[NSRCA-discussion] redistricting

[George Kennie]

Yup!

Robert Harden wrote:

> 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