Districts and Regions Maps

[Platypus]

I'm on board if we create regions that are geographically similar. The major problem I have with Harry's map is that Maryland and Minnesota don't exactly fit.

The amount of chance isn't important, the important thing is getting it right. And to do that, I believe m plan on page 2 is the best suited to do that.

[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.

[7,052,770]

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

[Platypus]

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.

[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.

[Platypus]

And a 10 region plan, but I believe 5 regions are best:

[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?

[Fritz]

Harry's second map has the least changes from the regions map we currently have.  The Northeast and Pacific regions would be virtually unchanged- both gain a state with no registered voters.  The biggest change is moving Texas, which has quite a few registereed voters, from the Midwest to the Southeast.

I don't remember exactly why we didnt have 10-state regions to begin with.  I know it was argued about, at the time, and it was eventually decided that having 10 states per region wasnt very important (but no one bothered to change the wording in the constitution).

If we are going to change the regions map, could we please get it done before the midterm elections?  It kind of makes a difference which region Reaganfan, from Texas, will be running for Governor in.  

[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?

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

I am firmly against breaking up the south .

[Platypus]

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.

[JohnFKennedy]

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

I like that one.

[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?

[Akno21]

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.

[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.

[MHS2002]

I personally would like to see a map that would place Virginia in a Southeastern region as opposed to the Mideastern region the state currently resides in.

[Demrepdan]

I personally would like to see a map that would place Virginia in a Southeastern region as opposed to the Mideastern region the state currently resides in.

I agree. Virginia is out of place....being in the Mideastern region.

[Niles Caulder]

OK, VA goes to the Deep South, let's say that pushes Texas into the Midwest, and then Minnesota (or Iowa)gets put in the Industrial Belt.

You know, that's starting to jibe with Sen. Hughento's preferences, too.

The only reservation I have is that shifts the Region of Governor Ilikeverin.

Governor, let me ask you straight out:  How hard would you take it?  If you'd like to continue representing the Midwest, could you be persuaded to move?

[Platypus]

i cannot accept a compromise solution, such as Harry is presenting. Once we have 10 state regions, there will be no reason to change the regions again, and no movement to do so.

We have one chance to get it right, and we only have the chance because of you, Niles. We also have a fairly long time to so this. It doesn't need to be done now, or next week.

Let's do it properly, or not do it at all. The current system is reasonable, and works. A 10-state regional plan would be better, of course, but if we are going to have a terrible map, it will end up being even less important.

The states need to have some form of cultural, historical, and political link, not just a geographical link.

[Niles Caulder]

i cannot accept a compromise solution, such as Harry is presenting. Once we have 10 state regions, there will be no reason to change the regions again, and no movement to do so.

We have one chance to get it right, and we only have the chance because of you, Niles. We also have a fairly long time to so this. It doesn't need to be done now, or next week.

Let's do it properly, or not do it at all. The current system is reasonable, and works. A 10-state regional plan would be better, of course, but if we are going to have a terrible map, it will end up being even less important.

The states need to have some form of cultural, historical, and political link, not just a geographical link.

Senator, you've made my argument for me.  What we have now works, but is certainly not reasonable.  What we're doing is improving just the inch it takes to submit to the provisions of the Constitution.

The cultural, historical, and political linkages and identifications will start to assert themselves with time.  You yourself said the need is there--and the increasing population of the forum will bring that need to the surface.  I'm willing to gamble that you are right...that the need IS there--and will grow in force.  When it's grown enough, an ammendment will practically pass itself.

But in the meantime, we have to get real and obey the Constitution.  And that happens now.

The desire for cultural, historical, and political linkages obviously has not been assertive enough to be provided for in the Constitution in its formation.  That amount of desire is not there yet---or is anyone of the opinion that a constitutional ammendment requiring MORE Senate support while WIDENING the scope of this can of worms can pass?

Openning That Can of Worms Gets In The Way of the Senate doing what it's obligated to do...Obey the Constitution.

Demonstrating obedience to the Constitution must be the priority of the Senate in this nation's infancy.  History will look back looking for heroes and villains among its elected representatives...be aware of the History you make.  The best heroic leaders are the ones who knew which battles to pick and which to leave to posterity, so they could ensure their posterity got their chance to do the same.

Sen. Hughento, I'm all for your second map if it's the one that can pull six votes.  But I just want a map that pulls the six votes.  The existing map is not acceptable...because it violates the Constitution.  So it's either the case the Senate voluntarilly passes what's possible, or the Supreme Court will simply order the Senate to try again under a deadline.

The magical four states that are important to you to unite today (your reasonable maps) are going to cost someone else their same magical four or five or six (which don't seem like such terrible maps.)  If you're willing to shove all the loose threads onto the other regions in order to accomodate a tight weave for your own, we're all sunk.  There's no solution if everyone thinks that way.  The regions do not make sense as they are.  They won't make MUCH better sense after this bill, no matter what it ends up being.  So getting this thing passed to serve the need it's designed for won't HURT anything.

I do support all your Constitutional map propositions equally along with the others'--but I cannot support an unwillingness to compromise, and I cannot support delay.  And I cannot politically support any public servant who casts in his rod in defying the Constitution.

Again...this region thing will come up again in time, from the bottom up.  It will NEED to when the bottom fills in.  That's when we strike for the "regional character" ammendment.  That will be a stairstep in between this initiative and dissolving regions altogether, when enough states are sufficiently populated in the Fanstasy Forum to make them unnessary.  That battle on that day will be refining recognition of the true ties that bind.  I promise you when the time comes I'll shout 'til I'm hoarse to wrap up your magical five states in a bow, if today we fiddle with these maps with an open mind and moderate expectations and get the six votes.

[Fritz]

The map Harry has proposed to the Senate is a reasonable one.  It fulfills the constitutional requirements, makes a bare minimum of changes to our existing map, and comes as close as I think is possible to fulfilling the average person's concept of five American "regions" within the context of the constitutional requirements.

Lets not belabor this.  Lets pass this map, and move on.

[King]

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

I like that one.

That means ReaganFan can't run against verin, only somebody from Iowa can

[7,052,770]

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

I like that one.

That means ReaganFan can't run against verin, only somebody from Iowa can

And If RF wanted to run, which I believe he does, he could run against Don, who currently does not have an opponent.