Official Re-Districting Thread for Governors only

[TheWildCard]

This thread is for official Governor's only discussion on re-districting plans. I believe since we now know who the 2 new Governors are we can start getting down to business here

I'd like to start this thread off by bringing the 2 maps I believe are the best into this thread.

From now on I'd  also like only Governors to bring in maps. If you used someone elses map please give the due credit as I have.

Ernest


SCJ King

[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:

[TheWildCard]

*bump*

[ilikeverin]

Peter Bell: MA->IN

[Fritz]

With the midterm elections a mere 24 days away, I would like to see redistricting set ASAP.  The Governors should agree to one set of numbers that does not change every time a change occurs in registration (which seems to happen almost daily.)  Governors, do you think we can have this finalised by the end of the week?  Thank you.

[Fritz]

I also think some sort of a census should be used, rather than the straight registration numbers which include many who are gone.  I will re-iterate a suggestion I made earlier: use those who voted in October, plus those who registered since October 12 (the cutoff for that election), plus GM Niles.  In other words, don't include those who were eligible to vote last time and did not, the majority of them will never be seen again.  (You could also determine this by merely excluding the asterisk names in registration rolls.)

[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.

[ilikeverin]

Blargh.  I think we need a more radical redistricting change... it's practically necessary.  Although K changes quite a few things, it seems that your maps largely keep District 4 together.  Is there some reason for this? (I hope not *mutters*)

I'll withhold a vote on your map for now.

I'm making one of my own... an extremely revisionist one... no one will probably like it because it seems Governors now are more focused on keeping Districts the same, and making them look like regions...

[MAS117]

Its hard considering that NY and PA alone equal the number of voters as other regions. I see regions having 22, 24, 27, and 52.

[ilikeverin]

Do I win a prize?

Max difference: 1



light yellow denotes a Senator, though I'm not sure if that should really matter in this decision

One could switch Mississippi, Colorado, Utah, and Oklahoma for Arizona and New Mexico if you think Mississippi looks too weird (this would also help with senators)

[StevenNick]

Congratulations, Ike, I think you've managed to produce the weirdest map possible.   

Kudos!

[ilikeverin]

Congratulations, Ike, I think you've managed to produce the weirdest map possible.

Districts are supposed to look weird.  Just look at Congressional Districts IRL

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do I win a prize?

Yes, a booby prize for a booby plan.

[MAS117]

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

[Jake]

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.

Plan K should move NM to the South, TN to the MidWest, and ND to the West.  Just to make it look better.  Sorry for the intrusion.

[ilikeverin]

Plan K should move NM to the South, TN to the MidWest, and ND to the West. Just to make it look better. Sorry for the intrusion.

1) DISTRICTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REGIONS, GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS, 'THESE STATES SHOULD BE TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY ARE SO SIMILAR!' OR 'THESE STATES SHOULD BE TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY MAKE THINGS PRETTTTYYYYYFULLLLLL' *hem*
2) NM is in the District including Alabama, if that's what you mean.
3) I believe Tennessee cannot be moved due to balance reasons.  Besides, I don't know if you mean, by 'the Midwest', the region including Missouri or the region including Kentucky.
4) Once again, I think balance reasons would make it impossible.

[ilikeverin]

Do I win a prize?

Yes, a booby prize for a booby plan.

Just because it looks weird and changes things a lot doesn't make it a bad map.  In fact, by District technical matters, it is better than your maps as it is the most balanced it can possibly be

[Jake]

Plan K should move NM to the South, TN to the MidWest, and ND to the West. Just to make it look better. Sorry for the intrusion.

1) DISTRICTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REGIONS, GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS, 'THESE STATES SHOULD BE TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY ARE SO SIMILAR!' OR 'THESE STATES SHOULD BE TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY MAKE THINGS PRETTTTYYYYYFULLLLLL' *hem*
2) NM is in the District including Alabama, if that's what you mean.
3) I believe Tennessee cannot be moved due to balance reasons.  Besides, I don't know if you mean, by 'the Midwest', the region including Missouri or the region including Kentucky.
4) Once again, I think balance reasons would make it impossible.

If NM goes into Alabama's region and TN goes into WI's region and ND goes into CA's region the numbers balance out.

[The Duke]

I want to suggest going back to Senators being elected from regions.  The Districts are giving us Senators and electorates who have no regional identity and no permanence.  There are now enough voters to have this make sense, whereas before there were not enough voters.  Here is what it would look like.

Pacific-23
MidWest-10
SouthEast-24
MidEast-27
NorthEast-46

Obviously, its not perfectly equal, but neither is the real Senate (Although 3 Districts are roughly equal).  And now, there are at least enough voters in each region to have an election, and some of the European posters can move out of New York to the MidWest if need be.

I don't like the idea that every time we redistrict, people in Maryland lose their Senator and that incumbents are always getting pitted against one another when we do this.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Plan J:

What about this Plan J with the following changes:

District 1: -VT  (27 voters)
District 2: +VT, -VA (25)
District 3: +VA, -MN  (26)
District 4: +NM (26)
District 5: -NM, +MN (28)


I think this is basically the same as Plan K with some the the Plains states switched b/w D3 and D5.

[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.

[King]

Does the senate have a vote on these too?
or just the govs?

I believe that the Senate doesn't get to vote on the preliminary maps, just the finalized version submitted to the Senate.