[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 83 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: D7m-sEvX4AECn5g.jpg (112 KB, 960x540)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
Newly revealed documents appeared to confirm Thursday what many critics had long suspected — that the Trump administration’s drive to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census began as a plan to bolster Republicans and to undercut Democrats in state legislatures and Congress.

Thomas Hofeller, a Republican expert on redistricting and gerrymandering, died last year in North Carolina. His daughter found documents on his computer hard drive urging the Commerce Department to change the census to ask all residents about whether they are citizens.

With this data, states could draw new election maps based on the number of eligible voters, not the total population. That “would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” and “would clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats,” he wrote.

His advice came to light Thursday because the Supreme Court is weighing whether to uphold the Trump administration’s plan to add a citizenship question to next year’s census.

Federal district judges in New York, San Francisco and Baltimore blocked the move, holding that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had not put forth a legitimate explanation for such a significant change.

Census Bureau experts had predicted that millions of immigrants would refuse to answer the question, for fear of drawing attention, thereby creating a severe undercount in some areas.

Lawyers who challenged the proposed question noted that the Constitution calls for “an actual enumeration” that includes “counting the whole number of persons in each state.”

But when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April in the case of Department of Commerce vs. New York, the five conservative justices sounded ready to rule for the administration.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-census-republican-advantage-20190530-story.html
>>
American Civil Liberties Union lawyers sent a letter to Judge Jesse Furman, who handled the New York case, saying that this “new evidence contradicts the sworn testimony” of two advisors to Ross who concealed Hofeller’s role. Since 2015, Hofeller had been urging Republicans to add a citizenship question to the next census.

The ACLU lawyers said Mark Neuman, an advisor to Ross, had consulted Hofeller and said he believed the citizenship question would “maximize” representation for the “Latino community.” They said both Neuman and Hofeller knew it “would have exactly the opposite effect. It would disadvantage Latinos and benefit ‘Non-Hispanic Whites.’”

On Thursday afternoon, the lawyers sent a letter to the Supreme Court alerting the justices to the new information.

“We always had suspicions about the real motive of the administration, but this is the clearest evidence we have that the genesis of this was an effort to dilute minority voting power,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “The real reason behind this was the opposite of what they were saying.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman issued a statement saying that "these 11th-hour allegations by the plaintiffs … are false.” She said the government lawyer had "never heard of the unpublished study" cited in the documents and it "played no role" in the 2017 recommendation to add the citizenship question.

Ross told Congress that he chose to add the citizenship question in order to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Sometimes, when judges are called upon to redraw new voting districts, they want to know whether an area has enough African American or Latino voters to elect a minority representative.

Voting rights experts scoffed at this explanation. For decades, judges have relied on data from the American Community Survey, an ongoing survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau into the nation’s changing workforce, population and housing.
>>
>>405359
>Republicans still want to rape the government and voting
More news at 11
>>
If the Supreme Court upholds the added citizenship question, the change would probably hurt California through a loss of federal funds and one or more of its seats in Congress. This would be the result if large number of immigrant families were not counted in the census.

But the California state Legislature, unlike in Texas or Florida, is not likely to change how it draws electoral districts. The Supreme Court has left it to states to decide whether they want to count the total population or just eligible voters.

Hofeller was renowned as an expert on redistricting, and he now figures to play a key role in the two biggest cases pending before the high court.

He helped draw North Carolina’s gerrymandered election map, which gave Republicans a grip on 10 of 13 seats in Congress. A three-judge panel rejected the map as unconstitutional and said it was deliberately designed to entrench Republicans in power while diluting the voting strength of Democrats.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the state’s appeal in Rucho vs. Common Cause, and the justices sounded closely split during oral arguments in late March.

Hofeller’s daughter told the North Carolina lawyers of what she found on her father’s computer, and they in turn informed those who were working on the census case.

Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said the “evidence reveals that the plan to add the citizenship question was hatched by the Republicans’ chief redistricting mastermind to create an electoral advantage for Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.”

The dispute that came to light Thursday began about five years ago. Census data will be used to redraw election districts all across the country in 2021, and some conservative activists argued that these districts should be drawn based on the number of eligible voters, not the total population.
>>
But when the Supreme Court debated this idea in a Texas case three years ago, several justices objected, noting the government did not have precise block-by-block data on voters because the census counts all residents, regardless of whether they are citizens who are eligible to vote.

That case, Evenwel vs. Abbott, could have had a significant impact in California if the justices had ruled for the conservative challengers. They said the court should enforce the one-person, one-vote rule by requiring that election districts have an equal number of voters.

In California, Texas and elsewhere, many of the state, local and congressional districts have large numbers of immigrants, and these districts tend to favor Democrats.

Redrawing the electoral map based on the number of adult citizens would shrink the number of Democratic districts and tilt the balance in favor of Republicans, Hofeller said.

But Justice Antonin Scalia died while the Texas case was pending, and the justices handed down a limited ruling. They all agreed states may continue to draw districts based on the total population, not the count of eligible voters.

However, they left open the possibility that some states could choose that other option in the future.

Citing that experience, Hofeller urged Republicans to plan ahead and to collect citizenship data in the next census.
>>
I wonder how SCOTUS is gonna twist itself into knots to get this through now that this is out.
>>
There isn't nearly enough room in hell for Republicans
>>
>>405398
They'll simply not pay any attention to it. They'll claim it's not relevant to the legal issue at hand.
>>
>>405427
That's not what it says in the constitution. Congressional apportionment is decided by population, not just the citizen or voting population. The only exception were slaves, but slavery is of course illegal now.

What happened to Republicans loving the constitution? Could it be that it only matters when it's politically convenient for them?
>>
Bump for cucked incel Republicans.
>>
>>405490
>it only matters when politically convenient to them
Pretty much. Exact same as any other political party. Take liberties with the text when passing your favored laws and take a literalists stance when arguing against those of your opposition. Standard politics and I don't see why you are only just now noticing it
>>
>>405359
>His daughter found documents on his computer hard drive
They were just sitting right there on the desktop folder named "evil stuff2-edited-finalFINAL2" which also contained a recipe for pineapple pizza and a photo of a sad puppy, I'm sure.
>urging the Commerce Department to change the census to ask all residents about whether they are citizens
So the Department of Commerce already has copies that were discoverable.
>Thomas Hofeller, a Republican expert on redistricting and gerrymandering, died last year
So I guess we can't verify the authenticity or know his actual motivations without a séance. How convenient!
>>
Needing to be a citizen of the country whose leader you vote for? Pure madness, FASCISM!
>>
This is what living in a dystopia is like.
>>
>>405621
>I can't read
>>
>>405490
>People who came here in defiance of our laws should be allowed to make our laws

How is someone as stupid as you even able to use a computer?
>>
>>405359
>Democrats try to inflate population counts and # of Reps in house by letting illegals slide under radar in census
>this would overwhelmingly over-represent certain states in the house and would disenfranchise other states
>Accuse Republicans blocking their attempts of attempting to "disenfranchise Democrat voters", despite it being illegal for non-citizens to vote.

If you treat this and every other attempt at leftist agitprop as something built on a foundation of "Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals", you can work backwards and discover the truth of the matter.

Case in point- accuse your enemies of that which you yourself are guilty of.
>>
>>405651
>Case in point- accuse your enemies of that which you yourself are guilty of.
So the Republicans are guilty of just about everything, then? They fling more accusations than anyone, with the POTUS being the worst.
>>
>>405657
Second case in point- this post
>>
>>405633
I didn't say anything about how it should be, retard. I just said what's in the constitution.
>>
>>405677
I know it's arguable, but when it said "a states count" I'm not sure it meant people who were here just temporarily, you know tourists, foreign dignitaries, visiting military regiment, people temporarily here on a Visa for people who have overstayed said visa
>>
>>405427
>Sorry, but if you're not a citizen you don't get representation in our Congress end of story
Ironically what the 3/5ths compromise was all about, slave owning states wanted their slaves to count despite having no rights just so they could literally buy more seats in government
>>
>>405659
>If I accuse them of accusing me of accusing them of accusing others of doing something, they'll surely look guilty!
You realize you're doing the same thing you're accusing others of doing, yes?
>>
>>405607
Because they're citizens, why should we let hillbillies that have almost no contact with the outside world vote? Why let non native americans vote anyway?
If white people want representation then fuck off back to europe.
>>
>>405743
You know, his position was blatantly retarded to begin with. You didn't need to go full sperg and only made yourself look a fool by doing so
>>
>>405746
t. hillbilly
>his position was blatantly retarded
Then attack it so retards don't immediately say "yeah I agree, fuck people that have a different skin color."
>>
>>405750
he posted it 9 hours ago. You are a little late to accomplish your stated goal. No one cared then, and no one cares now. Get over yourself
>>
>>405757
Better late than never, anon.
>>
it really bothers me that CNN didn't bother to evenly space the candidates' portraits across the screen
>>
>>405633
>>People who came here in defiance of our laws should be allowed to make our laws
literally not at all what is being argued
>>
>>405646
>>405678
>whole number of free people

>Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
>>
>>405596
you want an investigation into the commerce department to verify the authenticity? i know you faggots would just say its a witch hunt and anyone involved in investigating will hang for treason
>>
>>405607
>>405621
it has nothing to do with who can vote
>>
>>405651
>>Democrats try to inflate population counts and # of Reps in house by letting illegals slide under radar in census
you mean as stipulated in the constitution? >>405930
>>
bump
>>
>>405933
But it DOES help decide the number of Electors for the Electoral College.
>>
>>405738

I'm absolutely positive that the irony is lost on him.
>>
>>407075

Too bad the constitution doesn't just say "Citizens" instead of "Persons", huh?
>>
>>407082
You expect them to have read the constitution? I am pretty sure they have only read the 2A which reads:
>A something something that we ignore, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>>
>>407087

Well they're right about that. The constitution doesn't say that only a militia can have guns. It says that a militia is necessary for freedom, not that ownership of arms is contingent upon membership.
>>
>>407087
The opening is justifying the importance of the right to bear arms.
http://www.libertygunrights.com/2-A_Meaning_pg2.gif
>>
>>407087
If there was a clause in the Constitution that read "a free and vibrant press being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to own typewriters shall not be infringed" would on it's face protect the right of everybody, including those not working with the press, to own typewriters, even if the only thing you did with it was write shitty fanfiction.
>>
>>407089
>>407091
>>407096
>the individual rights approach is the only one
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=United%20States%20V%20Miller&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html
>>
>>405359
>oh no! If they ask illegals to identify themselves those same illegals (who are not supposed to be allowed to vote in the first place) might be scared to vote, and the Democratic Party will be ruined! Waah! Not fair!

They're not even trying to hide it at this point.
>>
>>407120
>a census is the same as voting
This isn’t /pol/, idiots are not coddled.
>>
>>407122
Did you even read the article? They're butthurt about illegal heads not being counted because doing so would benefit Republicans. What kind of criminal organization relies on the support of criminals to keep itself going?
>>
>>407125
Yup, read it. And the census remains a census not something people vote in.
Yes, I understand that not following the constitution would benefit republicans.
>>
>>407125
Because non-citizens not being counted would reduce a state's population for the purposes of congressional reapportionment, thus giving Republicans more voting power. It has nothing to do with non-citizens voting,

>but reapportionment shouldn't include non-citizens in a state's population anyways

Well the constitution disagrees.
>>
>>407823
>not being counted
They're still being counted.
>but reapportionment shouldn't include non-citizens in a state's population anyways
>Well the constitution disagrees.
In this, my communist shithead, we agree. But citizenship status is a very important data point when considering legislation.
>>
I wonder how this will affect prison counties. If only eligible voters count, does that mean republicans can't bus all the poor people out to the state prison to boost their numbers?
>>
>>407823
besides the entire fact that the only reason they would not be counted is if they chose not to be, congressional representation is for citizens of the united states.
a citizen of Ecuador is entitled to absolutely zero representation in our congress, and thus for the purposes of congressional reapportionment they should be ignored
>>
>>407823
>Well the constitution disagrees.
no it does not, it is vague on the subject.
it says "a states count"
I dont think many people would agree that "a states count" meants every one who is there temporarily, such as diplomats, tourists, visiting businessmen, or people who are overstaying any sort of permission to stay temporarily, such as a visa
>>
>>405930
>Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
that was overwritted by the 14th ammendment.
it says "a states count" now
>>
>>407880
The 14th amendment says: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. "
>>
>>407888
>their respective numbers
>a state's count
close enough for coming from memory, you overly pedantic faggot
the point remains that it is somewhat vague.
does "according to their respective numbers" mean every tourist, dignitary, and travelling businessman, and other temporary visitors (read: people who have overstayed visas) that happens to be in the state?
because if so, we are counting all wrong
if not, then there is no problem with that is being proposed
>>
>dead man who can no longer refute alleged claims on his part allegedly makes claims

wow
>>
>conservatives want the citizenship question so the dems don't get reps!
>implying dems don't want the question gone specifically so they'll get reps

it's the only reason the democratic party cares. It's not like they're banning noncitizens from filling out the census, they're just asking if they're citizens, which only matters if you're a non-citizen who's also an illegal resident, in which case they don't deserve jack shit except a bus ride over the border (or plane for the rare non SA illegal).

It's a scheme by the dem party to turn red border states blue
>>
>>407877
>a citizen of Ecuador is entitled to absolutely zero representation in our congress, and thus for the purposes of congressional reapportionment they should be ignored

Sorry, the constitution says otherwise! There's more to it than just the second amendment, you know?
>>
>>407879
>Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Non citizens are certainly "free Persons".
>>
>>405359
>Congress should represent the electorate and not illegals
Is there nothing more traitorous and evil than the GOP?
>>
>>407900
100
This is absolutely correct
>>
>>407938
>Sorry, the constitution says otherwise! There's more to it than just the second amendment, you know?
No, it does not
The 14th amendment does not say this
>>
Arguing for Congressional representation for people who are not citizens is one of the most retarded things someone could argue for unless if they are trying to take advantage of the system.
Were this openly allowed Israel would literally own the us legislature
>>
The reason the census doesn't include just American citizens is due to the three-fifths slavery compromise. Now the South's slave party is trying to screw the Union again by counting illegals since the census was never updated after the slaves were emancipated.
>>
>>407967
This.
It's absolutely insane to argue for legislative representation for people who are not citizens.
>>
>>407971
Some would argue that acknowledging and accounting for the actual number of people who live in a specific area is a more common sense legislative policy then simply pretending they don't exist. I'm not arguing that we should simply do nothing about illegal aliens. I'm simply saying that the number of people who live in an area is a really important thing to take into account when forming and legislation. I don't see the benefit in pretending an area isn't as populated as it is simply because a certain percentage of its inhabitants aren't legal citizens. It seems as though the maintenance of local infrastructure would really depend on the amount of people its serving. As the captain of a plane I'd want to know how many people are on my plane. This lets me know how much fuel I need, what my total weight is etc., The fact that some people may not have purchased tickets doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that I need to acknowledge every passenger in order to do my job accurately and efficiently.
>>
>>407977
>I'm not arguing that we should simply do nothing about illegal aliens.
Ok fair.

But are you arguing they should get Congressional representation?
If so, then should this extend to all temporary persons like tourists and travelling businessmen

If not, what do you propose to prevent their numbers from going towards Congressional districts?
>>
>>407977
The census is voluntary so you'll never know how many people are in the country.
>>
>>407971
I agree 100%
The founding fathers were retarded. Once we strip this out of the constitution we can move on to the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Will you join me in fixing this insane constitution of ours?
>>
>>407985
>But are you arguing they should get Congressional representation?
Refer back to my plane metaphor. From a purely operational standpoint our government needs to account for the actual number of people living in a county or state to accurately and efficiently manage its infrastructure. I don't see the benefit in pretending like these people aren't there. Ultimately, if you aren't a citizen you don't get Congressional representation. Non-citizens don't get to participate in voting. Do I think that the number Congressional representatives should be proportionate to the actual number of people living in an area regardless of citizenship? Yes. Do I believe that non-citizens should be included in our Democracy? No. To an extent, while they are here, their existence and impact on our communities are something we can't ignore. That doesn't mean I believe they should get to vote, have driver's licenses or qualify for state and local assistance. If they want all of those privileges they need to become citizens.

>If so, then should this extend to all temporary persons like tourists and traveling businessmen
The census occurs once every 10 years, anon, not every time someone crosses the county lines.
>>
>>407971
>>408034

You people are retarded

Remember the 3/5 Compromise where SLAVES WERE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS DESPITE NOT BEING CITIZENS?

They literally included a way of COUNTING NONCITIZENS
>>
>>408047
Slaves were counted because it was essential that the represent Constitution respect how important their owners were. The slaves themselves didn't matter, it was a measure of how much of a stake the owners had in society and thus how much their voices should count.
>>
>>408047
Yep. I'm pretty sure there are some articles from the founding fathers themselves that made it prudent to count immigrants and non citizens not only in the census, but as voters.
>>
>>405359
Why would it matter anyway? Wouldn't they just lie and say there were citizens? And before anyone brings up the fact that 'lying on a census form is illegal', look up how many people have been prosecuted for it...here's a hint, it's ZERO.
>>
>>408077
>And before anyone brings up the fact that 'lying on a census form is illegal', look up how many people have been prosecuted for it...here's a hint, it's ZERO.

Consider the possibility that we shouldn't put anything past this administration. If any administration was likely to begin rounding up people based on false census forms it would be this one.
>>
>>408077
>Wouldn't they just lie and say there were citizens?


Because most of them are uneducated, and likely don't even speak enough English to fill out the form. And if the form is in Spanish anyway they still might not understand that there are essentially no consequences for lying on it.
>>
I think we can all agree a house in Congress based on proportionality was a mistake and we should go back to a system where each state only got one vote in Congress.
>>
>>407985

They shouldn't get congressional representation, but their living there produces a social, economic, and environmental impact on the region that is difficult to evaluate without an accurate census.
>>
>>408064

This sounds suspiciously like the argument for corporate lobbying.
>>
If you're not a citizen you don't get representation here. It's simple. Does this hurt Democrats?

Probably. They have to resort to catering to foreign invaders to be relevant.

Fuck off.
>>
>>408246

This is just a generic "damage cities" thing from Republicans.

Its an attempt to de-legitimize spending on and the power of urban areas, which are most economically viable, useful and productive.
>>
>>408246
The churches do the same thing. They can't con anymore locals into joining their flock so they import illegals to fill their coffers and increase their political power in relevant countries.
>>
>>408154
t. Delaware
>>
>>408252
>Its an attempt to de-legitimize spending on and the power of urban areas
No it's literally not.
One would only argue for giving foreign Nationals representation in your own legislature if there were some sort of ulterior motive
And in this case you said it quite well: get more money and power
The attempt isn't to delegitimize Urban spending, the attempt is to not have legislature representing non-american interests
>>
>>408246
The Constitution requires the counting of all persons, not just citizens, and the Republicans explicitly added the citizenship question in order to make the census a less accurate count of all persons, violating the Constitution.
>>
>>408336
Yes, that was the conspiracy theory the left was pushing awhile ago but OP contradicts that. They want to know exactly how many illegals there are and where so they can give the power back to the people through appropriate redistricting.
>>
>>408345
>following the constitution is a conspiracy theory
>I is smart
>>
>>408354
No, the conspiracy theory is the GOP's motivation for adding back a question previously on the census. It turns out the Left was wrong.
>>
>>408336
The Constitution doesn't say you can't ask if they are citizen
Retard
>>
>>408324
This
>>
they're getting ready to gerry mander, they have software that changes the lines by a single block every year to come out on top.
That and they'll send their human paper shredders to the swing states just like last time.
>>
>>407894
it says immediately after "counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed". there's nothing vague about it, even complete morons know the difference between a person and a citizen, you dont think the people writing and amending the constitution would take that difference into consideration?
>>
>>409499
>counting the whole number of persons in each state
there is absolutely vagueness here.
do you think "whole persons in each state" is supposed to mean tourists as well?
what about a person passing thru from point a to point b?
what about foreign invading armies?
I dont think this is what was intended with the 14th
its asinine to argue for foreign nationals to get legislative representation.
>>
>>408361
Your word soup is hard to understand.
I will try to make it simple:
Constitution says must count all persons.
Things that make not counting all persons is unconstitutional.
>b-b-but it was a thing before
So were Jim Crow laws and you don’t want those brought back do yo-
Never mind, don’t answer that.
>>
>>407967
Yes, conservatives reap what they sow.
>>
These media sources have a slight to moderateliberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes)to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Overall, we rate the LA Times, Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions that favor the left and High for factual reporting due to a clean fact check record.
Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
>>
>>409588
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/la-times-los-angeles-times/
>>
>>409546
>Topic of discussion is adding a new question to the census
>This somehow gets strawmanned into selectively choosing not counting people during the census
Yeah sorry nothing in the Constitution says we cant ask if they're a citizen
>>
The strawmanning in this thread is mind-blowing
Nowhere in any suggested legislation does it say we should not be counting people
It says we should ask an additional question which is completely legal and okay
>>
>>409596
The amount of willing ignorance is also great. When you have hordes of people claiming partisan power moves on a national level is completely fine and defend it.
>>
>>409656
And what of the hordes of people claiming that the collection of an additional demographic data point constitutes a partisan power grab of nation-sundering levels?
>>
>>409656
>willing ignorance
Okay, educate me. What do you think will be the results of knowing how many illegals are resident in country? And why should I fear those results?
>>
>>409656
The strawmanning in this thread is mind-blowing
Nowhere in any suggested legislation does it say we should not be counting people
It says we should ask an additional question which is by no means a partisan power grab, and to not want to know the answer to that question is absolutely willful ignorance
>>
>>409661
You mean beyond the man behind the strategy himself?
>>
>>409674
I think you misread what he said
Try again
>>
>>409661
>people that aren't citizens and cant vote legally should

>.... be given the same right to vote and determine my country's leadership as me?
>>
>>409679
1769: No taxation without representation!
2019: Representation without taxation!
Sigh.
>>
>>409684
The biggest reason they stay illegal is so they don't pay taxes and under report their income if they do. Then they get government benefits and paid under the table by their employers.


But yes, let's get rid of the income tax, I would honestly love that.
>>
>>409688
> Then they get government benefits
You have to prove residency and citizenship when applying for state benefits.
>>
>>409690
>You have to prove residency and citizenship when applying for state benefits.
Bwahahaha!
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2014/08/15/how-immigrants-without-legal-status-can-pay-for-college
>>
>>405359
>disenfranchize democrat voters
>by looking at whos illegal and who is legal
huh?
>>
>>409593
>strawman
Nope. The rest of your argument, such as it was, collapses. Try again?
>>
>>409715
Exactly the whole discussion in here is one giant retarded strawman
>>
>>409737
Kek, such profound rebuttal!! How can Anon ever recover from your mighty "Nope."
Go dilate tranny, and once you're done get rekt
>>
>>409742
>it is a staw man
>it just is
There is nothing to reply to fren. If you had articulated why it was a strawman then there could be a reply other than “nope”.
>>
>>409676
Oh he's basically saying breaking the law is fine as long as its his party and assumes I share the same view?
>>
>>409691
> State benefits
> University tuition
Hello again, Britbong.

Clue: University tuition isn't free in the US. And yes, in order for federal student loans, you need to provide SSN.
>>
>>409754
No you dont. You just need a tax Id number. Also illegal parents, come I and have a 'legal' kid then claim benefits for him for food and rent and healthcare and utilities
>>
>>409754
>University tuition isn't free in the US.
Uhh huh, uhh huh. Did you miss the part where these people are in public schools?
>>
>>409763
Public university in the US is still very expensive.
>>
>>409764
Super. You want to get back to the point that illegal immigrants are collecting state benefits without paying taxes?
>>
>>409764
It didnt use to be.
>>
>>409754
I know specifically for the UC system in California you will get your tuition for free specifically if you are an undocumented immigrant.
Of course if you are a documented resident do you pay for your tuition
so what this really means is if you're undocumented your tuition is paid for by the documented people
>>
>>405633
You realize it's perfectly legal for someone to come here, own property here, and work here even if they aren't a citizen right? Immigrants often come here first, apply for citizenship, and wait years for it to be approved.
>>
>>405777
not him but you're a fag. Post less
>>
>>407823
>thus giving republicans more power
and dems want every illegal to fill out the census because they'd get more power. They don't give a shit about constitutional arguments or what's "right", those are merely the clothes worn by their true intentions, which change as often as public opinion does. Don't pretend anybody has the moral highground in this
>>
>>407888
>excluding indians, not taxed
well there's a precedent for excluding certain groups, is it because the indians were not taxed that they were excluded? If so, does that imply all non-taxpayers should be excluded? Pill me on this
>>
>>409875
this 100%
the question comes down to: "should we give foreign nationals representation in our legistlature?"
depending on the answer of this, maybe we should consider ammending the consitution (which will never happen because regardless of what most people thing the answer to the question may be, if one party profits by it, and the other doesnt, then morals be damned, it wont pass)
>>
>>407977
it's not like non-citizens are banned from filling it out. If you have a green card or a visa, nobody's gonna knock on your door for not being a citizen. It's only illegal residents who have anything to fear, and they should be carted off anyways. Not like they're required to fill it out, either
>>
>>408117
makes me wonder how many illegals would bother with the census anyways, question or no question
>>
>Republicans want to find out how many illegals there are
>Democrats be like "if you only knew how bad it really was..."
>>
>>409880
your arguing with idiots who are trying to turn a simple demographic question into a constitutional crisis with their strawmaning, gas lighting and transvestite dilation
>>
>>409754
makes you wonder why there's been an uptick in ID theft, eh?
>>
>>405359
You cannot "disenfranchise" a person who has no right to a franchise. The act of allowing a person to vote illegally is disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and that already happened on a large scale.
>>
>>409889
Don't most places have you either show Id or register to vote?how do people know illegals are going to vote in any significant numbers?
>>
>>409892
in the states where illegal voting is thought to happen, california for example, one can register to vote at the voting place and asking for identification of any sort at any spot along the registration or voting process is illegal
cuz you know, supreshun n sheit
>>
>>409893
> in the states where illegal voting is thought to happen, california for example
Got any evidence of illegal voting actually happening in meaningful numbers?
>>
>>409944
they have only brought criminal charges against smaller numbers of specific individuals over the last few years, but i mean its hard to get proof of something when the act of verifying it remains illegal
>>
>>409946
>act of verifying it remains illegal
Can I see the source for this? I want to epic own my libtard friends
>>
>>409955
>violating your rights to verify it will totally own my libtard friends epic style
>>
>>409946
>they have only brought criminal charges against smaller numbers of specific individuals over the last few years
Oh yeah all those Republicans that keep getting caught cheating
>>
>>409956
If they ask me for an Id and proof of citizenship I wouldn't have any rights violated.
>>
>>409955
>>409956
>>409967
I just want like a legal stipulation or something. Something really concrete. Haha I can't wait to see the looks on their faces.
>>
>>409944
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
>>
>>409955
Literally just Google anything about California laws and verifying voters
there have been people arrested here for registering their pets to vote, only because they have bragged about it on social media otherwise it goes completely under the radar because it's illegal to verify that the individual is able to vote when registering
>>
>>409973
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Cudahy-Officials-Corruption-Bribery-Ballots-Voting-162259065.html
>>
>>409957
No, it's mostly been Democrats in smaller elections
>>
>>409973
On October 10, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1461, also known as the New Motor Voter Act. The legislation authorized automatic voter registration in California for any individuals who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to acquire or renew a driver's license. The law was scheduled to take effect in 2016.[2][3]

BTW 2016 was when they allowed illegal aliens to get drivers licenses .. maybe a year or two earlier I'm not sure
>>
>>405359
>With this data, states could draw new election maps based on the number of eligible voters, not the total population.
this is bad?
>>
>>410024
Democrats would probably lose 10 to 20% of their representation in Congress if only american citizens were considered
>>
>>410022
>drivers licenses
but the bill is for operating a motor vehicle, it says it cannot be used for any other state/ federal purposes - plus the word illegal isn't even an option
>>
>>410029
I think the main point is that anyone can register in California to vote and anyone may vote
>>
Yeah it would be a clear disadvantage to dems if unvetted undocumented Random non-citizens could stop being manipulated and voting for them ... would be a real disadvantage to dance if they had to stop using illegal votes lol .. because the majority of American citizens are not voting Democrat ..
>>
>>410056
but that's wrong, that's not how registering to vote works.
>>
>>410027
>I have an opinion
If you could just back it up with facts, which - you cannot.
Did you know that Republicans will lose 13.4% of their representation once those over 70 years old die?
t. Demographics
>>
>>409946
> This thing is totally happening, you just have to trust me! Proof? Well of course I don't have proof because this isn't something you can prove, but you should trust me anyway!
>>
>>410062
>but that's wrong, that's not how registering to vote works.
o really?
>https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2019/06/07/california-man-dogs-dead-father-vote-voter-fraud-elections-pacific-grove/3672406002/
this was 3 days ago a guy registered his dogs and dead father
California has set up their system to be purposefully susceptible to voter fraud
>>
>>410101
Did you even read your own source? They rejected all of his fucking applications, he never fucking registered fake people for anything, he sent in applications and they all got denied right away
>>
>>410077
Lol literally who cares
Your comparing legal voting citizens to illegal voting citizens
>>
>>410101
>Republican voter attempts voter fraud
>fails
/pol/acks:
>California has ze voter fraud!!!!!!!
Calmly explain that the attempted voter fraud didn’t work.
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
2019 ladies and gentlemen
>>
>>410120
>They rejected all of his fucking applications, he never fucking registered fake people for anything, he sent in applications and they all got denied right away
No

After registering Pfeiffer didn't result in the change he wanted to see, Davis kept going.

In the following years he registered another golden retriever, Chantarelle (like the mushroom), and then two more dogs in succession: Rocky and Cooper. Finally, he registered his father, Eugene William Davis, a retired military officer suffering from dementia who he and his wife cared for in his final years.

Davis registered him, as well as the retrievers, as Democrats in Monterey County. He believed he'd have an easier time registering them as Democrats, since California and Monterey County in particular lean heavily blue, he said.

Both the words registered and registering are used.
He registered his dogs
>>
>>405359
>That “would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” and “would clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats,” he wrote

Wow they literally admit the democratic party is benefiting and encouraging voter fraud by getting illegal aliens to vote. Its not like we didn't know this already, but it's amazing how brazenly open they've become with destroying american sovereignty.
>>
>>410174
>Wow they literally admit the democratic party is benefiting and encouraging voter fraud by getting illegal aliens to vote
>BlackHoleBrainlet.jpg
>>
>>410174
No no no. Democrats are good boys. They would just be so terrified by needing to present Id that they couldn't vote.
>>
>>410077
hey, brainchild, i dont know if youre realize this, but youre asking him for source while proving his point for him
>demographics
>>
>>410212
Demographics include citizens. Many of those citizens have a different amount of melanin relative to you. You, many people here anyway, call them niggers and shitskins and you are confused why they don’t associate with the Republican tribe and hang out with the Democratic tribe.
>>
>>410224
1 im black
2 lol you really dont understand the point i was making
>>
>>410226
Your point was obtuse then fren.
>>
>>410176
If you balance your districts based on number of voters, I'm sure the democratic party would have no objections right? Of course since they are in favor of a sovereign government and clearly ensure no illegal foreign actors commit fraud, then they should suffer no disadvantages if we ensure only eligible citizens counted...
>>
>>410235
you have a really loud whistle
>>
>>410237
So you cannot explain you point?
>>
>>410235
if it were just me then you might have a point. but you also misunderstood other anons point which i mention here
>>410212
and instead of asking what i meant or asking what other anon meant, you ramble on about racism, and call names. you are not very smart. its probably due to your lack of curiosity.
>>
>>410240
I understand and understood the other dude’s point anon, you do not understand mine.
Other anon
>I make up numbers (illegal spice register and vote even though I have no evidence of this)
Me:
>cool, I made up a number too
you:
>dur
I think that’s about the sum of the argument to this point.
>>
>>410244
>I think that’s about the sum of the argument to this point.
you think this because you are not smart. you have only a superficial understand of his post, mine, and actually your own.

>illegal spice (sic) register and vote even though I have no evidence of this
here is where your logic falls apart and prevents you from understanding what he was saying. reread his post without this stupid thought in your head.
>>
>>410246
You:
>you don’t understand
me:
Explain then
>reeeeeeeee
>you are dumb
Fren you need to learn how to debate. Maybe it’s a lack of basic education holding you back.
>>
>>410248
>no u: the post
>not understanding what others are explaining to you
>not having the curiosity to inquire
>random diatribes on racism
its like you cant think. like youre just a series of responses. like a bot. fascinating. how old are you and where are you from?
>>
>>410253
>>410237 #
>So you cannot explain you point?
Go ahead, explain it.
>>
>>409506
"residents" seems like a pretty obvious conclusion to me. you know, the people affected by legislation
>>
>>409679
again, it has nothing to do with who can vote. how can you people be so fucking retarded?
>>
>>409787
source
>>
>>410413
Then why are you scared of accounting of how many illegals are in the country?
>>
>>410419
Not the purpose of the census and by putting the question in the census you will most likely affect the outcome so its completely counterproductive. Thus it should be unconstitutional.
>>
>>410420
Maybe it should be one of the purposes. Illegals aren't the same as citizens.
>>
>>410420
>Thus it should be unconstitutional.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/census-constitution.html
>In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated." United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901).
>>
>>410420
>Not the purpose of the census and by putting the question

Why are you lying? We are not all children, the US citizen question is legitimate AND has been historically included in past census UNTIL Democrat admin had it removed.

Facts matter.
>>
>>411011
>Facts matter.
Not him, but totally agree with this! That' why it's important not to outright lie about our history. A direct question about US citizenship has never been included on a prior US Census.

Until 1950, there were questions, only issued to homeowning men, about the naturalization status of any other men in their homes over the age of 21. Remember that naturalization is a multi-stage process that results in citizenship but you being the process of naturalization long before you are actually a citizen. These previous questions only differentiated between people who had not begun any sort of naturalization (The first step of which is only to have been a permanent resident for 3 years or more) and those that had/were already citizens.

After 1950 select households (1 in 20 at random) were asked about the naturalization status of any foreign born people in the house hold.

The question that is being proposed for inclusion in the 2020 census is to directly ask "Is this person a citizen" or EVERY person in the United States. There is no precedence for this.

Like many of the illegal voting laws enacted in the South...
(illegal because states "with a history of prejudice", aka The South and some of the Mid West, are required to get federal approval on any laws that change voting requirements, such as the implementation of ID requirements, what IDs would be accepted, poll taxes, armed police presence at polling stations, change in registration status in both the cases of how one might register AND what scenario justifies their removal from the registration rolls. In many many cases states ignored this requirement and implemented laws, laws which were in place long enough to get public officials elected, that were immediately overturned as discriminatory by the federal supreme court, however leaving those officials elected during their tenure in office... for some reason)
cont.
>>
>>411696
Like many of the illegal voting laws enacted in the South...

...Modifications to the US Census must come with a justification. Why the information gained from new questions would be beneficial.

Exactly like the implementation of Driver's Licences as one of the only accepted IDs, while disallowing military veteran IDs and public housing IDs, an analysis of the data shows that there is no predictable benefit other than to allow for discrimination against non-white men. (How the data shows this is complex, but in the cases of IDs it is based around what demographics are most likely to have what IDs, say driver's license, and then coupled with follow up laws passed immediately after these requirement changes that defund and shut down all DMVs, where you get a license, in predominantly black counties in a state where counties are EXTREMELY racially divided).

The effect of a citizenship question in the form proposed for 2020 would have, in so far as analysis has been done thus far, zero tangible beneficial effects OUTSIDE being the holy grail of gerrymandering information. Something the GOP has not only been nearly the sole transgressor of but in which they have pursued aggressively and maliciously with the SOLE explicit (in their own words, found in internal emails among GOP party leaders) of disempowering the minority and liberal voters of their states.
Phew, long post! Hope this information was educational for you >>411011 and that when it comes time to vote again in 2020, you can make a more informed decision.
>>
>t. Shareblue
Oh wait, you were serious. Let me laugh harder.
>>
>>411714
Ok. You do that. I just understand why you needed to post that. Nobody actually cares if you laugh or not or do something else. I'm going to take a big fat shit. That has as good of an argument as you.
>>
>>411696
>A direct question about US citizenship has never been included on a prior US Census.
>Only a question about if you were in the process of becoming a naturalized citizen or already a naturlized citizen
This is pretty direct question about citizenship
>>
>>411727
>Only a question about if you were in the process of becoming a naturalized citizen or already a naturlized citizen
>This is pretty direct question about citizenship
Not really. Natural born citizens make up a huge percentage of citizens and they are neither of those things. Both non-citizens and natural born citizens would answer no to that question.
>>
>>411727
>This is pretty direct question about citizenship
womp womp, that's a pretty dramatic misunderstanding anon. But that's ok! This is an opportunity to learn.

For instance, someone that had moved to the United States and had been living there for 3 years would answer "Yes, I have begun the naturalization process". This person, however, is not a citizen. They're also not allowed to register to vote at this point. Also remember that this only applied to: Men over 21 that were living under the roof of another man OR, after 1950, was asked of 1 in 20 random individuals who were born outside the US.

Completely ignoring who is asked the question is dangerously naive!

Additionally, you seemed to have no been able to make it through the post far enough to reach:
>zero tangible beneficial effects OUTSIDE being the holy grail of gerrymandering information.

Even if there had been this exact question on a previous census, which there hasn't ever been, its reintroduction would still have to be justified. Why is this question important? What do we hope to gain with the information that would be gathered? At this point, experts have been unable to identify any tangible benefit of the question's inclusion _except_ that it would be the most potent data possible to be used in gerrymandering districts to disempower these exact people. Given that it's clearly a targeted question aimed at stripping people of their right to vote, -as is literally outlined in the OP of this thread-, even if the question HAD been legally introduced at some point, it would fail that criteria today.

Again, I hope you're finding this helpful! It certainly does seem like you've a lot to learn, which hopefully makes this thread exciting :)
>>
>>411735
I mean that's not terrible reasoning but it isn't why the question was added.
>>
>>411735
So what's the internal polling?

California is like 18.6% illegals? And 10% of them have the cajones to vote illegally?
>>
>>411741
>California is like 18.6% illegals? And 10% of them have the cajones to vote illegally?
There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in California. Illegal aliens don't get a vote.
>>
>>411741
>And 10% of them have the cajones to vote illegally?
I'm glad you asked! Since the late 90s tens of millions of voters have been evaluated and somewhere in the realm of ~5-10 cases of inappropriate voting have been found (though even in these cases, it is most often do to misunderstand: A veteran moves across town and doesn't know that as a result he was purged from the rolls, and so shows up to vote "without being registered").

>California is like 18.6% illegals?
California has a population of 40 million, and a suspected ~2 million illegal immigrants. This is 5%. To make this math easier for you, here's a trick!
>40.0 million
>move decimal to the left 1 digit for 10% = 4.00 million
>divide by 2 to get 5% = 2.00 million... just about as many illegal immigrants are in CA!

>10% of them have the cajones to vote illegally?
Actually, CA hasn't had a single verified case of voter fraud! Most of the very small handful of cases have come from midwestern states like Kansas and Missouri, and the also some isolated cases on the east coast (such as Virginia).
>>
>>411739
>it isn't why the question was added.
Interesting that you make that assertion! It's actually been concluded that there IS no other justifiable reason to have added the question. The official stance of "implementing measures to prevent voter fraud" falls flat upon the realization that voter fraud was a hoax made up by the GOP in the late 90s. Indeed you can look at OFFICIAL court findings such as:
>The Fifth Circuit, in a ruling that found Texas’s strict photo ID law to be racially discriminatory, noted that there were “only two convictions for in-person voter impersonation fraud out of 20 million votes cast in the decade” before Texas passed its law.

To reference some fancy math tricks in my previous post here: >>411755 we can do a quick calculation to see what the rate of voter fraud is (using Texas as a baseline):
>2 / 20,000,000
>0.0000001
>Voter fraud occurs in 0.0000001% of voting instances

However, it HAS been shown that not only would this census question be absolutely catastrophic in regards to data-driven gerrymandering, indeed this was the EXPLICIT reason for adding the question, as evidenced by GOP affiliated data analysts.

I hope you find this new information helpful, and that you can make more informed decisions going forward!
>>
>>411751
>its illegal to even know who someone is voting. You just need to walk up and say a name.
>Democrats run services that pickup ballots from people fill them out for them then have them sign the envelope.

No evidence ;)
>>
>>405359
>Leaked docs from deceased GOP strategist reveals plan to disenfranchize Democrat voters via census
>That “would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” and “would clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats,” he wrote.

how disingenuous. just because he recognizes that something would be beneficial to republicans, doesn't mean they're trying to "disenfranchise democrat voters".
republicans believe that democrats commit voter fraud by busing people in out of state, voting multiple times, allowing illegals to vote and voting in the name of deceased voters.
if these are true, then they are real problems that need to be addressed. yes, that would benefit republicans. and? that doesn't mean it's invalid.
>>
>>411761
>doesn't mean they're trying to "disenfranchise democrat voters"
Actually, it does!

Your comment strongly suggests that you do not understand what Voter Suppression is and how it is manifest in the United States. Not to worry! I can give you a quick run-down:
>Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is one of the most effective tools towards suppressing a voter base. How this works is that you can take complex, comprehensive, data and look at how certain groups of people vote. Of particular interest is address. Most people vote for a specific party more regularly than another, so you can use this data, coupled with location, to predict how certain geographical areas will vote. Once you do this, you can redraw district lines and group specific people together. An example might be:
- 10 neighborhoods vote D, and 8 vote R.
- If this is split up (D/R) as: 3/2 3/2 3/2 1/2 we see that D would own 3/4 of the districts
- If you redraw these district lines to shift the groups to (D/R): 1/2 1/2 1/2 7/2 we now see that R wins 3/4 districts despite having a lower over all population.
This is what has become a major problem in aggressively GOP gerrymandered states. Indeed, the most gerrymandered states in Union (Such as South Carolina, Texas, Ohio, Arkansas, Utah, Louisiana, Kentucky, West Virginia... an so on) are all gerrymandered in the GOP's favor to win a disproportionate amount of districts (having under 50% of the voting population, but winning 80+% of the districts).

cont...
>>
>>411758
>No evidence ;)
Do you have a source that verifies these accusations?
>>
>>411775
>Voting Restrictions
Who can vote and how is also a major data-driven form of voter suppression. This is done by evaluating a vast amount of data and isolating specific metrics. What data analysts look for are:
- Attributes that are commonly found in the desired demographic, but not other demographics
- Attributes that are commonly found in the undesired demographic, but are not found in the desired demographic.
A few examples:
>Mail in ballets for state citizens that live full time in another state, but still own property in the state in which they get to vote have many fewer restrictions than in person voting.
Why would this be important? Well, you have to ask what type of people are wealthy enough to own more than one more (the one in the state where they're mailing in the ballet, and the one in which they live full time). This disproportionately favors wealth white men, statistically. (You'll find that demographic to be a common theme).

>Requiring specific government issued photo ID as the only means to prove identity.
Why is this a problem? Well, you have to consider what demographics are most likely to have what types of ID. Take Student IDs: They have a photo, your name, and your address. Coupled with being registered on the voter roll, you might think this sufficient... but it's not government issued! Who has Student IDs? Younger voters, obviously, they're still in school!

What about driver's license? Who does this disproportionately effect? Well, it's going to favor
A) Those who are wealthy enough to own cars
B) Those were have the means to access a DMV AND have the ability to go to that DMV and accommodate long wait times during weekday business hours
This means that poor people who cannot take time off work and may not own a car at all are SIGNIFICANTLY less likely to have a Driver's License.

cont...
>>
>>411782
Agreed. They also make polling stations far from population centers so that individuals without cars or motivation are less likely to vote. Republicans that is.
>>
>>411780
Yes but why would I tell it to a think tank AI?
>>
>>411782
The aforementioned Driver's License restriction as a particular type of disenfranchisement is often compounded with tactics such as closing all DMVs in counties that have high populations of the undesired demographic, as well as defunding public transportation in those countries. Indeed many poor counties in Southern States like Alabama have no functioning public transportation at all and people, without cars, would have to make their way up to 60 miles to get to the nearest DMV.

Further tactics include:
>Closing polling stations in areas high in undesired demographics
>Giving misleading information on what ID types are valid (websites, phone calls, and mailed pamphlets all have contradicting information)
>Purging names off voter rolls (many of these cases are particularly egregious because they are explicitly unconstitutional as outlined by the Voting Rights Act. Included are:
- Removing the name of registered voting because of a previous failure to vote, as inaction is explicitly disallowed as a justification for removal.
- Systems such as Cross Check which data analysts have evaluated, to their overwhelming horror I assume, to have an error rate in "positive" cases of duplicate voter entries to have an error rate of _over 99%_
>Using intimidation tactics, such as armed police officers interrogating individuals who approach voting polls, only in districts with undesired demographics and PARTICULARLY in districts where there is a history of unprovoked police violence. "Want to vote? Get shot." is the very clear, and often _explicit_ message sent.

Add all of these factors together and what you get is:
-Tactic A whittles away 2% of a states undesired voters
-Tactic B whittles away 4% more
-Tactic C whittles away another 8%
.
.
.

So on and so forth until you see exactly the phenomenon in recently USA elections: 30-40% of the population in a state winning 75-85% of the districts.
>>
>>411775
>- If this is split up (D/R) as: 3/2 3/2 3/2 1/2 we see that D would own 3/4 of the districts
>- If you redraw these district lines to shift the groups to (D/R): 1/2 1/2 1/2 7/2 we now see that R wins 3/4
So what you're saying is in the first example if it is split so that D out numbers are by a ratio of two to one in each district, D wins
And an example two if they are split evenly in every district, except the last one where you have more R than D, then R wins
That must have been some heavy thinking you did
>>
>>411794
Voter Surppression is the single largest barrier to Democracy in the United States today, and is, unfortunately almost solely utilized by the Conservative GOP.

That is why the article this thread is about is so concerning.

I hope you took this opportunity to learn, >>411761 and that you can make more informed decisions going forward :)
>>
>>411795
>That must have been some heavy thinking you did
The simple math must have confused you, but that's ok! I can spell it out even more simply:

If your state breaks down 10 D and 8 R (or 5:4 if you reduce the fraction!) then you can see that, across the "state" 55% of the population is D and 45% is R. If this "State" were a raw democracy, D would easily win the majority, but R would win some counties.

Thus, if we're only going to have 4 counties, 3/4 is a fairly accurate representation of the state (not perfect, but close!). Indeed the specific break downs I made reflect this:
>3/2 3/2 3/2 1/2
^These counties are all almost 50/50, but D has a slight advantage in 3 of the counties and a slight disadvantage in 1.

However, due to the common GOP practice of partisan gerrymandering, we can redraw the districts and group geographically illogical communities together to create:
>1/2 1/2 1/2 7/2
^ Three of Four counties where R has a slight advantage (curious! since this is not representative of the state as a whole, this is an disingenuous representation of the populations) and one county where D has a HUGE advantage (Also extremely disingenuous! D does not have a huge advantage in this "State"). As such, since all districts are created equal, we see that a minority of the population controlling a majority of the electoral power.

This is why gerrymandering is so effective. I hope that you are able to understand that and take this opportunity to learn so that you may make more informed decisions in the future!
>>
>>411806
Do your ratios take into consideration the rate of illegal votes for D? Because voter suppression is necessary to counteract that
>>
>>405361
>t would disadvantage Latinos and benefit ‘Non-Hispanic Whites.’”
Why wouldnt it benefit non-hispanics?
Why wouldn't it bnefit non-illegals in general, aka citizens?
Or is this just more of muh raycism n sheit
>>
>>411816
They do! As is outlined here: >>411755
We can see that, using Texas as a baseline (a State which ROUTINELY pursues any whiff of voter fraud with extreme rigor) that the data shows:
>Voter fraud occurs in 0.0000001% of voting instances

My state used low numbers, but remember that "States" usually have millions of people living in them. In fact Texas has 28.7 million. If we use that with our hypothetical, we see that it would break down to: 0.0000018 of a "person". Add that to any of the districts you like and it won't make a difference. I'll demonstrate!
>3/2 3/2.0000018 3/2 1/2
D still controls 3/4
>3/2 3/2 3/2 1/2.0000018
R still controls 1/4
>1.0000018/2 1/2 1/2 7/2
R still controls 3/4
>1/2 1/2 1/2 7/2.0000018
D still controls 1/4

It should be obvious, I hope, but no matter where you slide in that "illegal voters", the outcomes remain entirely unchanged.

I hope you've been able to learn from this example, and can make more informed decisions in the future!
>>
>>411806
>Democrats are good boys. They dont gerrymander
My fucking sides
>>
>>411909
>He can't read
That's ok! No one ever said there has never been a single instance of gerrymandering that benefits Democratic constituents. However, it IS demonstrable fact that all of the most heavily gerrymanderred states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. This is a demonstrable fact that you can look up anywhere. Don't forget you have the whole internet in your pocket any time you have easily google-able questions like this!

Hope you have a good day, and can take this learning opportunity to make more informed decisions in the future :)
>>
>>411919
Nigger
>>
>>411921
And who ever said there's no shame in defeat
>>
>>411924
It's cool, I'm pretty used to uneducated rural conservatives having absolutely no logical recourse to my points, and resorting to the battle cry of "nigger" or "faggot" when they realize they've been btfo (or more likely, DON'T actually realize it, but find themselves unable to form words in any sort of argument).

I sincerely hope that his reading comprehension is high enough to maybe learn something from my posts, however.
>>
>>411702
>How the data shows this is complex
Which usually means the argument is bullshit.
>>
>>405362
>Democrats want extra house seats and are willing to flood the country with illegals to get them.
More news at 11
>>
>>412110
>Ad hominem
>>
>>412111
>only when Republicans do it
>>
>>412113
>Still ad hominem
>>
>>412110
t.identitarian who has literally no understanding of US history or their favorite politicians policy recommendations.

Round up the conservatives, it’s time for a purgin
>>
>>412015
>anon doesn't understand how a computer works
>therefore computers cannot exist. 4chan is a hoax.

Anon, just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's not real! I really only said that to make you feel alright if you had trouble grasping what I was saying. It's actually not really that complex. Indeed it's pretty straight forward regardless of what subset of data you're looking at. So if it slipped past you, sorry! I tried to give you the out! Go back and read the thread if you're still confused. It's all there.
>>
>>412110
I wonder why the deporter in chief went against his party members
>>
>>412119
>"Your an identitarian," says the namefag
>>
>>412145
Anonymous is an identity you dumb faggot.
>>
But who is calling people identitarian
>>
>>412150
The term you used objectively describes the lack of an identity
>>
>>412151
Oh I’m not arguing that you’re right about the insinuation namefagging constitutes identarianism - that’s just retarded.

Anonymous is an identity. Or do you really think my name is Bernie/Warren 2020 IRL?
>>
>>412190
I question the logic of being a namefag without a trip. You just invite the opportunity for others to take your self imposed identity and use it to discredit you. If you are going to be a namefag to spread some political asshattery on a Mongolian throat singing forum, might as well go full tripfag to make sure that message remains unadulterated
>>
>>412209
Ppl who namefag me spread the base message. It’s a win win.
>>
>>412211
So you are using the horribly flawed "no such thing as bad advertising" approach. Were this statement true, Trump would be viewed as the king among men given how often his name is in the news
>>
>>412213
There is a flaw to the “no media is bad media” phrase. It’s really good in getting ones name out and hardening a group of supporters. In the case of politics those supporters need to reach a critical mass.
This without a doubt helped trump win the republican nom. Then another candidate with lots of press and hardened supporters/opponents was his challenge and he beat her.
Other candidates like Biden, butguy, sandy, Harris, don’t have a decade or more of Rush/Hannity undermining them really. So compared to Trump/Hillary (a key group people hated both) you have someone who is not deeply hated vs someone who is.
Your point is valid but it works against Trump.
>but we can make Joe handsy
>we can make warren out of touch
>we can make sanders a communist
>butguy is gay!
None of this has the force of literally years of hardening opinions, it just cannot compete with the angst against Trump in 2020.
>>
>>412213
I’m pretty sure you’re overthinking it. False equivocation to the meme president. Trump is considered a king among retards btw so I’m not sure you have a point anyways. You may just be harboring a little bit of butt hurt.

Bernie/Warren 2020
>>
Hitler did nothing wrong
>>
>>411696
>>411702
>>411735
>>411755
>>411757
>>411775
>>411782
>>411794
>>411806
>>411819
Can tell from the formatting this is all one anon, and holy shit way to drop knowledge. Love how despite this thread still getting replies, republican anons just stopped engaging. When you know you can't win, just ghost 'em, am I right?
>>
>>412455
Nigger
>>
>>412515
Thanks for the bump!
>>
>>411921
>>412515
Same conservative, or are all republicans this dumb? Not an american, so genuinely curious.
>>
>>412532
The ones that post on 4chan are.
>>
imagine being this mad that nobody read your wall of text
>>
>>405412
>making sure someone is a citizen before allowing them to particiapte in national political events is somehow bad

Holy moley dude
>>
>>412562
>the census = voter registration

And the winner of the 'most ignorant comment of the day award is...
>>
>>410285
simple
anon said:
>>410027
>Democrats would probably lose 10 to 20% of their representation in Congress if only american citizens were considered
then you said:
>>410077
well im not going to quote it because it was a bunch of unrelated gibberish, but you explain your thought process behind that post here:
>>410244
>>I make up numbers (illegal spice register and vote even though I have no evidence of this)

fist of all anon said "probably" so he admits he was guesstimating. you are asking for a source for a guys thoughts. silly. also there is no evidence that anon was making an argument about voting. he may have been simply talking about counting illegals presence which would make their state more populated and give them more power in the house. you assumed his argument without inquiring because you assumed he was a racist. just like you did me.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.