2010 Census

eileenbunny

eileenbunny

Druish Princess
May 25, 2005
13,693
2,593
573
48
Columbia, Maryland, United States
Marklar
₥3,338
Recently I heard that there is debate about whether prison inmates should be counted in the upcoming census. Since there are about a million of them the debate goes further than just whether they should be counted, but how. Should their numbers be attributed to where they are from or where they are now? Should they take into account whether they will be released from prison soon?

It all sounds like it is going to cost a lot of money and I don't think we have it to spend on such things, but I suppose there is a good point to be made here. We do have a lot of prison inmates and I suppose we should be accounting for them somehow. What do you all think?
 
eileenbunny said:
Recently I heard that there is debate about whether prison inmates should be counted in the upcoming census. Since there are about a million of them the debate goes further than just whether they should be counted, but how. Should their numbers be attributed to where they are from or where they are now? Should they take into account whether they will be released from prison soon?

It all sounds like it is going to cost a lot of money and I don't think we have it to spend on such things, but I suppose there is a good point to be made here. We do have a lot of prison inmates and I suppose we should be accounting for them somehow. What do you all think?
Click to expand...
they should be counted, but their numbers shouldn't count towards provision of social services based on population since inmates don't receive those services.
 
eileenbunny said:
But what if they will be able to within the next 10 years before redistricting happens again?
Click to expand...

well, i think we can assume that if they are in prison, they are felons. once you're convicted of a felony, you can't vote ever again. if you're simply in the county jail or something, it's probably a short term sentence for to many DUI's or something... in which case, they should be counted at wherever their home address is.


this raises the question though, all the felons that have served there time and are out, should they be counted for redistricting?
 
plot said:
well, i think we can assume that if they are in prison, they are felons. once you're convicted of a felony, you can't vote ever again. if you're simply in the county jail or something, it's probably a short term sentence for to many DUI's or something... in which case, they should be counted at wherever their home address is.


this raises the question though, all the felons that have served there time and are out, should they be counted for redistricting?
Click to expand...

Actually, in many states felons can vote after they are released and complete a probationary period. Maryland is one of those states.
 
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.
Click to expand...

and we have the 14th amendment

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.
Click to expand...

Those parts to me would imply that felons DO count as far as congessional seats, since they are disenfranchised in accordance with the constitution. The only time any real person doesnt count is when they are disenfranchised in a manner not consistent with that.
 
FlamingGlory said:
Those parts to me would imply that felons DO count as far as congessional seats, since they are disenfranchised in accordance with the constitution. The only time any real person doesnt count is when they are disenfranchised in a manner not consistent with that.
Click to expand...

I'm not really saying what I think or don't think. I actually haven't formed an opinion yet. I'm just stating what is happening now: prisoners are not counted in the census, and former felons can vote in some states. I wanted to know what others thought about it before I formed an opinion of my own.

So if constitutionally felons DO count, how should they count? Should they count where they are or where they used to be? What do we do about federal prisoners being held in DC (although it occurs to me I have no idea where DC's current federal prison is, it could be in Virginia or Maryland for all I know)?
 
Well if Im reading it right they count. I couldnt find any court cases except a couple on apportionment and nothing specifically relating to prisoners. The general gist of it is that it's up to congress, they can count who they want and draw the lines how they want as long as it falls into those guidelines.

There are 110 federal prisons. None in DC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._federal_prisons

I personally am not sure the entire apportionment system works anymore. It was set up for tax purposes more than fair representation, but then we have the 16th amendment which totally makes it useless with regards to taxes. Congress decides the number of reps, who to count, and how to draw the lines and that would seem to leave it wide open for abuse by whoever the congress is when the census rolls around.
 
Last edited:
FlamingGlory said:
Well if Im reading it right they count. I couldnt find any court cases except a couple on apportionment and nothing specifically relating to prisoners. The general gist of it is that it's up to congress, they can count who they want and draw the lines how they want as long as it falls into those guidelines.

There are 110 federal prisons. None in DC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._federal_prisons

I personally am not sure the entire apportionment system works anymore. It was set up for tax purposes more than fair representation, but then we have the 16th amendment which totally makes it useless with regards to taxes. Congress decides the number of reps, who to count, and how to draw the lines and that would seem to leave it wide open for abuse by whoever the congress is when the census rolls around.
Click to expand...

If I were more with it I would have looked up the prison thing. Thanks.

Abuse is widespread as far as districting is concerned and soooo hard to prove as well. At least the judicial branch has some oversight if cases are brought to their attention. I wish I were paying more attention last time the redistricting happened. The rules are vague and confusing anyway.
 
FlamingGlory said:
Wow we have had 435 seats since 1913.

There are 659s MP in the UK.
Click to expand...

I think there was a brief time in the 50's or 60's when they increased it, but then went back to 435. Probably too difficult to recalculate all their voting outcome models cause they are a bunch of tards.

Yeah, constitution says one rep for every 33 K people, and I realize that might be a little ridiculous, we could at least increase to 1000 or something.
 
It's funny that our legislative branch is laid out almost exactly like Switzerland.

33k people is the high limit on representation. The problem with an increasingly entrenched party system and higher person to representative ratio is that elections are out of reach for the independant sorts. Next we'll have a whip system >.>

I always liked the senate because it is more professional lawmakers who are at least willing to use their brains. Congress looks like an uncoordinated mob sometimes.
 
Where does it say that? There's no info on their website.

Either way it's all the executive branch anyway. You could put it in the forestry service and the only difference would be the name on the budget.

Edit I cant find any revised title 13 info.

"The Bureau is continued as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce. "
 
Last edited:
FlamingGlory said:
Where does it say that? There's no info on their website.

Either way it's all the executive branch anyway. You could put it in the forestry service and the only difference would be the name on the budget.

Edit I cant find any revised title 13 info.

"The Bureau is continued as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce. "
Click to expand...

It's been in the news. The Drive by media even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back