[NSRCA-discussion] redistricting

[George Kennie]

Randy,
You can just District-Hop into D-1, but by the same token, I'll bet
you wouldn't be doing Waterboro, Maine either.

Randy hatfield wrote:

>   Considered the pot stirred.  I live in DC, or the NE corner of
> D2.  Contests in TN would be too far for me to get to.  I do not
> know about the rest of you, but driving more than 8 hours for an
> 'in district' contest is not doable.  It means getting back around
> 11PM sunday night.  Some of us have to get up at 0530 the next
> morning for work. I have no idea how the D8 guys travel all that
> distance. Randy
>
>      ----- Original Message -----
>      From: George Kennie
>      To: NSRCA Mailing List
>      Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 2:03 PM
>      Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] redistricting
>       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
>     >
>
>
>      ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>      _______________________________________________
>      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/cea25bb6/attachment.html