Congressional Seats Changing as a Result of Census

Except Mona if you get a despot Monarch or Potus for life you are screwed. At least with elections every 4 years the voters can boot out a doofus
Or are you saying as long as someone wins every 4 years let them serve

 

Benevolent dictators or kings are lauded through out history because that is not the norm.

 

And yet there is historical evidence that economic development and property right protection was better under monarchs during the time there were still monarchies and democracies side by side.

I am not saying I want to go to that, but it is telling about the value of term limits.

 

Sure. Monarchies were not big promoters of redistribution.

 

Bad things can happen when you rely on the 'name you know' voters...

We learned this in the movie that gave us this fine scene...

 

Mona
I thank our founding fathers the USA is not a democracy.

 

Apparently GOP taking over the House in 2022 is going to be a done deal by the way the Biden shît show has started:

GOP Pickup Likely in Ill-17

 

It's nice to read these articles but unless the elections are honest the GOP isn't picking up a damn thing.

 

I wouldn't call it "likely" until after redistricting. Illinois is losing a seat, and Democrats completely control the redistricting process. That doesn't bode well.

 

^But Texas is gaining two seats - and I trust our GOP legislature to gerrymander effectively to pick up both new seats.

 

That may be true. I'm just talking about that Illinois seat. Overall, I'm not as sure of big gains from redistricting as some. Just because Texas gains two seats doesn't mean they'll be able to make them both Republican, especially if they're hoping to make the two seats they lost in 2018 more winnable. The same problem may occur in North Carolina. The Florida seat will likely go to the GOP.

Though California, New York, and Illinois are losing seats, there's no guarantee that those lost seats will come from Democrats. Very good chance they won't. Also, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan are losing seats. At least some of those will be Republicans. The new Colorado district will be Democratic. The new Montana district will probably but not automatically be Republican. Interestingly, I've read that the new Oregon district may be Republican, even though Democrats run the show. The reason why is that though it's a Democratic state, two out of their four Democratic districts are very tight. It quite possible that they'd let the new seat be Republican to shore those tight Democratic districts.

My guess is that the GOP will gain a little from redistricting but not a lot.

What's really wild is that New York will have only 26 seats. In 1950, they had 45. That is unreal.

 

It's also why uncapping the House should be a priority for everyone. NY state had about 15MM people in 1950 and closer to 20MM today. Gaining that much population and losing that many seats means it went from 1:333K to 1:770K.

I read a Princeton study about why this is acceptable, and no one from about 1930-60 had a reasonable answer other than "because it was a good idea to limit how much voting power the empty Western states had."

I think if we uncap and states add more RCV to municipal and statewide election procedures, we could be in for a new age of democratic processes and functionality. But I guess that's overly-wishful.

 

And that just shouldn't be acceptable for the lower House. It's absurd.