28th Amendment idea

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Timshel

New member
Desh's thread gave me an idea. The 14th amendment protects the right to vote by reducing the representation of states that limit voting. Section 2 states...

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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

What if we just tie the numbers used for representation to the highest number of people that vote for, President or Senators? That would totally screw the assholes that want to deny their citizens the right to vote.

Any comments, suggestions or criticisms?
 
I like the intent... but will have to think on that a bit. Obviously it also would mean states with lower voter turnout due to complacency or a 'known result' (ie... NY is voting Dem, so why bother voting) could potentially get their representation lowered. Would that result in overly aggressive means to get people to vote that otherwise would not? With turnout around 60%, what would the states/parties do to get the other 40% to the polls.

Interesting question though...
 
Professor Baxter said:
Desh's thread gave me an idea. The 14th amendment protects the right to vote by reducing the representation of states that limit voting. Section 2 states...

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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

What if we just tie the numbers used for representation to the highest number of people that vote for, President or Senators? That would totally screw the assholes that want to deny their citizens the right to vote.

Any comments, suggestions or criticisms?
Click to expand...

No one is trying to deny citizens the right to vote!
They just want proof they are who they say they are and not dead, if the id card is free why don't they get one?
 
Carlos Danger said:
This will hurt the lazy Dems. Sounds good to me.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. 17 of the 20 states with the highest turnout voted for Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ghest-and-lowest-turnout-in-2012-in-2-charts/

I think sf's concerns about the contentiousness of the state has the biggest effect on turnout, but that might be improved if voters felt like it mattered due to effects on their representation in congress. On the other hand maybe the losing party would just decide to sit out the election and tell their supporters not to vote.

http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/changes-in-voter-turnout-by-state-2012.html

I wonder if it would not be easier to just adjust it based on some other factor, like how many citizens are turned away from voting. But then the states might under report it.
 
Professor Baxter said:
I don't know about that. 17 of the 20 states with the highest turnout voted for Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ghest-and-lowest-turnout-in-2012-in-2-charts/

I think sf's concerns about the contentiousness of the state has the biggest effect on turnout, but that might be improved if voters felt like it mattered due to effects on their representation in congress. On the other hand maybe the losing party would just decide to sit out the election and tell their supporters not to vote.

http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/changes-in-voter-turnout-by-state-2012.html

I wonder if it would not be easier to just adjust it based on some other factor, like how many citizens are turned away from voting. But then the states might under report it.
Click to expand...

Why are you only using Obama's results as a bench mark?
Would you have suggested this in previous elections?
 
So I checked up on USF's claim to see if he was right. In 2004 10 of the top 20 in turnout voted for Bush, 4 of the top 10 and none of the top 4. In 2000 it was a little better for the GOP but not much, with again 10 out of the 20 voting for Bush, 6 out of the top 10 and 1 of the top 5.

http://uselectionatlas.org
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top