[NSRCA-discussion] redistricting

[Robert Harden]

Charlie,

Could "Mis" be Missouri shown in District 4 ?   Could "Ms" be Mississippi 
shown in district 3 ?  This is what I think.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charlie Rock" <crock at kc.rr.com>
To: <geobet at gis.net>; "NSRCA Mailing List" 
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] redistricting


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion