regions and districts

[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?  

[Fritz]

The 10-state idea is in Amendment IV of the constitution proposed by DemRepDan.  We didn't approve this amendment...we approved an alternative map that doesn't have exactly ten states in each region.  But their is nothing in the part of the Constitution that we approved (the main body) that mandates 10-state regions.

NickG raises an excellent point that completely and utterly refutes my previous argument.

However, it remains that the language of Amendment IV needs to be revised, as the regions do not in fact have 10 states.

[Fritz]

The vote was contradictory and thus invalid, imho.

Yes, it was.  I have made this point in other threads.  For example:

The Regions map contradicts the Amendment which was approved in the same vote.  The Amendment- which passed- clearly calls for 10-state regions.  Then a plan was included in the choices that did not include 10-state regions.  This would be similiar to holding a vote on what color of yellow bananas we ought to have- yellow, blue, or purple.

Even Gustaf says he didn't understand the vote, and Gustaf is the #1 poster in this forum and everyone seems to like him.