- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 14,293
- Reaction score
- 5,482
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
No, it does not contradict your quote. The state is allotted a total equal to the number of senators plus the number of Representatives. But the electors are not, except in Nebraska and Main, tied to congressional districts. Maybe educate yourself a bit on the topic. A gerrymandered-as-hell district is meaningless as it is, for most states, the winner of total votes in the state who wins the electors. You can have a gerrymandered district that looks like a Rorschach test - doesn't matter when it comes to the actual electoral victor in the state (which, again, comes from the total votes, not by congressional district)
You missed the point. So, now my turn to educate you:
The conversation here was about the CENSUS, not gerrymandering! The CENSUS counts the number of "people" to determine the apportionment of representatives for each state. The number of representatives in the House is fixed, so if according to the census a state gains more population relative to another state, it may also gain more House representatives in relation to another state which means that it may also gain more congressional districts. Thus, a CENSUS which undercounts people in certain states will change the apportionment of representatives among states and will CERTAINLY affect Presidential elections even if there is NO geryymadering.
No go back to read your constitution....