[NSRCA-discussion] redistricting

[Charlie Rock]

Forgot Missouri...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:11 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] redistricting


> Happy New Year everybody!
> 
> A little bit ago I got a post from Cathy Reuther and it dealt with
> the districts as currently arranged.
> I got scratchin' my head over this and felt that there were some
> extreme geographical inequities placed on some districts. I got out
> my atlas and got looking at the U.S.and marvelled at the distance
> one would have to travel in some districts to attend a contest in
> "your own" district.
> In some districts the states seem to be smaller while other
> districts are composed of states that are voluminus in their
> geographical area.
> One area that caught my attention is district #2. In my estimation,
> district #2 seems to have a lower frequency of scheduled events
> which appears, to me, to be a function of the fact that the area is
> too limited geographically. With a slight expansion of their
> geographical area this shortfall could be corrected.
> Anyhow................. I got studying the U.S. map and came up with
> the following reconfiguration:
> 
> District #1,
> Me., N.H., Vt., Ma., Ct., R.I., N.Y., Pa., N.J., Md., De. (no
> change).
> 
> District #2,
> D.C., Va., W.Va., Oh., Ky., Tn., N.C.
> 
> District #3,
> S.C., Ga., Fla., Al., Ms., La., Ar.
> 
> District #4,
> Mich., In., Il., Mis., Ia., Wi., Mn.
> 
> District #5,
> N.D., S.D., Wy., Neb.
> 
> District #6,
> Kan., Co., Ok., N.M., Tx.
> 
> District #7,
> Ut., Az., Nev., Ca., Ha.
> 
> District #8,
> Wa., Or., Id., Mt., Ak.
> 
> Now before you get yourselves all in a tither and rip me up and down
> for not being all that sufficiently wound, get out your atlases and
> take a look at how the size of all of these districts compare
> against each other and you will find that in almost all of these
> areas the distances required for one to travel to it's remotest
> parts appears to be quite similar and much more equitable than the
> current arrangement. Additionally, it's possible that the proximity
> effects may even generate greater contest origination within
> district confines as now one is free of the extended travel
> requirement.
> 
> Hey, it's a quiet New Years day around here and I had not much else
> to do so I decided to stir the pot a  little,...........and besides
> maybe someone can come up with something better. Better is always
> good.............
> Georgie
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion