Together we can avoid losing a seat.
There are several under counted constituencies, seriously [and this list is not exhaustive]
1. Children in foster care
2. Cognitively limited adults in group homes run by DDS
3. Mentally ill residents who reside in group homes, institutions, or homeless on the street
4. Other homeless residents who are either living on coaches, under bridges, or being moved around frequently by DTS
5. Undocumented residents generally
6. Illiterate non readers among residents
7. Non-English speakers, legal and illegal generally
8. Residents who are not registered to vote or who have moved within the last year
9. Illegal renters [illegal rooming houses and apartments actually are very common in this state due to housing costs]
10. Nursing home residents
11. Students who attend college in residential dormitories or apartments for more than 50% of the year
Just for starters.
I actually commented on #5 in response to your comment on another thread.
<
p>I’m not sure about #11 either. I’d want to be counted as a MA resident as long as I were registered to vote in MA even if I attend college in another state. Students should be able to choose which state gets their representation and government money.
I live in Delahunt’s district, but I go to school, work, and spend like 70% of my time in Franks district.
<
p>My life is more affected by Frank’s doings than Delahunt’s. I want to be able to vote for or against Frank.
Do you seriously contend that MA has NOT lost population in the last ten years? Or twenty?
<
p>We robbed another state of its additional seat then. This isn’t a vast sea, but a pie with a limited number of slices.
According to the census we’ve added 2.3% to our population since 2000. It’s just that the USA as a whole has gained 8% so we’ve lost proportionally.
<
p>It seems every once in awhile we should rethink the cap on House membership. Originally the House simply expanded to accomodate new absolute numbers and nobody lost a seat. The original Constitution contemplated as few as 30,000 people per Representative. At that ratio we’d have a 10,000 member House and I’m not suggesting we do that, but even compared to when the cap was set at 435 (early 20th century I think) the US population has exploded.
<
p>Given all that, I think the US population as a whole would be better served with a 600-member House. Using very round numbers that would be one member for every half-million people and it would still be slightly smaller than the British House of Commons which only represents 61.6 million people. This would make members a little more representative of and responsive to their constituents. With just under 6.5 million people MA would get 13 Representatives (with apologies to the superstitious!). The other advantage of 600, though certainly not the key reason to change, is mathematical convenience as all reasonable voting ratios would be whole numbers.
<
p>For the same reasons I’ve even contemplated amending the Constitution to provide for three Senators per state rather than two. This would be accomplished by calling elections to partial terms at the next biennial with the terms ending during the biennial cycle that a given state does not already elect a Senator. If we were to do this now since MA doesn’t elect in 2010 anyway our Senator could actually get a full term right away.
Frankly, I am not sure they were. I admit my data set is anecdotal, though. Asking if someone’s institutionalized sibling was counted, and getting an answer – that kind of thing.
<
p>And if counting everyone meant Mass did not lose a seat, how is that “robbing” anyone?
<
p>Interestingly, Florida a large chunk of its population, with most counties losing population at a significant rate. In fact, Florida appears to have lost about 50,000 people. Florida and population loss
<
p>While my list is not exhaustive, I consider that 1-11 are more vulnerable to being missed then most.
<
p>Also, I would prefer not to see our state lose a representative. I hope you feel that way, as well.
that even if you counted all of these people, it is very unlikely that MA will have enough to avoid losing the seat. Washington State, for example, has a 2008 estimated population of about 50,000 more than Massachusetts, and yet it has only 9 seats. Virginia has about 1.3 million more than Massachusetts, yet only has one more House seat (a total of 11).
<
p>So we’d have to find a lot of extra people in order to avoid losing the seat. I don’t doubt that some people haven’t been counted in the past, but not enough to make a difference in House representation (plus, every other state on the bubble will be doing the exact same thing — looking to count everyone).
It’s the only right and fair thing to do. The census drives everything, from state local aid to federal aid. Even if we lose a seat anyway…then fine. At least we made sure that the state received every nickel it was due. Right now, there is a good 10-20% undercount in some of these cities, particularly the gateways.