[NSRCA-discussion] redistricting

[Charlie Rock]

You may be right..should be MO...Just picking on him really!! :-))) Charlie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Harden" <rharden1 at cox.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] redistricting


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