[NSRCA-discussion] redistricting

[George Kennie]

Yeah Jim,
The predominant characteristic of my personality is an inate ability to get
myself in hot water (and it seems to be exercised too profusely).
Happy New Year, Jim
Georgie

jivey61 at bellsouth.net wrote:

> Georgie
>  We need to have some work assignments for you when things get slow....hehe.
> Happy New Year
> Jim Ivey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:11 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