[NSRCA-discussion] redistricting

[George Kennie]

That's exactly the corrective action that will be accomplished in
District #2, but I suspect will  probably be negative for District
#5, but I'm not planning to move there any time soon (VVBG).

Rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060102/533b57a3/attachment.html