Constitutional Amendment on Districts

[JohnFKennedy]

(JFK takes the Senate Floor)

I would like to propose a constitutional amendment to Amendment IV, Section 3 which currently reads:

All districts must be contiguous. No district shall have more than three register voters than another district. The Senate shall arrange the set-up of the districts, and, with a two-thirds vote, approve the final version. A census of registered voters shall be administered every ten months which will determine the districts. Districts shall be numbered, the district with the lowest number of states shall be called district one, and so on up to district five. A new amendment need not be formed in order to change the districts. An up-to-date list of the districts and their respective states within shall always be displayed within this amendment.

to read:

No district shall have more than three registered voters more than another district. The Senate shall arrange the set-up of the districts, and, with a two-thirds vote, approve the final version. A census of registered voters shall be administered every four months which will determine the districts. Districts shall be numbered, the district with the lowest number of states shall be called district one, and so on up to district five. A new amendment need not be formed in order to change the districts. An up-to-date list of the districts and their respective states within shall always be displayed within this amendment.

The changes I have made are removing the required contiguouty of Districts and also changing the census from every ten months to every four months.

I would like to now explain my reasons for these:

Well for starters, at this current time it seems to me to be impossible to keep the districts contiguous and also satisfy the requirement of a difference of no more than 3 voters per district.

I see the allocation of voters as far more important than the contiguity of the Districts as the real government sees also which the American Government also sees as we can see from the allocation of Congressional Districts.

As I see it, there is no solution for District 1 that satisfies both rules and as I have said, voter distribution is far more important in my opinion.

Now, moving on to my census. A lot happens in ten months which is the current time per census, in fact, a lot happens in four months as we can see from the fact that the number of voters in this election surpassed that of the previous in the first day.

Holding a census only every ten months will add to the problems of Districts as we will see districts disproportiate to each other emerge rapidly as they have done in our short history.

It is my opinion that ten months is far too long a time and, entirely arbitrary. Four months on the other hand is not, it is a short amount of time, in fact, the amount of time between each Presidential election so, it is my opinion, that the census should take place at the time of each Presidential election as voter turnout is generally great in the presidential election which means more people would be included in the census than otherwise.

With a census every ten months we are taking them at odd times and they are easy to forget. It is a lot easier to work it if we hold a census at the same time as the Presidential election.

I have also added the word more into the phrase "No district shall have more than three register voters than another district" as otherwise it doesn't make sense and also changed it to "registered" as that also makes no sense at the moment.

I would like to encourage any and all Senators to speak on this amendment.

Thank You.

(JFK Steps Down)

[12th Doctor]

As the future Presiding officer of the Senate, I support this ammendment, provided that the following changes are made:

1) There can be no more than one state in between the parts of any one district.  ex. If we choose to create a district that encompasses Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois, we may leave out Ohio, however, one cannot make a district out of Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Michigan because it there would be two states (Indiana and Ohio) in between the two parts of the district.

2) No non-contigeous districts may be split into more than two parts.  Meaning that you cannot make a district out of Maryland, North Carolina and then Florida, Alabama, etc.

[JohnFKennedy]

As the future Presiding officer of the Senate, I support this ammendment, provided that the following changes are made:

1) There can be no more than one state in between the parts of any one district.  ex. If we choose to create a district that encompasses Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois, we may leave out Ohio, however, one cannot make a district out of Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Michigan because it there would be two states (Indiana and Ohio) in between the two parts of the district.

2) No non-contigeous districts may be split into more than two parts.  Meaning that you cannot make a district out of Maryland, North Carolina and then Florida, Alabama, etc.

I would agree with that and shall amend the bill posthaste to include those conditions, it will be a pleasure working with you Vice President Supersoulty!

[JohnFKennedy]

Districts do not have to be contiguous, however, there can be no more than one state dividing the states in a district. No district shall have more than three registered voters more than another district. The Senate shall arrange the set-up of the districts, and, with a two-thirds vote, approve the final version. A census of registered voters shall be administered every four months which will determine the districts. Districts shall be numbered, the district with the lowest number of states shall be called district one, and so on up to district five. A new amendment need not be formed in order to change the districts. An up-to-date list of the districts and their respective states within shall always be displayed within this amendment.

I have added the following sentence to the beginning of the amendment:

Districts do not have to be contiguous, however, there can be no more than one state dividing the states in a district.

Is that satisfactory?

I would like to say that this is all one constitutional amendment and thus should be voted on as such.

A 2/3 majority will be needed to pass an amendment meaning we really need to get the Senators out in full.

[12th Doctor]

As the future Presiding officer of the Senate, I support this ammendment, provided that the following changes are made:

1) There can be no more than one state in between the parts of any one district.  ex. If we choose to create a district that encompasses Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois, we may leave out Ohio, however, one cannot make a district out of Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Michigan because it there would be two states (Indiana and Ohio) in between the two parts of the district.

2) No non-contigeous districts may be split into more than two parts.  Meaning that you cannot make a district out of Maryland, North Carolina and then Florida, Alabama, etc.

I would agree with that and shall amend the bill posthaste to include those conditions, it will be a pleasure working with you Vice President Supersoulty!

Thank you.  This will be a pleasure for me too.

[12th Doctor]

Districts do not have to be contiguous, however, there can be no more than one state dividing the states in a district. No district shall have more than three registered voters more than another district. The Senate shall arrange the set-up of the districts, and, with a two-thirds vote, approve the final version. A census of registered voters shall be administered every four months which will determine the districts. Districts shall be numbered, the district with the lowest number of states shall be called district one, and so on up to district five. A new amendment need not be formed in order to change the districts. An up-to-date list of the districts and their respective states within shall always be displayed within this amendment.

I have added the following sentence to the beginning of the amendment:

Districts do not have to be contiguous, however, there can be no more than one state dividing the states in a district.

Is that satisfactory?

I would like to say that this is all one constitutional amendment and thus should be voted on as such.

A 2/3 majority will be needed to pass an amendment meaning we really need to get the Senators out in full.

I will support this if it comes to the floor, I would still like to see a provision regarding limiting the number of parts a district can have, but I will support this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While not a senator, I am the leader of the Manifest Destiny party.  I would like to point out that if our party's central plank of annexing Canada was carried out there would be no need to amend the Constitution as there would be more than one way to connect New England to rest of out Great Republic.

[7,052,770]

While not a senator, I am the leader of the Manifest Destiny party.  I would like to point out that if our party's central plank of annexing Canada was carried out there would be no need to amend the Constitution as there would be more than one way to connect New England to rest of out Great Republic.

I agree that we should add the provinces and territories of Canada somehow into our regions.
But as for the constitutional amendments, I support, if for no other reason to give more options for the districts.

[JohnFKennedy]

*bump*

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The ten months is not arbitrary...it is there because the real US conducts its census every 10 years, and years IRL = months on the fantasy board.  But the membership of the fantasy board changes enough that more a more frequent census might be appropriate.

I agree with this amendment...but maybe we could just say the geographic integrity is a important factor to consider when drawing districts, rather than placing limits.  After all, you can gerrymander things pretty badly and still maintain continuity (e.g. a district of ID, UT, CO, KS, MO, TN, GA, and FL), and that sort of thing should be look on suspiciously.

[© tweed]

I think the districts should be given names rather than numbers.  The 'New England District' sounds better than 'District One'.

[JohnFKennedy]

I think the districts should be given names rather than numbers.  The 'New England District' sounds better than 'District One'.

Yes, the problem is, as the states move about with re-districting, the New England District may engulf many other states or lose many also.

[ilikeverin]

The ten months is not arbitrary...it is there because the real US conducts its census every 10 years, and years IRL = months on the fantasy board.  But the membership of the fantasy board changes enough that more a more frequent census might be appropriate.

I agree with this amendment...but maybe we could just say the geographic integrity is a important factor to consider when drawing districts, rather than placing limits.  After all, you can gerrymander things pretty badly and still maintain continuity (e.g. a district of ID, UT, CO, KS, MO, TN, GA, and FL), and that sort of thing should be look on suspiciously.

That's why we have gubernatorial elections... if you don't like your officials, boot 'em out

Anyway, I'm sure any suggestion to do that would be ridiculed by the other governors.

[© tweed]

I think the districts should be given names rather than numbers.  The 'New England District' sounds better than 'District One'.

Yes, the problem is, as the states move about with re-districting, the New England District may engulf many other states or lose many also.

So rename them!  It's not that hard, for me at least.

[JohnFKennedy]

I think the districts should be given names rather than numbers.  The 'New England District' sounds better than 'District One'.

Yes, the problem is, as the states move about with re-districting, the New England District may engulf many other states or lose many also.

So rename them!  It's not that hard, for me at least.

Thanks for the cheap shot at my intelligence Senator Tweed. My point is, if we go around renaming districts it becomes confusing, which is why I approve of merely District 1, District 2 and so on, if you want names, look at the regions.

[© tweed]

Senator Quayle,

Lets just give them unofficial names.

[Beet]

Districts do not have to be contiguous, however, there can be no more than one state dividing the states in a district. No district shall have more than three registered voters more than another district. The Senate shall arrange the set-up of the districts, and, with a two-thirds vote, approve the final version. A census of registered voters shall be administered every four months which will determine the districts. Districts shall be numbered, the district with the lowest number of states shall be called district one, and so on up to district five. A new amendment need not be formed in order to change the districts. An up-to-date list of the districts and their respective states within shall always be displayed within this amendment.

I agree with this amendment, but there might be some time in the future where NJ has almost as many people as New York today and adding it to a NE district would inevitably make that district have more than 3 additional people over the average of the other districts. Then we would have to have another constitutional amendment. So instead of strictly requiring no district to have more than three more registered voters than another, we should say that "all districts shall have as equitable a population as is reasonable, and that complies with the rest of the amendment." For example, the NE district could be bigger or smaller by more than three registered voters, if the only way to remedy that was to add West Virginia to the distrct.

Also, note that NickG has a point, this will not prevent gerrymandering. Though it may make it more difficult.

[Platypus]

Each distrixt should have the name of a great President from that district

2 Dems, 1 GOP and 1 other, preferably.

[JohnFKennedy]

As this Amendment is necessary for Redistricting.

I would like to call a vote upon it immediately.

[JohnFKennedy]

I vote for the amendment.

[StevenNick]

I vote for the amendment.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Thank you!  Let's get this done...

[TheWildCard]

Yes we must get this done for the sake of the districts for the sake of our nation, for the sake of our citizens I ask all senators to pass this bill as swiftly as possible..

[StevenNick]

Vote on this damn it!

[Beet]

This amendment is potentially uncompliable. The 3 difference limit should be replaced by a more flexible statement to give it self-consistency in all cases. I vote no.