Districts and Regions Maps

[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

[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!  

[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.

[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?  

[Niles Caulder]

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

Out of the ones I've seen so far, I like this one the best--the Regional characters are as consistent as I've seen them yet.
Of course that's just one voter's opinion.

Senator Harry:  agreeing to a map wasn't the problem; agreeing to an unconstitutional map was.  Nothing short of a constitutional ammendment or the Supreme Court declaring changes in the laws of mathematics will save the existing map.  So if the Senate is going to HAVE to go to effort of a constitutional ammendment in order to get out of a much simpler job of just passing a constituional map, why not have that ammendment create some sense of electoral fairness instead of fossilizing this "sausage" for all posterity?

[Niles Caulder]

why not just put TX in the SE and MT and WY in the pacific?  That'd be mininal changing

If I'm counting right, the Pacific only needs one more state to total 10.  Texas in the SE would make it 10.  Bumping another state out of the Midwest so it dominoes East would make 3 more 10's, and  would do the trick.  You're approach is very feasible.

[Niles Caulder]

You know...I REALLY like this idea too.  12 Senators invites more participation, and more consensus building when they get in office.  Plus the difference between "majority" and "supermajority" is more than just a single vote when a seat is vacant.

Perhaps shuffling Ohio the the Blue Midwest, and then Minessota to the Great Plains, that would solve the representation vacancy?  The single 8-state-region being the sparcely populated Great Plains I think is an intuitive solution.

[Niles Caulder]

Niles, regions do not effect Senate Seats....

King, I'm sorry--I've scoured the Folders to corroborate that...but I can't find it.  The Constitution stickied to the Folder say Regions do dictate Senate seats; and if there's been an ammendment changing that, I'll be happy to shut up with the only complaint that the Constitution displayed needs to be updated for accuracy.  Can you point me to what I'm missing, here?

[Niles Caulder]

Niles, I hate to break it to you, but we've broken the Constiution on MANY ocassions when it made things unnecessarily difficult, etc. We try to keep the focus on ELECTIONS, not the inner workings of the government.

Sen. Nation, believe me I understand branches of government coloring outside the lines of the constitution--and it lasts for as long as most everyone is happy enough for government to save face about it.  This isn't just a Fantasy Forum dynamic...it's the real world.

I'm not here to ruin the fun for the thing for everyone in the Senate.  I never wanted to do that.  If 'inner workings of government' isn't what they want to do--just run to win to run for re-election again--that's great!

For me, the fun is reading the Region, and knowing the Govt. had chances to do some fantasy governing.  To me, the results of that front would make elections ten times more fun--give voters something to have opinions about beside the same old pie-in-the sky "abolish abortion/abolish death penalty" tedium.

I want to have fun.  I want everybody to have fun.  I'm having fun pulling this thread and giving the Supreme Court something to handle--if they choose to hear my case, presuming they feel it necessary if it looks like the Senate won't act.  If the Senate can have fun in the game trying to be accountable to Constitutional Government--then it can address the issue rather than pretending it doesn't exist after the citizens being governed point it out.  If this regionalization thing is NO fun at all for the represenative government...then the Senate can hope that the Supreme Court will just dictate a solution--regardless of public opinion, but have the whole thing done with so we can move on.  (You wouldn't be the first legislature to get stymied on this issue and have to hide behind the Court's authority to escape the wrath of the majority of voters!)

So if the Senate wants to wash its hands of it all, and the Supreme Court will have fun hearing the case, then I'll go that route instead.   If the Executive branch via the Attorney General thinks it'll be fun to weigh in (perhaps on the Senate's behalf pleading the case against me, so much the better.  I'll have fun doing that too...and y'all won't have to be bothered much.    (If the Court doesn't take the case, I'll know they feel the same way about things that some of y'all do--and that'll settle things right fast.  I will still have had fun trying to do the right thing, and at least some citizen will have noticed the Constitution doesn't mean a fig in all this fun.)

The bridge between fantasy elections and fantasy government is fantasy politics.  Fantasy conflicts are inevitable...and I think there is so much room in this Forum for everyone to have fun concentrating on the aspects of those Fantasy political games they most enjoy.

The fun I'm having right now is seeing how much sound governing one fantasy citizen can do.  No better place to start than forging a strong and sound reverence for the Constitution.  I'm not out to become an unpopular spoiler of everyone's fun to do it.  I trust the system y'all have in place to resolve my fun so that everyone else retains theirs, too--win or lose in game terms.

[Niles Caulder]

I'm fine with the current situation, and I don't like any of the proposals for region map that fit the five regions of ten states each model that Constitution currently calls for.  However, I don't see any Constitutional crisis.  The Constitution doesn't specify how long the Senate has before it must submit a map that fits the model and that until then the old map will be used.  In short, the only reason to fiddle with things would be if there was a desire to change the regional boundaries.

I think that's a great route to take for the Defendant and a great Constitutional debate:  Does the legislative branch have the right to indefinately delay its undated constitutional mandates?  Or do the constitutional specifications of the Regions indicate that they really have to do it eventually?

[Niles Caulder]

Ok, I see it now:  the alteration of all Senate seats to Districts WAS a constitutional ammendment: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13;action=display;threadid=2532

For that reason, I'm altering my brief to apply solely to the issue of representation by govornerships.

Again, going to the effort to add ammendments to the copy of the constitution provided in the HQ link would prevent some confusion, as was certainly the case for me.

[Niles Caulder]

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.

That is what I was saying all along way back when the regions were decided but nobody listened .

Senator JFK...in the event I can't persuade either of my Senators to initiate some simple and appropriate legislation...would you be receptive to doing so, for the sake of preserving the Senate's austerity and leadership?

[Niles Caulder]

How about this?  Very little change

I thank both of my District Senators for taking the lead in this important cause!  I think Senator Harry's proposed map is 100% sufficient, and I hope the Senate will embrace such a pragmatic solution (that WON'T require a Constitutional Ammendment to enact!)  The lack of an existing govorner for the new Midwest Boundries that Ernest mentioned can be easily solved in the ways he suggested.

Senator JFK is obviously a public servant who understands the portend of this issue as well--so that's 3.  Just getting just a couple of the others to sign off (if for no other reason than to put this thing to rest) can't be THAT hard...I look forward to the good fight on the Senate Floor.

[Niles Caulder]

And just for the record, (given this map) if Gov. Ilikevern decided to represent the Midwest District with an official residence in some Midwest Hotel room, I'd surely support his efforts there...(even if it required me to send my mail to the same hotel.)

Hughento:  You're listed in the Senate, and you've been working constructively on this thread.  Do I assume correctly you're on board, at least in principle?  If so, that'd be 4.

So when do y'all suppose we'll see the Senate take up legislation?

(I'll betcha the Supreme Court is wondering that, too.)

[Niles Caulder]

(I'll betcha the Supreme Court is wondering that, too.)

Now why would you think that.....

LOL...well, I cling to this fantasy that you government patriarchs don't have the ending worked out already behind the scenes.  

[Niles Caulder]

I really like that map, too.  When it comes to 'geographically similar' I'm not sure any adjoining 10 will ever be perfect.  Your map does have the Dakotas grouped with the Industrial Belt as far as Pennsylvania.  I like the idea, but I think Harry's is at least as intuitive.

An important thing to consider is what the potential shifts will do to incumbants running for re-election--especially forcing two existing governors to run against each other.  You guys are taking a brave stand to do the right thing; I don't want you suffering politically for it.  You guys are the ones who have these high government connections...you'll have to be the ones to working around the elbows.  I hope we can get ahead of the ball and get the governors involved in deciding their own fates....more opportunities to demonstrate courageous leadership!

Of course it goes without saying I'm going to make sure people remember the folks who stuck their neck out here.

[Niles Caulder]

Since ILV needs to stay in the same region, I also propose this map, called Harry 2.

I'm just an Average Joe with one vote (and it ain't in the Senate....)
but this one gives me goosebumps.  Got a good vibe about this one.

New England pretty much includes "the Northern states" of the original 13 colonies.
The Blue Region consists of most of the remaining states of the Union during the civil war...only exception being Virginia.  I think it's a livable one.  Virginia's character and role in federal government makes as much sense as being included with D.C.
The remaining Confederate states, of course.
The Midwest bears an uncanny resemblance to the territories during the same time period.  Minnesota and Iowa exceptions here...again, I can dig it.
And the West...congratulations Gov. Wildcard.  You're proud new owner of Montana.

This one changes little, works around the current climate of representation, does as good job of grouping similar states as possible, and resolves the issue of constitutionality.
Well done, Senator.

[Niles Caulder]

You know...somewhere down the line, I bet you that's exactly what the people will want as they start filling up the vacant states.

I see a ten-Region system in the future: but it will require a constitutional ammendment to make happen--7 votes in the Senate plus a popular majority.  I agree it seems a five region system has been working out fine so far--I'd wait until a popular majority wants to double the number of governorships before trying to gel 7 Senators on that kinda map.

(Somewhere down the road after that, this thing may shift gears into one state per governor!)

Senator Hughento, how feasible do you think Sen. Harry's second map is?

[Niles Caulder]

Yessir, thanks to your responsible public announcements, I've noticed that myself.  Threw out a possible solution on your thread.  I'll enjoy the representation of Gov. Ilikevern for another term so long as the following regional elections are off a constitutional map----passed THIS term.

[Niles Caulder]

my second proposal, but I prefer my first.



The difference between my first and Harry's first is that the Dakotas and Pernnsylvania can both be considered as Midwestern states in a liberal interpretation. Maryland cannot.

Also, there are people from MD and MN here, but nobody is from the dakotas.

LOL I didn't see this map until this very moment, Senator...sorry I didn't respond earlier.  From a Texan's point of view, it's very good!  It's a whole new sort of "pork-barrel" kind of goosebump.

I'm fine with this one too...but it does pit Gov. Nick G versus the Northeastern governors.  Is that an issue...is everyone running for re-election in that situation?

Also, let me ask you Senator Harry...what do you think of this map?

[Niles Caulder]

Basically I'm working off a strong feeling that MN, IA, WI, IL and MI ought to be together if possible, same with AL, MS, GA, FL, NC, SC and TN.

I would significantly prefer any maps with these in place. Remember, they're regions-they have t be lifelike where possible.

Senator, let me pitch this thought and see what you think of it:

Adjacent 10s are going to make the standard of uniformly geographical regional impossible.  We could get the northern and southern states you've mentioned locked...but the blocks are going to look oddly jumbled somewhere else  (Arkansas with your PN/MN region for example.)  I just don't think it can be helped.

This is important enough to attempt a constitutional ammendment to resolve...but I think it's an issue that will resolve itself with time.  As the nation's population gets bigger, a true popular support will be coming to split these up into smaller and more local groups...like the 10 map you worked out.  Same as when territories of old finally partitioned and petitioned themselves into the Union proper...it didn't happen overnight--and the grossly huge regions had little to do with geography at the time--it was that which was claimed and hopefully being developed.  But as the communities build up, the popular support will propel the constitutional ammendment needed to make more proper regioning happen.  I think we have to recognize that's the state of our union at the moment--not the well established and entrenched population centers after the West was won.

In the meantime, for the sake of garnering a consensus, can we work off the principle of minimal surgery to get a working Constitutional solution...because in the long run, I think time is on your side.   It's an improvement that is inevitable...but today I think it's a matter of picking the battle that can be won today without pushing a premature ammendment to make it that much harder.

[Niles Caulder]

Hey, Senator Tweed.  
Quiet over there....
What do ya say?

[Niles Caulder]

Basically I'm working off a strong feeling that MN, IA, WI, IL and MI ought to be together if possible, same with AL, MS, GA, FL, NC, SC and TN.

I would significantly prefer any maps with these in place. Remember, they're regions-they have t be lifelike where possible.

Senator, let me pitch this thought and see what you think of it:

Adjacent 10s are going to make the standard of uniformly geographical regional impossible.  We could get the northern and southern states you've mentioned locked...but the blocks are going to look oddly jumbled somewhere else  (Arkansas with your PN/MN region for example.)  I just don't think it can be helped.

This is important enough to attempt a constitutional ammendment to resolve...but I think it's an issue that will resolve itself with time.  As the nation's population gets bigger, a true popular support will be coming to split these up into smaller and more local groups...like the 10 map you worked out.  Same as when territories of old finally partitioned and petitioned themselves into the Union proper...it didn't happen overnight--and the grossly huge regions had little to do with geography at the time--it was that which was claimed and hopefully being developed.  But as the communities build up, the popular support will propel the constitutional ammendment needed to make more proper regioning happen.  I think we have to recognize that's the state of our union at the moment--not the well established and entrenched population centers after the West was won.

In the meantime, for the sake of garnering a consensus, can we work off the principle of minimal surgery to get a working Constitutional solution...because in the long run, I think time is on your side.   It's an improvement that is inevitable...but today I think it's a matter of picking the battle that can be won today without pushing a premature ammendment to make it that much harder.

It makes sense.

Senator, we've got us a hard-working bunch of SOBs here who've stayed up late and been sleepin' on couches to fix this thing.  The bill is on the Senate floor, and it's got at least a starting place in terms of a specific map.  I was sure hoping we could count on you in the column to help produce a constitutional map, so the Courts don't have to get involved and embarass the government all around.  Having you on board would just nearly break the winning tape--and we could put this thing to bed.

Please let me know if there's anything I can do to make your decision easier.