granular data for this. I took part in a proposed redistricting for our little town (the town Dems wanted to appoint someone who didn't live in the open district, so they (had a majority to) change the district. I was amazed at how much data exists around race, voting, etc.
Sea Sentry - What you say about the classification of citizens by melanin levels is so obviously true. But who are the classifiers who need to stop classifying? At first glance the root cause might seem to be the politicians who are pushing redistricting.
However, politicians are all thoroughgoing, somewhat craven political animals. They would drop gerrymandering like a hot potato if they thought it would cost them votes or perhaps their offices because of disapproval of voters back home.
The politicians are still doing it, so obviously the voters back home do not disapprove. Therefore, gerrymandering can be laid squarely on the voting citizens of both parties and every ethnicity who seek to gain an electoral advantage over their opponents. A not-so-fine old American tradition going back more than 200 years.
Fair comments, Alvie. At the end of the day, the buck stops with us voters. I naively assume most politicians will show the courage to do what’s in the national interest, not their own. Silly me.
Yup!
Redistricting commissions are not a panacea. New York has one but that hasn’t stopped the Dems, with supermajorities in the legislature, from attempting the most egregious gerrymandering.
Conquest's Second Law.
Anything Democrats call "nonpartisan" is intended to be even more partisan than usual. The "nonpartisan" label is cover for getting away with it.
I frequently hear fellow Trump supporters lament that he will probably lose the House in the midterms, because that's what usually happens. But why does that usually happen? Because most presidents disappoint their voters by not following through on the promises they made while campaigning. That can't be said of Trump. Also, as far as precedent, the Democrats held the House for 40 years, from 1955 to 1995, through several Republican administrations.
It also happens because many people don't vote in the midterms. If you voted for Trump, you need to keep voting in the midterms. In fact, if every Trump voter DID VOTE in the next midterms, there would likely be a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a sizeable majority in the house. This is no time to go wobbly. Time to show up early and spend the rest of the Voting "season" getting all your friends to the polls. Harvest where you can.
Well, he's kind of not lived up to ending wars and not starting new ones. He's not lived up to his promises about the First Amendment.
The wars one would bite him in the ass. He knows it, and is trying to plan accordingly. Vance's point is the best--that many Democratic-run states are already a hell of a lot more gerrymandered than Texas would be even if it succeeds. MTG's already about to jump ship on the war shit.
There is no switch to flip to end wars. Of course he did end several before they started. We will see if the world will get serious on Russia. If so, that one will end too. Israel should be done in a year. Notice all the quiet while they do their work.
Technically, it's not a switch. It's a Yes/No question. Do we bomb people in X-country? Yes or No. No one ever says no, including Trump.
I'm not comparing him to the likes of Hillary, the Cheneys, or even the hordes of both Republicans and Democrats who seem to love forever war, but he's bombed Yemen, he's still shipping weapons to Ukraine, he's supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and when Netanyahu asked him to, he happily bombed Iran. Which kind of makes him look like Bibi's bitch.
And I notice you didn't have a rejoinder on the First Amendment.
I think it would be a really good idea to do a new census mid decade and do what has been recommended: two counts one that is for representation and the other one is just a head count . The one for representation would not include people who are not here legally. Also, I had ChatGPT make a chart comparing the percentage votes for Trump to the percentage of Republican representatives by state. nine states have about 40% votes for Donald Trump in 2024 and zero house Republican representation. even in light of split votes and such, it doesn’t seem good.
The problem you'll run into is that there actually isn't legal basis for counting or not counting illegals because the concept wasn't historically significant. Republicans absolutely should codify that only citizens count for the census, particularly because lawbreaking shouldn't be rewarded.
But Democrats will call it a "change" and fight it, and their case isn't terrible.
You have highlighted a very important factor of the census and our overall population. Who and how to count for the census exploded with the huge influx of illegals. Ditto was the aspect of entitlements. Sometimes the two go hand in hand, but the massive amounts of illegals into the country the past several years, especially under Biden, have totally changed the calculus for many aspects of our government. Many times, such as with voted representatives or the distribution of government benefits such as food stamps (SNAP). unemployment benefits, hospital and health care. Or. I've seen reports that in some cases, even some social security benefits like disability have been paid out to non-citizens. This is why laws restricting illegals from US government benefits need to be codified by Congress. Especially while the GOP has the votes they do in each house of Congress. From what I've seen, most Dems want illegals to receive benefits. At least in the past, they have used the aspect of those as an attraction for more illegals into the country.
I forgot to mention that I feel giving illegal immigrants driver licenses is dangerous because often these are used as valid ID for the particular illegal immigrant.
I wonder if Florida could have a sale and count tourists.
Agreed.👍
The text of the 14th Amendment is very clear in stating that representatives are to be allocated among the states based on "whole number of persons" -- not limited to citizens, and not limited to persons legally present. It may not make sense to us today, but I think we have to follow the text if we want to have a constitution at all.
I think Congress could call for an extra census, and I think Congress could require respondents to state their immigration status, but I don't think there's any basis to exclude people from the representative allocation just because they're not here legally.
A person is a person. The term "citizen" is used elsewhere in the amendment. If the drafters wanted to refer to citizens only, they would have.
well, I accept your argument that the 14th amendment is clear, but I don’t think it makes sense at this point so I think we need to amend the amendment so that representatives are allocated according to people here legally otherwise there’s a huge benefit of bringing 10,000 illegals in a day as we were doing and then they get more representatives in Congress and then they bring another 10,000 illegals a day and they get more representatives in Congress and so on. not to even mention the electoral college. I’m pretty certain that wasn’t the intention of the amendment. I believe the intention was to include slaves, which made sense 175 years ago.
ChatGPTs take:
Perfect — let’s walk through what a citizen-based apportionment system would look like, compared to the current “all persons” system.
⸻
1. Current System (All Persons Counted)
• Based on the 2020 Census, House seats are divided among states according to their total population — citizens + legal immigrants + undocumented immigrants.
• States with large immigrant populations (California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois) benefit.
⸻
2. If Apportionment Were Based on Citizens Only
We don’t have exact numbers (since the Census doesn’t ask everyone about citizenship), but the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) estimates the non-citizen population at ~20–22 million in 2020, including both legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants.
If those non-citizens were excluded from apportionment:
Likely Losers (lose seats in the House / Electoral College votes):
• California (largest immigrant population, ~5–6 million non-citizens) → could lose 2–3 seats
• Texas (~4.5 million) → could lose 1–2 seats
• Florida (~2.5 million) → could lose 1 seat
• New York (~2 million) → could lose 1 seat
• New Jersey, Illinois → each could lose 1 seat
Likely Winners (gain seats, because their populations are mostly citizens):
• States in the Midwest, Mountain West, and parts of the South would gain.
• Examples: Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, West Virginia, Alabama.
• These are states with relatively few immigrants but solid citizen populations.
⸻
3. Electoral College Impact
• Since Electoral College votes = House seats + Senate seats, the shift would reduce the power of immigrant-heavy states (mostly blue or purple) and increase the power of citizen-heavy states (mostly red or swing).
• Example:
• California currently has 54 electoral votes. Under a citizens-only count, it might drop to ~51.
• Ohio (which lost a seat after 2020) might get one back.
• Montana and West Virginia, which each only have 1 seat, might gain a second.
⸻
4. Political Consequences
• Blue states lose influence, red/swing states gain influence.
• That’s why this issue is so politically charged — it isn’t just about fairness in counting; it could literally flip outcomes in close presidential elections and shift the balance of power in Congress.
⸻
✅ So bottom line:
• The current system benefits immigrant-heavy states by giving them more seats and electoral votes, even though non-citizens don’t vote.
• A citizens-only system would redistribute power toward states with fewer immigrants — mostly Midwest and smaller-population states — and reduce representation for big coastal states.
⸻
Would you like me to put together a map or table showing roughly how many seats each state would gain or lose if we switched to citizen-only apportionment?
Impressive!
Nice work. I like your handle too, though I'm not sure what Liberal or Leftist is anymore. I always thought I was a leftist, because I'm not OK with the $75 trillion the top 10% stole from the bottom 90% of our population in the past 50 years, due to globalization. People who call themselves leftists but spend all day looking for things to be offended by don't give a shit that all the jobs suck, and more and more of the money is going to the rich and super-rich. I don't know WHAT to call them.
Those things that you mentioned are promoted by elite globalists. They’re on the creepy and slippery slope of progressivism. basically, the constitutional line separates them from liberals when you scratch the surface.
I understand your point. Of course the drafters of the amendment didn't anticipate our situation, because there was literally no immigration law at the time. The 14th amendment passed Congress in 1867. The first law restricting immigration was passed in 1872.
I think passing a new amendment is unlikely, but you could try.
I might. Since it would take 60% super majority vote of the House and Senate, we shouldn’t hold our breath, but now is a good time to start talking about it. It’s probably beyond my lifetime before it could happen, but I do think it’s time to talk about it.
The clause excludes "Indians not taxed". "Indians" refer to indigenous people of North America. Is there a "One Drop Rule" that is applied to migrants from Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, etc. who may be of mixed race of "Indians" with European or African ancestors? Is an illegal alien without a legal SS number considered "not taxed"?
Seems to me the simplest way to administer the Census is to count only those with legal Social Security numbers.
You’re probably right. I was just thinking to myself this evening that all of those kazillion visa people that just come over for work visas or whatever I think they’re also in the count. Yikes.
I figure if you're legally paying into the system, you probably ought to be counted. Still can't vote unless you're a citizen. If you're here illegally and evading the law, no way you should be counted for apportionment or districting.
As a thought: Illegal/legal makes no difference in France, England or Germany. The NGO wielding Davos/CCP totalitarianism (at a profit) simply floods the targeted nation with uneducated military aged males to destabilize the society/bankrupt the social system while simply arresting any citizen who protests the crime. Civil liberty disappears and "the people" find themselves without a voice, nation or culture. The Soros/Mayorkas NGO perps, with the help of the Biden/Harris travesty flooded the American Republic with 20 million illegals. If they'd won the election there would have been another 20 million and another 20 million after that.
The Wall Street/Brussels/EU/WEF Davos crowd loves CCP style totalitarianism and Silicon Valley AI is here to help install the managerial/surveillance apparatus that will provide the necessary criminalization of We the People and topple the American Republic.
American infrastructure is in collapse and her industrial cities are crime ridden gutted hulks because International CAPITAL --with the complicity of faux communist political perps like the Clinton/Obama criminals looted the American economy and split town. And they did it/are doing it with the totalitarian machine built with American tax treasure--- crisis to crisis no solutions forthcoming. Example: The DOGE exposure of the USAID spook land creation and placement of political operatives in "pretend" social service organizations inside the American Republic, and out, blew by like nothing was there.-- Our tax dollars at work? The communist mayor of L.A. Karen Bass, the distribution of riot gear to tax funded "rent-a-riot" protestors. And MSM psyop headline after MSM psyop headline that manipulates the American psyche, fills citizens with fear and apprehension draws no conclusion and says nothing.
The "great replacement" is a real thing. Billionaire perps are colonizing the West and destroying its culture--the civilization--and the lives of free peoples everywhere. It's not something else.
The 14th Amendment wasn’t written for aliens but freed slaves- as you know.
Only citizens should have the vote and other citizens benefits.
Right, but technically we're not talking about a right of citizenship here. We're talking about the allocation of representatives to each *state*.
Yes- and for representation in Congress that should only be citizens.
Okay, but that is not what the text says. It says whole number of persons. I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for your constitutional amendment, but I am saying that you are proposing one.
No I’m not.
Here’s what I say;
If the Constitution says suicide pact including slow suicide or if the Constitution gives away my country or cheapens my citizenship then the very parchment itself can burn and we shall have rule of the strongest.
I and anyone else can recant our Oaths and proceed to live on our land without permission from courts, legislatures or any conventions at all…
There’s what I said.
Who is defined as that "person"? Is a tourist a person? Is someone connecting on a flight through an airport a "person"? Can a person be counted in multiple states? Simple words often have several meanings.
“political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” [Orwell]
By the argument presented then every tourist should also be counted, likewise any that are here on legitimate visas.
If it is a certainty that the meaning of the 14th Amendment is clear, then there is no better argument for the urgent need for mass deportations. We can no longer allow the Democrats to game the system.
maybe let’s worry about the constitutional amendment to the 14th later. For now I do think we have a representation crisis and also a dependence crisis, so let’s take the mid-decade count a couple ways. Sure maybe it’s just only people with Social Security numbers versus those that don’t have Social Security numbers whatever it is I think we should do the counts and the analysis and that will help inform whether an amendment needs to happen or how it should happen, but let’s just do the count and not worry about the amendment part up front.
Agreed. Let's see what the numbers are.
Silly, archaic and stupid by both of these criminal orgs called political parties. The difference between the two who is licking whose boots.
The real issue is fiscal bankruptcy-state and city. Not sure how states cannot go into bankruptcy if they’re unable to pay their obligations or bills (states cannot print money). The federal level is bankrupt too, by both parties.
They’ll squeeze every single penny from the working and professional classes until the U.S. is pre-Meili Argentina.
https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/Financial-State-of-the-States-2024.pdf
But mostly they'll squeeze the working classes. Of course, the professional classes, unless they are elite, are just more working class dogs.
They are going to squeeze the lead out of them if they are not careful.
Hooray! I think Timelines are a great public service, and I'm glad we have a new one after a few months.
This timeline starts 213 years too late.
Democrats have dominated the gerrymandering wars historically, spending much of the latter half of the 20th century garnering far more seats than their vote share suggested. For example, in 1976 they had 55.9% of the nationwide house vote and got 67.1% of the seats.
Republicans finally fought fire with fire in the 1990s, and recent decades have seen the two sides each get about the number of seats that their vote share suggests. Overall, though, there are about 25 blue state Republicans and 50 red state Democrats, so if both parties go all out, Republicans have more to gain. Which is expected, since they have more small states.
Gerrymandering is one of those wedge issues that the parties like to keep in their back pocket go whip out to stir up their voters. If either side actually cared about representative democracy, they'd be pushing for more districts like the framers intended.
This is really just a resolution problem. The more smaller districts you have, the harder it is to gerrymander them. There are so many problems that would be solved or minimized if we just increased the number of house seats.
AGREE.
Or decrease the size, control, and power of the federal government and let states and local governments handle more. The fed should do the absolute bare minimum such as border security, national defense, etc. A whopping 80% of the money raised/spent in the 2020 Georgia run off election for senate came from out of state. So who really chose the senators for Georgia? Keep politics local.
Why not both?
One reason not to add representation is because the salary for each congressperson is $174k per year plus benefits/perks. Then you add in the staff, additional office space, larger chambers, etc. and the costs really start to add up. Plus, if one of the objectives is to minimize the role/control of the federal government and boost the role of state and local governments, it would make more sense to let states and locals decide to expand their state representation if they desire. It doesn't make sense to me to increase federal representation while shrinking the role/control of the federal government. Some state legislatures only meet a few weeks a year and still manage to handle the issues of their state. That's what's great about empowering the states to operate how they see fit... no one size fits all. This way, ones that are successful will attract more residents/businesses, and ones that are not will likely lose residents and be forced to adapt to more successful governing. We're seeing that to some degree now with people fleeing CA and NY for other states with more affordable cost of living, better business environments, etc.
That's a good point. I wonder how many Congressional districts we would have, if each one were representing the same average number of registered voters as it did when the number first became 435.
It's not really fair to start a redistricting timeline with the Texas redistricting, because that is mostly a reaction to countless decades of heavy Democrat gerrymandering. It wasn't the first tit by a longshot. Gerrymandering is only becoming an issue now that the Republicans finally decided to respond.
And the Democrats did a particularly heavy round of gerrymandering after the 2020 census, while the Republicans did not. (And let's not forget that everyone agrees that the last census "accidentally" overcounted all of the big blue states, and undercounted most of the big red states, which is also giving the Democrats a completely unjustifiable overrepresentation). As things stand now, my understanding is that North Carolina is the only red state that has a significant gerrymander. And I've read that if everyone dropped gerrymandering, that would likely net the Republicans between 20 and 30 seats. But who knows if that was accurate. But it's still pretty clear that our current map is heavily gerrymandered in the Democrats favor.
And it would be great to get rid of gerrymandering altogether, and not just because I'm a Republican so that would work to my partisan advantage. Everyone hates it. And I suspect that representatives would be much more responsive to community needs if they were subject to competitive elections. It's also very undemocratic to have the govt choose its constituents rather than the other way around. (And the whole illegal immigration controversy is another manifestation of that problem, as the Democrats attempt to replace the nation's current population with one that is more likely to support them).
The big problem though is finding an effective mechanism to prevent gerrymandering. The supposedly independent "nonpartisan" commissions that some states use don't seem to provide any benefit, because then issue just becomes who gets to select the members of these commissions, and what kind of a say the minority has. And it's likely to be the legislature that does this, or some other body controlled by the legislature. So it's just the legislature pretending to delegate the work to someone else. Take the examples of Texas and California. Even after the current gerrymander, Texas will still be less gerrymandered than California currently is, and the California districts were drawn by an independent commission. And California will be insanely more gerrymandered than Texas if they pass the proposed changes.
The only thing that I can think of that might work is to develop some reasonably objective criteria that everyone agrees on for boundary-drawing, and then just apply those criteria mechanically. This way there would be no discretion on the part of the legislatures. Some obvious criteria here would be following city, community and county boundaries, rivers, mountains, etc, as well as keeping districts as compact as possible. Although it's hard to imagine the Democrats ever agreeing to something that doesn't give them a big advantage. And I can also see this approach failing miserably.
Wouldn't tit-for-tat be unnecessary if only actual citizens voted? Why not focus on an "election day" and in-person voting with legitimate (not Soros funded folks) ids? Until we ditch the mail-ins and machines, this will all be for naught and Gavin might have to look at the state of his state.
Exhaustive and exhausting
Gerrymandering on it face seems undemocratic. Manipulating districts for the sole purpose of political gain doesn't fit easily into a democratic electoral process. Both parties are guilty. The fact that the Supreme Court court, other than prohibiting gerrymandering on racial lines, has never taken a principled stand on gerrymandering by either side, except to say its not judicially feasible to create a judicial standard which, IMO, is an abdication of its authority, not to mention spineless. It would seem that every election becomes more about winning and less about participating in a democratic process where citizens have the real freedom to choose.
Simple game theory says that CA passing the new map is the end of its Independent Redistricting Commission.
If the new map passes, CA will be D +44 through 2030.
CA is expected to lose four seats after the 2030 census, dropping them to 48. Maintaining D+44 will be critical because red states will gain seats and increase their gerrymanding. CA Dems will not accept "adding" to the Republican majority, but the independent commission will not accept a D46/R2 map.
The precedent to override the commission had been set in 2025 and a 2031 special election will be held to use D+44 maps.
One nit: The KCRA reporter is Ashley Zavala (with an "L"). She is an outstanding reporter who tries to hold CA government accountable.
It's the system, stupid! Remember, there's a reason that people can believe anything, it's baked in to the genome. That being said, the system is becoming so egrigeously corrupt it's amazing that people still believe in it
I suggest a dose of George Carlin!
Nobody should decide districts/ pick their voters, instead of the other way around. In today's world everybody's a partisan, judges it appears especially. There should be some kind of generic formula, a division of each state into rectangles with x number of voters. Kind of like pin the tail on the donkey.
In the 2020 Census illegal aliens were counted in California which gave Californa two extra congressional seats. Lots of rumors that they were also registered to vote. California now only has mail in voting so there is a lot of opportunity for voter harvesting and manipulation of ballots as there doesn't seem to be much in the way of validating voter signatures.
I remember in the 2020 Presidential election a Las Vegas Revue Journalist signed 9 discarded ballots and 8 of them went through...an 89% failure rate on verifying voter signatures. https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/victor-joecks/victor-joecks-clark-county-election-officials-accepted-my-signature-on-8-ballot-envelopes-2182390/