[NSRCA-discussion] redistricting

[Rcmaster199 at aol.com]

Any consideration given for the number of active pattern pilots in these  
"Re-Districts"? You might want to contact L. Von Nostrand. If I remember  
correctly he chaired the last committee on the same subject.
 
MattK
 
In a message dated 1/1/2006 5:54:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
crock at kc.rr.com writes:

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


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060101/81a21349/attachment.html