this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
393 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

42603 readers
835 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Also, seems kind of scary that this implies a future where so many people are in prison that their vote could actually tip the balance ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Rivalarrival 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's almost like they shouldn't be counted at all unless they are free to vote. But the states with significant prison populations wouldn't go for that. Maybe we can compromise. Perhaps only 3 out of every 5 disenfranchised prisoners should count for representation purposes.

[โ€“] nickajeglin@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The only problem there is that the count also determines how federal money is distributed. Undocumented/illegal immigrants still use interstates and water mains and disaster money and national parks and federal buildings. Unless we want funding cut, we still have to count them.

*Edit: I'm embarrassed that I got all that written before 3/5 hit me. "The only problem" ๐Ÿ˜ฌ

[โ€“] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You'd have to eliminate children and immigrants too if you did that, but those new numbers wouldn't reflect reality in most communities with so many people being excluded from the census.

[โ€“] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Small quibble here, but illegal immigrants are absolutely counted in the census, obviously they are under-counted, but they are intended to be counted. No one is "excluded" from the census.

[โ€“] Rivalarrival 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Small quibble, but the census came up with about 331 million people, and there are almost 8 billion people on the planet. Clearly, some are excluded from the census.

[โ€“] nickajeglin@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[โ€“] Rivalarrival 1 points 1 year ago

Within my facetious response is a kernel of truth: some of those people within US borders are foreign tourists. Surely, a French high school class touring Washington DC shouldn't be counted on the census.

When someone overstays their visa, at what point do they stop being "foreign persons" and start being "undocumented Americans"? At what point is it reasonable to start counting them as our own?

[โ€“] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

I was more referring to green card holders, but that's exactly my point. By excluding people based on whether they can vote or not, you get inaccurate results and make the whole process pointless.