Re-Districting Information for Governors

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Trying to sumarize constitutional plans set forth so far into this post (At least ones that haven't been retracted by their author.)  I am assuming that we will be using Fritz's count for now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also have another plan that I wish to put forth as my preferred plan to date:



District 1 (NY et al.) - 24 votes
District 2 (PA et al.) - 25 votes
District 3 (TX et al.) - 25 votes
District 4 (MI et al.) - 23 votes
District 5 (CA et al.) - 24 votes

I'm not firmly wedded to it, tho.

[bgwah]

I thought districts had to be contiguous or whatever?

Not anymore.  Stuff happens here when you're gone for a few months, Jesus.

Well I figured it changed. I just wanted to know. But I think it should've stayed the old way.

It seems like the problem is New York! Why not just split it into two states, upstate and NYC metro/Long Island?

[King]

I thought districts had to be contiguous or whatever?

Not anymore. Stuff happens here when you're gone for a few months, Jesus.

Well I figured it changed. I just wanted to know. But I think it should've stayed the old way.

It seems like the problem is New York! Why not just split it into two states, upstate and NYC metro/Long Island?

Too hard to get people registered in NY...I suggested to make a 6th District that consisted of just NY and PA...

[Gabu]

District 1 (NY et al.) - 24 votes
District 2 (PA et al.) - 25 votes
District 3 (TX et al.) - 25 votes
District 4 (MI et al.) - 23 votes
District 5 (CA et al.) - 24 votes

I like this one the most, although Minnesota probably would be better suited lumped with Wisconsin, Iowa, etc.  That wouldn't really make a feasible alternative for a District 5 addition, however (besides Iowa, which I'd have the same complaint about), so I'd say it's good enough.  Also, you switched Districts 3 and 4; District 3 is the one that Michigan is in.

[Platypus]

no, district three is the one with the third least amount of states.

I like Ernests' second plan, but I still prefer mine, to be honest, partially because it incorporates my move and keeps geopolitical regions relatively intact.

[Gabu]

no, district three is the one with the third least amount of states.

Oh, is it?  I didn't realize that their names depended on something, sorry.

[King]

Damn New England, I would have had the perfect map if it wasn't for their low birth rate:

[Akno21]

Politically, it would shape out like this, I think.

Ernest 1:
District 1- Lean Left
District 2- Tossup
District 3- Tossup
District 4- Solid Right
District 5- Lean Right

Hughento 1:
District 1- Lean Left
District 2- Lean Left
District 3- Solid Left
District 4- Solid Right
District 5- Solid Right

Ernest 2:
District 1- Lean Left
District 2- Tossup
District 3- Solid Right
District 4- Tossup
District 5- Lean Left

Districts ordered by number of states.

[Siege40]

While I'm not 100% sure, I think creating a 6th District is unconsitutional, and therefore would require an ammendment. So far, of all the plans I support Hugh's plan with the NJ switch that I've stated. But it the switch is rejected I would by ok with it as is, not pleased but ok. If registration in PA and NY continue to rise things will become gradually more difficult. In the end shifting PA into D3 may have to occur.

Siege

[Colin]

I think as Atlasia continues to grow we will be forced into making a 6th District. It would become the only way to keep the districts constitutional. One possibility though would be to move PA into district 3. This would add some people to a region that seems slightly depopulated.

[Siege40]

Some expansion may be needed. Perhaps a formula should be devised incase there is a decline in the forum. Number of active voters/20. 121 now, that's 6. Perhaps we should consider this...

Siege

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Politically, it would shape out like this, I think.

Hughento 1:
District 2- Lean Left

Ernest 2:
District 2- Tossup

Are you anticipating people will move depending what plan is chosen?  District 2 is identical under these two plans.

BTW, based on what I've seen, any plan that isn't going to have an excess of gerryandering is going to have to use the Northeast plus DC and MD to form Districts 1 and 2 and use the other 38 States to form Distrcts 3, 4, and 5.

[Akno21]

Politically, it would shape out like this, I think.

Hughento 1:
District 2- Lean Left

Ernest 2:
District 2- Tossup

Are you anticipating people will move depending what plan is chosen?  District 2 is identical under these two plans.

BTW, based on what I've seen, any plan that isn't going to have an excess of gerryandering is going to have to use the Northeast plus DC and MD to form Districts 1 and 2 and use the other 38 States to form Distrcts 3, 4, and 5.

Sorry, Ernest 1 would be tossup, while Ernest 2 and Hughento 1 lean Left.

[Fritz]

Bump- realizing that we are currently down one governor, and soon to be down another one with Siege40 getting elected to the Senate- could the three remaining governors please take some action towards redistricting.  The current election in district 2 is making it very clear how sparse that district's population is.  Midterms come early because of the holidays, and what district Minnesota is in will probably have an impact on whether or not I choose to run (I am sure other potential candidates are in the same boat).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Would either the Supreme Court or the Attorney General care to express an opinion on whether with vacant governorships the number of governors needed to approve a plan remains the same or does it decrease.  i.e, if Governor Seige40 wins the Senate race whether we will the approval of 2/3 of 5 governors which is 4 and thus impossible or the approval of 2/3 of 3 governors and thus possible.

[Peter]

Would either the Supreme Court or the Attorney General care to express an opinion on whether with vacant governorships the number of governors needed to approve a plan remains the same or does it decrease.  i.e, if Governor Seige40 wins the Senate race whether we will the approval of 2/3 of 5 governors which is 4 and thus impossible or the approval of 2/3 of 3 governors and thus possible.

The Supreme Court cannot rule unless it actually has a case, and soon, hopefully, won't be able to rule unless the plaintiff has standing. I'll have a look at it over the next few hours and give you an opinion on the matter myself though.

[Niles Caulder]

Caulder Consultancies wishes to promote Secretary Fritz's notion that the rolls of actively registered voters adequately serves the Constitutionally mandated census.  This is not only pragmatic, but I think given the diligently practiced procedures with regard to refreshing voter registration rolls, it's as reliably accurate a measuring as any new one would produce.

Mr. Caulder also wishes to express gratitude for being being included in the census!

[Peter]

I read all the relevant bits of the Constitution. I am of the opinion that it would disenfranchise regions if they did not have a chance for their voice to be heard in the redistricting process. I will not consider a vote will be valid unless all Governorships are occupied at the time a vote is taken.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Does that mean you would consider a vote of four governors for a proposal to be invalid because the fifth governorship was vacant even tho four governors out of five would be sufficient to pass a plan if all were filled?

[Peter]

Does that mean you would consider a vote of four governors for a proposal to be invalid because the fifth governorship was vacant even tho four governors out of five would be sufficient to pass a plan if all were filled?

Yes. All regions have the right to have input into the redistricting plan and to come a comprimise amenable to all regions. I consider that all five regions have the right to be heard in the deliberations, the only way I have of objectively testing this is to make sure that all governorships are occupied at the time the vote takes place.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I just don't see how you derive that reasoning.  I can understand how you've come to the conclusion that approval of two-thirds of the whole number would be needed (altho I wish you hadn't, purely on practical grounds), but not how you've reached the conclusion that we need a quorom of all five members, except possibly the lack of an explict statement of what the quorom is.  By that reasoning, the Senate couldn't pass anything unless there were ten Senators in office, and several bills have become law during times when there were vacant seats in the Senate.

[Platypus]

I agree with the attorney general. The Midwest needs to attend, especially because it's likely to be split into as many as three districts.

[Platypus]

(Whoa, Green!)

[Peter]

Given the extraordinary nature of redistricting the States into new Districts, I feel it is necessary that all Regions submit a delegation so as not to violate Amendment V of the Bill of Rights - equality is no longer ensured if one Region is disenfranchised because of vacancy in its Governorship.  Equality is a guaranteed right in the process of elections, I consider this to extend to the deciding of electoral boundaries; This is only ensured where all Governors are present.

On a more practical note: In all likelihood, you will have a full quorum by next Monday, and elections are not until December 10th, so I'm personally not too worried.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Unfortunately for the Midwest, it is almost a certainty that any districting plan adopted at this time will place Minnesota and Iowa into different districts.  With the smallest population of all Regions, I doubt that the Midwest will be elected anytime soon, even if the Midwest could be kept in a single District.

I'm not particularly worried about redistricting either since it would require a radical redistricting plan to not place the Southeast Region at the core of a District.