Official Re-Districting Thread for Governors only

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The plans that I have already designated Plans A-F and which can be accessed thru the link, have my support.  The plan of mine that Wildcard quoted was only acceptable to me because of necessity.  I would rather that Virginia instead of Tennessee left District 4 if possible.  Also because of population changes since that plan was proposed (-1 NH, -1MD) that plan is not valid at this time because it makes District 2 too small.

However, assumming that District 1 of that map is what made it attractive to Governor Wildcard, here is a Plan G that meets with my approval and incorporates that District 1.



The map by Justice King is the same as my Plan D with te exception of Vermont which is incorporated in District 1 (NY District) in Plan D and in District 2 (PA District) in King's plan.  While it would be necessary with the numbers King used, with the current registration figures, making Vermont dicontiguous is not needed and therefor does not have my support.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With the addition of Sulfur as a registered NH voter and Hawk to GA, All of my Plans A-G have been rendered invalid as NH's district in all of them was as big as was legal and the range of allowable differences has shrunk back to 3 for the moment.  Here are two new plans that are valid under the current registration.

Plan H:


Plan I:

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The census provisions in the constitution are vague as to who and how it is to be done.  Perhaps the Senate would care to pass legislation to fill out the specifics so that next time, we governors don't mope around trying to decide which set of numbers we will use.  It's been three weeks since Fritz first gave us number to use, after all.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

OK. here we go again.  We will be up to 132 voters with the return of Philip once he reregisters.  All of my previous plans A-I are now valid.

Here are two new ones (numbers assume Phillip decides to stay in NH so he can run against Seige40).

Plan J:


Plan K:


Plan J doesn't require a lot of change in our districts, but it is extremely brittle and will become invalid if anyone moves into the coastal District 2.

Plan K requires more change, but is extremely balanced with a max difference of only 2 voters.

Any plan that trys to achieve only a one vote difference is going to require radically different districts from what we have now.

While I can support any of the Plans A-K I have listed here, I like Plan K best.

Therefore, to spur the other governors to action, even if's only to vote it down, I'm going to officially propose that we adopt Plan K listed above and ask for governors to vote yea, nay, or abstain,and I'm going to consider any governor who doesn't vote on this within a week as having abstained.  If that means it gets adopted 1-0, so be it, but we can't dawdle any longer.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do I win a prize?

Yes, a booby prize for a booby plan.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What is the plan then Ernest? Are we voting on Plan K? I also urge the Governor to get AIM.

Plan K is the plan I currently want a vote on.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just the govs and we have to have a 2/3 vote which means if any two govs vote no, a plan can't pass.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have no problems with K1, but Gov. Wildcard has indicated in the past that given a choice between plans that put Minnesota in D5 and Iowa in D5, he'd rather have Iowa.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

#1  K
#2  J
#3  K1
#4 None of the Above

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since K1 only got the approval of 3 of the governors, then it comes down to a two way contest between J and K and J was preferred over K by 3  with K preferred over J by only 2, so I'm assuming that J is the plan we've adopted.



And if that's not good enough for the Attorney General, I'll switch my preference to J, just so we get this over and done with.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yup, I miscounted.  My mistake.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What is the primary objection to K1?  I drew it up as a compromise between J and K, and it moves very few states.

I know the reason why Wildcard doesn't like K1, but I don't know why he has that reason.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

K balances the population between the districts fairly well.  Trying to achieve a better balance betwen the districts would require even more convolutions.  If J moved VT to D2, it wouldn't be constitutional as D2 would then have 30 voters while D3, D4, and D5 all have 25 voters and gven the current distribution, 4 is the maximum difference we can have.  (In practice, the current constitutional limits boil down to a 3 voter difference if the number of voters is a multiple of 5 and a 4 voter difference if the number ain't a multiple of 5.)