Districts and Regions Maps

[StevenNick]

Regions


Districts

[JohnFKennedy]

We really should change it so that we start in the North-East and work our way round, heh. I don't think the last districts were numbered like that but I may be wrong.

[Fritz]

We really should change it so that we start in the North-East and work our way round, heh. I don't think the last districts were numbered like that but I may be wrong.

No, if we had really been following the rule last time, districts 2 and 3 should have been reversed.  Unless you don't count DC as a state, then it was fine the way it was.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, I don't consider DC to be a state, and neither does the forum constitution.  By the way did the Senate ever try to establish Regional boundaries according to the requirements of the fourth Amendment?  Except for the Mid-East Region, they don't have the constitutionally mandated ten states.

[Fritz]

There was an extended forum-wide debate on that issue; this was before we even had a senate.  In the end the region map we have was approved of by the voters and, despite the fact that it contradicts the constitution, was adopted.

[??????????]

At least we got VA and kept WVA and DC out of the south! I like that map.

[Niles Caulder]

Brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United Atlas Forum

Niles Caulder v. the Senate of the United Atlas Forum
on writ of certiorari to the Atlas Supreme Court
August 4, 2004


Whereas the Constitution of the United Atlas Forum was ratified and serves as the Highest Law in the cyberland; and,
Whereas said Constitution includes in the Bill of Rights Article IV, Section 2: "There are five Regions with ten states per Region...TO BE DETERMINED OFFICIALLY AFTER THE SENATE IS IN PLACE," and,
Whereas the Senate has to date failed to discharge its constitutionally mandated duty of determining Regions in accordance to the UAF Constitution:

The Senate is in violation of Constitutional Law, and specifically the Rights of citizens of all Regions to be apportioned according to quantity of states.  The Regional Map in effect, despite being publically approved, concentrates representation (and therefore gubernatorial power) to regions of fewer states at the expense of those with more.

Niles Caulder, private citizen of the Great State of Texas, whose voting representation in government has been diluted in this map, along with all citizens of the Mid-West Region, does hereby respectfully petition the Supreme Court of the United Atlas Forum to:

Mandate the Senate of the United Atlas Forum to discharge its Constitutional obligation to legislate Regions in such a manner to ensure Voters' Rights being in accordance to the Constitution as specified according to Ammendment IV, Section 2 PRIOR to the next bi-monthly elections.

This plaintiff welcomes joining to this suit by interested parties.

[Regional Map at time of filing:]



[Various edits for clarity and punctuation.
Edited August 5, 2004 to remove references of Senate representaiton, as the issue does not exist.]

[Niles Caulder]

Laides and gentlemen of the Senate,

Please excuse my abrupt intrusion upon your busy itinerary; I do wish you all to know that I am completely open to a resolution of this issue in some other manner than the spotlight of the High Court.  A genuine consensus regarding the ideal system of legislative representation may be an achievable outcome of a little more attention provided to this subject by such an esteemed body, even if it utlimately warranted a constitutional ammendment to faciliate it.  Please know I'd be happy to work in a constructive manner resolving and forging a regionalization that serves the democracy now and for its posterity.

Thank you for your kind attention,
Niles Caulder

[TheWildCard]

I'd like to submit this region map for consideration



Colorado is only an example of one of the states the Pacific can have(I'd prefer CO. But MT, WY, or NM would work just as well).

[ilikeverin]

I'd like to submit this region map for consideration



Colorado is only an example of one of the states the Pacific can have(I'd prefer CO. But MT, WY, or NM would work just as well).

You just want two army bases

[ilikeverin]

I submit the following for consideration:



Very little reshuffling involved

And besides... who says the Mideast has to be the one with 11 places in it?

[MasterJedi]

Or we could just leave it the way it is and save ourselves a lot of time! It works, why change it? Because one person isn't happy? Waste of time, only way you should change it is if a MAJORITY of the people disapprove!

[Niles Caulder]

Governor Ilikeverin--doesn't that map include 11 states for the Pacific Region?  But pretty close to a workable solution, imo.  Governor Wildcard's map is very intuitive as well.

[Niles Caulder]

Or we could just leave it the way it is and save ourselves a lot of time! It works, why change it? Because one person isn't happy? Waste of time, only way you should change it is if a MAJORITY of the people disapprove!

Jedi, may I invite you to the thread I created for this very debate?  I'd be delighted if you got it off to a good start with a well formed criticism!  I'll see if I can defend myself tomorrow!  

[MasterJedi]

Heh, or you could just do a poll and see how many people want it to be changed? I bet you the majority doesn't.

[KEmperor]

Heh, or you could just do a poll and see how many people want it to be changed? I bet you the majority doesn't.

Regardless, this is a Constitutional issue that must be addressed.

[ilikeverin]

Governor Ilikeverin--doesn't that map include 11 states for the Pacific Region?  But pretty close to a workable solution, imo.  Governor Wildcard's map is very intuitive as well.

It does... but we need to include DC somewhere.  One region would have to have 11 places anyway

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Perhaps instead of adjusting the Regions to fit the Constitution, it would be easier to adjust the Constitution to fit the Regions?

[Niles Caulder]

Previously mentioned thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13;action=display;threadid=7019

Governor Ilikeverin:  Yessir, someone has to take DC, and that's the Region that Must have 11 places...because that region will still have ten requisite States, and so will All the others.  (Constitution refers to 'states,' not 'places'...and though it's up to the Courts to decide, I don't think D.C. would very likely pass for a "state.")
But I really do think your map is a pragmatic step in the right direction--almost to home plate.

Ernest mentioned adjusting the Constitution to fit the existing Regions.  I agree that an ammendment may be optimal, but I don't think retaining the existing regional map is the way to go, and I'll delve into why on the other thread, so this one doesn't get any more convoluted obstructing the purpose for which it was created.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Previously mentioned thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13;action=display;threadid=7019

Governor Ilikeverin:  Yessir, someone has to take DC, and that's the Region that Must have 11 places...because that region will still have ten requisite States, and so will All the others.  (Constitution refers to 'states,' not 'places'...and though it's up to the Courts to decide, I don't think D.C. would very likely pass for a "state.")
But I really do think your map is a pragmatic step in the right direction--almost to home plate.

Ernest mentioned adjusting the Constitution to fit the existing Regions.  I agree that an ammendment may be optimal, but I don't think retaining the existing regional map is the way to go, and I'll delve into why on the other thread, so this one doesn't get any more convoluted obstructing the purpose for which it was created.

You do realize we've had PLENTY of debate on this issue in months past, right?  After hundred of messages of bickering, the end result was basically that we don't care enough to change them.  

We've already deemphasized the Regions by removing their Senators, and the Governors are one step raway from being a purely ceremonial.

[Nation]

Previously mentioned thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13;action=display;threadid=7019

Governor Ilikeverin:  Yessir, someone has to take DC, and that's the Region that Must have 11 places...because that region will still have ten requisite States, and so will All the others.  (Constitution refers to 'states,' not 'places'...and though it's up to the Courts to decide, I don't think D.C. would very likely pass for a "state.")
But I really do think your map is a pragmatic step in the right direction--almost to home plate.

Ernest mentioned adjusting the Constitution to fit the existing Regions.  I agree that an ammendment may be optimal, but I don't think retaining the existing regional map is the way to go, and I'll delve into why on the other thread, so this one doesn't get any more convoluted obstructing the purpose for which it was created.

You do realize we've had PLENTY of debate on this issue in months past, right?  After hundred of messages of bickering, the end result was basically that we don't care enough to change them.  

We've already deemphasized the Regions by removing their Senators, and the Governors are one step raway from being a purely ceremonial.

What impact did Governors have in the first place besides being in charge of redistricting?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Previously mentioned thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13;action=display;threadid=7019

Governor Ilikeverin:  Yessir, someone has to take DC, and that's the Region that Must have 11 places...because that region will still have ten requisite States, and so will All the others.  (Constitution refers to 'states,' not 'places'...and though it's up to the Courts to decide, I don't think D.C. would very likely pass for a "state.")
But I really do think your map is a pragmatic step in the right direction--almost to home plate.

Ernest mentioned adjusting the Constitution to fit the existing Regions.  I agree that an ammendment may be optimal, but I don't think retaining the existing regional map is the way to go, and I'll delve into why on the other thread, so this one doesn't get any more convoluted obstructing the purpose for which it was created.

You do realize we've had PLENTY of debate on this issue in months past, right?  After hundred of messages of bickering, the end result was basically that we don't care enough to change them.  

We've already deemphasized the Regions by removing their Senators, and the Governors are one step raway from being a purely ceremonial.

What impact did Governors have in the first place besides being in charge of redistricting?

The could replace the Regional Senators in the event of a vacancy.

[Niles Caulder]

You do realize we've had PLENTY of debate on this issue in months past, right?  After hundred of messages of bickering, the end result was basically that we don't care enough to change them.  

We've already deemphasized the Regions by removing their Senators, and the Governors are one step raway from being a purely ceremonial.

Whoa!  The Senate Seats have already been detatched from the Regions?  I didn't find that among what I read.  (Catching up on this History is no small feat.)  I feel sheepish now.  If you can help me locate the appropriate thread, I'd be grateful.

But my case still applies to Governors, however ceremonial.  I see this government as something that's in growth, not decline...so it's worth the effort to resolve the basic issue now before the game evolves to provide Governors more-than-ceremonial functions.

And come on y'all...fantasy government without redistricting hassles?  What were you expecting?  

[Platypus]

My proposal-It includes a lot of reshuffling, but it is geographically fair, and as population-fair as possible, imho.

[King]

My proposal-It includes a lot of reshuffling, but it is geographically fair, and as population-fair as possible, imho.

Put Arizona back in the Pacific and I am fine...