Should Congressional districts be required to follow a logical numbering?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Yes. If we aren't going to name them at least give them logical numbers. None of this crap like Pennsylvania having 1 and 2 in Philly and then jumps to the opposite corner of the state for district for some inexplicable reason, or states like Texas with inexplicable random numbering. Start one one end of the state and number logically to the other end.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - maybe if we would've started that way, but changing it now would just confuse people.

[they don't love you like i love you]

No - maybe if we would've started that way, but changing it now would just confuse people.

It could just be mandated for the next redistricting.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - maybe if we would've started that way, but changing it now would just confuse people.

It could just be mandated for the next redistricting.

But even then, states that don't have a lot of changes try to keep the districts the same - forcing this change would just make things more confusing, I feel.

[patrick1]

To what end?  To placate us geeks?

[jimrtex]

Yes. If we aren't going to name them at least give them logical numbers. None of this crap like Pennsylvania having 1 and 2 in Philly and then jumps to the opposite corner of the state for district for some inexplicable reason, or states like Texas with inexplicable random numbering. Start one one end of the state and number logically to the other end.

Texas is east to west, but new districts get added to the end.

[memphis]

Way ahead of you



5 and 6 should be switched, but we've pretty much got it figured out. Even though, I'm expecting some major changes now that the GOP controls the state legislature, we'll probably keep the numbers logical.

[muon2]

For the public's benefit the best procedure is to keep new district numbers the same as the old district that shares the same core area. For states that keep the same number of districts this can usually be maintained unless there is a major redrawing. However, for state that gain or lose a seat any order must be lost is core are equivalence is maintained.

For example, as jimrtex notes, a state like TX that gains seats will tend to place the new numbers in high growth areas that are splitting into new districts - thus keeping old core areas with the same number. A state like IL that loses a seat is likely to move the number representing the lost seat down to the seat with the highest number (currently CD-19.) In either case the public is served by having most of the people remain in a district numbered the same after the remap.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, they should have names.

[War on Want]

No, they should have names.

[Lunar]

New Yorks would be easier if it wasn't so gerrymandered, but it's a rough Southeast-to-Northwest thing:

[Meeker]

The ones that seem "weird" are logical if you understand the history of the numbering of the districts in that state. Keeping them that way makes more sense than renumbering them just so it makes sense when looking at a statewide map of the districts (how often does the average person look at something like that? Never.)

[Joe Republic]

Why is this important?  There's a whole bunch of other things that need reforming long before something as useless as this.

[Lunar]

^ ending incumbent-protection gerrymandering schemes comes to mind.

Even partisan gerrymandering isn't as shameless as incumbent-protection plans, although partisan ones certainly have plenty of incumbent-protection efforts

I remember a story in NY of a State Senator who challenged the Republicans enough that they made his district MORE Democratic but by changing his district so it was 65% Latino and they knew a prominent Dominican-American politician would run in the primary

[patrick1]

Lunar, I think Joe and my point is that merely changing a # doesn't do anything.  You would just have gerrymandered districts in a more aesthetically pleasing format.

[Lunar]

Lunar, I think Joe and my point is that merely changing a # doesn't do anything.  You would just have gerrymandered districts in a more aesthetically pleasing format.

I agreed with Joe

[patrick1]

^Yeah, reread it.  My bad.  I should try to get more sleep. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Absolutely.  VA-08 and VA-10 are right next to each other, but VA-09 is as far away as possible in Virginia.  It's absurd, and confusing.

[Lunar]

Absolutely.  VA-08 and VA-10 are right next to each other, but VA-09 is as far away as possible in Virginia.  It's absurd, and confusing.

...for a narrow collection of political junkies for whom it's not really confusing at all as they know not only what Congressional district they live in, but neighboring ones as well.  Perhaps 1-2% of the population could do that?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

...for a narrow collection of political junkies for whom it's not really confusing at all as they know not only what Congressional district they live in, but neighboring ones as well.  Perhaps 1-2% of the population could do that?

Absolutely.  We should be accommodated, damn it!  Plus, it really takes no effort at all.

[bgwah]

No thanks. I like the history behind it. Originally, the districts in Washington made some sense that way. But as new districts have been created, they are no longer in order.