Now We Have "Calexit".

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Oregon and Washington want to join California in leaving. That would balance the budget right there. And it would give the illegals somewhere else to go.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

not heard about that one.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...regonians.html


this ones an Oregon secession only
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...regonians.html

Silicon valley wants to secede too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...st-fever-dream

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

actually, those 55 ec votes would be distributed to other states if California left. the house would still be 435 seats.

Not sure about that one. I would assume it would revert back to a fewer number of congressmen. Like it was before the 50 states all come into being. Didn't the overall number of congressmen grow, ultimately to 435, as the states came into being and populations grew? I'd have to do some research on that one.

Similarly, if say Puerto Rico were to become full fledged state, their 2-4 new congressmen would raise the 435 to 437/439? Their current rep is a non-voting position.

Good questions.

[CuteOldGuy]

No. There were 435 from the beginning. The Senate grows as we add states, but the House was set at 435 in the Constitution.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No. There were 435 from the beginning. The Senate grows as we add states, but the House was set at 435 in the Constitution.

no, the number of seats is set by legislation not by the constitution.

what the constitution does is grant the House power to set the number of seats as needed.

the legislation was set at 435 seats in 1911 and reaffirmed in 1929.

the temporary increase was totally wrong do so.

4 states were added to the union between 1911 & 1959. if they had added 1 seat per state like the senate, the number of seats would have been 439 instead of 435.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Not sure about that one. I would assume it would revert back to a fewer number of congressmen. Like it was before the 50 states all come into being. Didn't the overall number of congressmen grow, ultimately to 435, as the states came into being and populations grew? I'd have to do some research on that one.

Similarly, if say Puerto Rico were to become full fledged state, their 2-4 new congressmen would raise the 435 to 437/439? Their current rep is a non-voting position.

Good questions.

the U.S. never had to decrease the number of seats before. there is no precedent for it.

the closest was the american civil war where several seats from seccessionist southern states went unrepresented.

they used to add seats as the population grew until 1911 where it froze at 435 and was reaffirmed in 1929.

Puerto Rico, that's not how it works under current law.

once admitted to the union. the state get 1 house seat until the next census. the next census will divine how many seats Puerto Rico will get, prolly 3 - 4 seats.

If California left, the house would be 380 seats. this situation is temporary. 55 seats would be re-distributed until the next census when 435 seats will be recalculated.

Congress could change this by legislation by changing the number of seats.

the seating in the house is long over due. it needs to be at 1,317 seats.

the current districts are not equal. you have a California district representing 700,000 citizens vs. a north Dakota district representing 25,000 - 50,000.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Not sure about that one. I would assume it would revert back to a fewer number of congressmen. Like it was before the 50 states all come into being. Didn't the overall number of congressmen grow, ultimately to 435, as the states came into being and populations grew? I'd have to do some research on that one.

Similarly, if say Puerto Rico were to become full fledged state, their 2-4 new congressmen would raise the 435 to 437/439? Their current rep is a non-voting position.

Good questions.

Electors are proportionally distributed among the states in the same manner as representatives (plus senators). That means that Trump's 290 electors DO substantively represent a larger part of the American population than Clinton's 228, regardless of how many people actually voted.

In California, the number of electors based on representatives would stay the same, or increase if the next census shows an increase in population; however, the number of electors based on senators would definitely increase by two for each new state carved out of the current state of California.

However, the other thing that happens is those elements that separate from South California won't be controlled by die-hard dim-retard voters; so, some of that number of newly redistributed electors will be in play and won't be locked into voting dim-retard in every election as they currently are now.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the U.S. never had to decrease the number of seats before. there is no precedent for it.

the closest was the american civil war where several seats from seccessionist southern states went unrepresented.

they used to add seats as the population grew until 1911 where it froze at 435 and was reaffirmed in 1929.

Puerto Rico, that's not how it works under current law.

once admitted to the union. the state get 1 house seat until the next census. the next census will divine how many seats Puerto Rico will get, prolly 3 - 4 seats.

If California left, the house would be 380 seats. this situation is temporary. 55 seats would be re-distributed until the next census when 435 seats will be recalculated.

Congress could change this by legislation by changing the number of seats.

the seating in the house is long over due. it needs to be at 1,317 seats.

the current districts are not equal. you have a California district representing 700,000 citizens vs. a north Dakota district representing 25,000 - 50,000.

Making Puerto Rico a state would merely mean adding two Democrat Senate seats - very bad idea.

[gfejunkie]

Funny thing is, I'll bet all of these Calexit proponents were against Brexit.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Funny thing is, I'll bet all of these Calexit proponents were against Brexit.

They were, but let my people go!

[CuteOldGuy]

Filbert Fartstorm, there is only one at-large congressional district in North Dakota. It represents the entire state. More like 500,000+ people. You have a variance in districts, but near as much as you said.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Funny thing is, I'll bet all of these Calexit proponents were against Brexit.

lol probably so. now the shoes on the foot for them bahaha

basically .. there is no mechanism to leave the Union once joined. not even for Texas and Cali who were independent Republics before joining the Union.

Red Texas ain't going nowhere after this election results lol now if BlowMe Cali wants to see if there is a way to secede good luck with that

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Filbert Fartstorm,

was it really necessary to call me that? you don't see me bitch slapping you, unless you really want me to. I know that would make Assup happy.

there is only one at-large congressional district in North Dakota. It represents the entire state. More like 500,000+ people. You have a variance in districts, but near as much as you said.

ok, so its not N. Dakota; I only used it as an imperfect example at the top of my head. I don't recall where that district was located and was too tired to google it.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

lol probably so. now the shoes on the foot for them bahaha

basically .. there is no mechanism to leave the Union once joined. not even for Texas and Cali who were independent Republics before joining the Union.

Red Texas ain't going nowhere after this election results lol now if BlowMe Cali wants to see if there is a way to secede good luck with that

article 5 is the only way to do it.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

article 5 is the only way to do it.

nope. article 5 doesn't address succession .. it only allows a 2/3rd majority of to introduce new amendment .. do you really think 2/3rds of the states (the republic) would allow Texas or Cali to secede? not gonna happen

[dilbert firestorm]

ahem, you are short sighted.

not even a secession amendment???? yes they can do that.

you might not like it, but yeah thats doable from what I can tell.