regions and districts

[dunn]

for those who asked

regions and districts

[dunn]

[JohnFKennedy]

for those who asked

regions and districts

I don't get why that is it, regions are supposed to each have 10 states, those don't and the people are in no way balanced.

[© tweed]

which is which

[ShapeShifter]

for those who asked

regions and districts

forgot to label your map

[dunn]

that's what the people voted

the senate can change them but that was the vote, hell I didn't even vted for that plan, but the people have spoken

[JohnFKennedy]

assuming that is districts, the populations are far from balanced, the one with Texas in has 8 people, and the one with Pennsylvania and New England has 20.

[dunn]

regions and disteicts = the first one is regions and the second disteicts....

[© tweed]

ok thanks Dunn

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think the regions are fine as they are.  The Plains region has slightly more states than the other regions, but most of those states are entirely unpopulated, so who cares?  This is the map that got the most votes in both a poll pitting it against ten other maps and the final amendments vote.

As for the districts, they are already unbalanced, so they will have to be changed according to the census.  When they will be changed I have no idea.

[dunn]

ok thanks Dunn

welcome
I am waiting for that mail

[© tweed]

ok thanks Dunn

welcome
I am waiting for that mail

mail?

[dunn]

ok thanks Dunn

welcome
I am waiting for that mail

mail?

sorry' my mistake. I thought for a sec you were mass117

[Gustaf]

The Districts map obviously sucks and has to be remade, but this would have to be done anyway at some point. The regions map suck as well, but we knew that was gonna happen from the beginning, that's why we created it. But the regions map MUST have a sensible reason for its division. Now, you can EITHER argue the number of states (10 in each) OR some cultural divide. This map has neitehr.  

[dunn]

The Districts map obviously sucks and has to be remade, but this would have to be done anyway at some point. The regions map suck as well, but we knew that was gonna happen from the beginning, that's why we created it. But the regions map MUST have a sensible reason for its division. Now, you can EITHER argue the number of states (10 in each) OR some cultural divide. This map has neitehr.  

I agree, but we voted on that a few days ago. it's the people choice. once there is a senate I guess changing it will not be hard

[Gustaf]

The Districts map obviously sucks and has to be remade, but this would have to be done anyway at some point. The regions map suck as well, but we knew that was gonna happen from the beginning, that's why we created it. But the regions map MUST have a sensible reason for its division. Now, you can EITHER argue the number of states (10 in each) OR some cultural divide. This map has neitehr.  

I agree, but we voted on that a few days ago. it's the people choice. once there is a senate I guess changing it will not be hard

But it's kind of weird to hold a senate election with those maps...and some senators might be inclined against changing the maps, you know...

[dunn]

The Districts map obviously sucks and has to be remade, but this would have to be done anyway at some point. The regions map suck as well, but we knew that was gonna happen from the beginning, that's why we created it. But the regions map MUST have a sensible reason for its division. Now, you can EITHER argue the number of states (10 in each) OR some cultural divide. This map has neitehr.  

I agree, but we voted on that a few days ago. it's the people choice. once there is a senate I guess changing it will not be hard

I say again, I was against that, BUT the people chose it. what can I say - we are a democracy
But it's kind of weird to hold a senate election with those maps...and some senators might be inclined against changing the maps, you know...

[Fritz]

The region map- which doesn't have 10 states each- was approved in the same voting where the Constitution was approved- the Constitution which clearly states that each region has 10 states.

In other words, the voters have approved contradictary proposals.  In my opinion, the vote for the Constitution supercedes the vote for which map to use.

If you go ahead with this map for regions, then the clause in the section stating regions have 10 states each needs to be re-written.  (I guess the Constitution needs to be re-written, anyway.)

Perhaps the voters did not clearly understand they were voting for a map which would not give an equal number of states to each region (since they also voted for a Constitution that said otherwise).  If this applies to you, please speak up.

Have you all noticed I'm a stickler for procedural detail?  

[Gustaf]

The Districts map obviously sucks and has to be remade, but this would have to be done anyway at some point. The regions map suck as well, but we knew that was gonna happen from the beginning, that's why we created it. But the regions map MUST have a sensible reason for its division. Now, you can EITHER argue the number of states (10 in each) OR some cultural divide. This map has neitehr.  

I agree, but we voted on that a few days ago. it's the people choice. once there is a senate I guess changing it will not be hard

I say again, I was against that, BUT the people chose it. what can I say - we are a democracy
But it's kind of weird to hold a senate election with those maps...and some senators might be inclined against changing the maps, you know...

Oh, sod the people. And tje regions map can't be changed, so wee must take care of that BEFORE the mid-terms, I'm afraid.

[dunn]

The region map- which doesn't have 10 states each- was approved in the same voting where the Constitution was approved- the Constitution which clearly states that each region has 10 states.

In other words, the voters have approved contradictary proposals.  In my opinion, the vote for the Constitution supercedes the vote for which map to use.

If you go ahead with this map for regions, then the clause in the section stating regions have 10 states each needs to be re-written.  (I guess the Constitution needs to be re-written, anyway.)

Perhaps the voters did not clearly understand they were voting for a map which would not give an equal number of states to each region (since they also voted for a Constitution that said otherwise).  If this applies to you, please speak up.

Have you all noticed I'm a stickler for procedural detail?  

another goos reson to be progressive
we are like that - Lewis, Peter, Emsworth, Siege, Nick and myself

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

How about this:

Add Montana to the West
Add Missouri to the Southeast
Pretend North and South Dakota are only one state

Do I hear any objections from Dakota residents?  Anyone?

[7,052,770]

I think the current maps are fine.
In fact they are GREAT![/color][/b][/i][/u]

[ShapeShifter]

I think the current maps are fine.
In fact they are GREAT![/color][/b][/i][/u]

I think so too.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

How about this:

Add Montana to the West
Add Missouri to the Southeast
Pretend North and South Dakota are only one state

Do I hear any objections from Dakota residents?  Anyone?

For the record, I have NO objection to leaving the regions are they are.

[Platypus]

Thats because you created it, Harry

The regions need 10 states, and the distriicts need equal members, as per the constitution.

We can't change regions once they are set, and once we have senators for those regions-they are permanent, as it says in the constitution-so, lets settle it now.

I'll create a new thread JUST for 10 state proposals. I know it it the 50 millionth one, but we really need to get this right.