|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2008 8:58:08 GMT -6
I suppose we can look at it two ways. Dreu asserts that most of Pennsylvania's population is on the Eastern side of the state, and thus would more readily meet with New Yorkers.
However, this ignores the fact that Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area consists of around 5.8 million people, the same number as the Philly Metro Area. And what with it taking 5 hours to go from one side of the state to the other and another 2 hours to New York, I think unfounded generalizations about PA's population density will serve only to shift the inconvenience, not eliminate it.
Alternatives would be, dividing states like PA in half, in which case you'll hear me complaining about how a family living in Central PA could easily end up in two different provinces...
We could also stop assuming that everyone in PA has nothing better to do than to decide we shall flock to New York (Yes, the place is nice, yes I'm from there, but get over yourselves guys, we have our own tall buildings) and just accept that most people are going to pretty much stick close to their states and not drive any distance with gas prices the way they are.
I live close to Binghamton, New York. If we believe that PA should be in the same province as New York because some people along the northern tier are closer to New York, then we have to include New Jersey, Ohio, Delaware and Maryland in the same province as well. But then we need to take into consideration the proximity of those states' border towns and do something fair for them
Or....we just leave the provinces alone because they have not created a problem and each solution causes just as many problems as this would intends to fix.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 25, 2008 8:59:44 GMT -6
Ok, I understand that.
I suppose, I am looking at a bigger picture, of what (I feel) are issues that are not being discussed to see if there even is a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2008 8:59:46 GMT -6
Then, BAM! A Bill shows up in the Hopper, for an Act to redraw the Provinces. There wasn't even 48 hours of discussion on the first thread, before an Act is drawn up and Hoppered. Frankly, that's not at all unusual. I don't see a real need for every bill to be discussed extensively on Witt before being discussed extensively in the Hopper. The Hopper was created because bills used to (quite frequently) just show up on the Clark without ever being discussed on Witt! Was the Squirrels in Space Act discussed in the main forum prior to being Hoppered? I don't think so. Nor any number of other recent bills that have passed into law. Now I have to call out an obvious one.... The Squirrels in Space Act does not really compare to one which redistricts Provinces. The International Memorial Day Act does not really compare to ones which call for overwhelming reforms of the OrgLaw.... Proportionality and all.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Mar 25, 2008 9:53:54 GMT -6
Now I have to call out an obvious one.... The Squirrels in Space Act does not really compare to one which redistricts Provinces. The International Memorial Day Act does not really compare to ones which call for overwhelming reforms of the OrgLaw.... Proportionality and all. Bad example? How about the separation of powers amendment proposed by King John that recently passed so overwhelmingly? A pretty fundamental organic reform, and I don't recall anyone chastising His Majesty over how that bill just showed up in the Hopper. The provincial unshackling act? A major overhaul of the OrgLaw provisions relating to provincial autonomy. There had been some discussion of the role of provinces before that, but I don't think anything specifically about the proposals in that act (it had been discussed pretty thoroughly on the RUMP list, but not publicly). The point being that all kinds of acts, big and small, appear for the first time for public discussion in the Hopper, because that's pretty much what the Hopper is for.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 25, 2008 14:29:59 GMT -6
Cresti, your text reverbretates with fixing problems before they occur! YOU FOOL. Have you not observed the actions of the world's greatest democracies? They LET the problem occur first, and then everyone can have fun sorting it out in hindsight!
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 25, 2008 14:34:01 GMT -6
Then again... there is such a thing as being too-preemptive. (Like a country I know... ) But I hardly think that this bill falls into that category.
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Mar 27, 2008 6:57:08 GMT -6
Have you not observed the actions of the world's greatest democracies? They LET the problem occur first, and then everyone can have fun sorting it out in hindsight! *cough* Like the Google It Act *cough*
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2008 10:52:10 GMT -6
Here is my problem with this map, the NE, while the most densely populated region of the country, is only something like 80 million people, the South, is well over 100 million people, yet it is one massive bloc in terms of assigned province, whereas the NE is split. It seems like we need to just redraw the lines.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2008 10:59:48 GMT -6
I suppose we can look at it two ways. Dreu asserts that most of Pennsylvania's population is on the Eastern side of the state, and thus would more readily meet with New Yorkers. However, this ignores the fact that Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area consists of around 5.8 million people, the same number as the Philly Metro Area. And what with it taking 5 hours to go from one side of the state to the other and another 2 hours to New York, I think unfounded generalizations about PA's population density will serve only to shift the inconvenience, not eliminate it. Alternatives would be, dividing states like PA in half, in which case you'll hear me complaining about how a family living in Central PA could easily end up in two different provinces... We could also stop assuming that everyone in PA has nothing better to do than to decide we shall flock to New York (Yes, the place is nice, yes I'm from there, but get over yourselves guys, we have our own tall buildings) and just accept that most people are going to pretty much stick close to their states and not drive any distance with gas prices the way they are. I live close to Binghamton, New York. If we believe that PA should be in the same province as New York because some people along the northern tier are closer to New York, then we have to include New Jersey, Ohio, Delaware and Maryland in the same province as well. But then we need to take into consideration the proximity of those states' border towns and do something fair for them Or....we just leave the provinces alone because they have not created a problem and each solution causes just as many problems as this would intends to fix. Numbers here are off, Pittsburgh metro area is only 2.8 million, wheres the philly is about 5.8, moreover, I wouldn't say Eastern PA flocks to NY. Granted, I would argue the bulk of the state does live in Eastern PA, but they have Philly in the South (which dominates Southern NJ) and NYC in the North, whose own Metro area does cross into the PA border. In terms of Maryland and the like, Maryland has Baltimore, with a 2.3 million people metro, and DC has a metro of 5 million, (i don't know if the latter is encompassing Baltimore) but that is a strong enough population to not necessarily be associated with NYC's very strong influence. Also note, in terms of US population, the BosWash corridor itself is said to be the most densely populated region, with each major city having an influence on the other (lesser than say LA and San Fran having an influence on each other). I do not, however, feel that this should influence which area should be assigned to each province, I think we should draw the lines in terms of population with some degree of shared local culture, to try and ensure an equal chance of each province getting new citizens from various parts of the US.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2008 11:41:49 GMT -6
Thanks for the correction on populations. I misread the population of Pittsburgh when I pulled it up. However, I also feel the need to point out that while one may consider certain communities in NEPA part of the NYC Metro, this statement is misleading. The only communities that would fall into this category would be places such as Stroudsburg and East Stroudsburg which have high concentration of NYC Commuters. However, together, we're talking less than 20,000 people if you add up all of those towns together.
An hour away from the PA/NJ border, you hit the Scranton/Wilkes Barre Metropolitan area of roughly 600,000 people. While this dwarfs in comparison to Philadelphia and New York, it being 2 hours from both cities, I would say, pretty much allows it to be its own entity "off in the poconos."
Again, all of this population talk implies that population has any impact on immigration, which it does not. And, despite the fact that NYC might be 2 hours from Scranton, it is close to 5 hours from Philly and not within a day's driving distance from any other part of the state. So it really doesn't "bring us together" to put NY and PA in the same province.
Just because we CAN redistrict does not mean that we SHOULD redistrict.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2008 11:54:13 GMT -6
I was agreeing when i said NYC doesn't have as much influence as being portrayed, the NE most county of PA is part of the NYC metro area (that is the only one I know of). But, Northern PA and Southern Tier NYS share a very long border and do share some local cultural variations. That is not to discredit the extensive border PA stares with Maryland, etc. Moving on, I'd say the strongest out of state influence PA has is Southern NJ, and anyone who has lived in the NYS metro area or in the Philly metroarea will tell you there are many distinctions between NNJ and SNJ due to the distinct flavours of NYC and Philly.
In what Dreu is arguing, we could very well argue that NJ should be split, the Southern portion, having closer ties to Philly being part of the PA bloc, and northern NJ being part of the NYS bloc.
What I think is that lines across the map should be redrawn to better reflect today. Redistricting based on population is quite common in many states and other countries. This isn't changing for the sake of change, this is changing because we're growing, and we should give each province the same opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2008 12:10:35 GMT -6
I understand your point of view. And you do bring up a very good argument for the splitting of NJ.
However, the border with NYS, while long, is not very populated. North of Scranton there are no municipalities above the level of "Town" until you hit Binghamton, and moving westward, the same story until you hit Sayre over by Elmira, NY. Overall, you are looking at a border population of what, 200,000 if you take into account every town, village and farm from NJ/PA/NY Border all the way to the Lakes?
Scranton is much more culturally tied to Philadelphia than any city or area in New York. The point I am trying to make is that Pennsylvania is pretty clear of any outside ties until you come to Southern NJ and Philadelphia. That one county that falls into New York's metro area is, as I said, very low in population and necessitates an hour and a half drive through New Jersey before it even comes within view of the Skyline.
Since our immigration does not flow with US Population, that is, we do not have more citizens from densely populated areas and fewer citizens from those with a lower population density, we are trying to apply a system to fairly distribute to what is largely random.
If you lump NY and PA together, and three people immigrate who live along the Maryland border, it doesn't matter how much shorter that border is than the NY/PA border, we have redistricted in a manner that is unfair to them.
Whether the entire population of PA is scattered across the commonwealth or concentrated in one city does not matter. We are not actively advertising and thus people immigrate after stumbling upon us, it is not something we can track. This proposed system ONLY works if people from these large metropolitan areas join in larger numbers than people from other areas, and we have no reason to believe that will be the case.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2008 12:19:39 GMT -6
I, personally, don't see why we should keep the lines based on States, outside of the fact that it makes assigning people easier. I don't think the current system is fair in the least bit. Grouping TX together with CA is absurd, in terms of population size and culture. San Jose has little in common with Fort Worth, San Francisco has little in common with Houston.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 8, 2008 12:26:01 GMT -6
If you lump NY and PA together, and three people immigrate who live along the Maryland border, it doesn't matter how much shorter that border is than the NY/PA border, we have redistricted in a manner that is unfair to them. Wait, Maryland and NY are already assigned to the same province. Vuode's zone includes all of the Mid-Atlantic states except for Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is in the same zone as Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio. So how would putting those people who live along the Maryland border in the same province as any citizens who actually live in Maryland be unfair to them? I agree with your point about large metropolitan areas and population distribution. Geographic compactness is, to my mind, more important than trying to carefully balance how many millions are in each province's zone.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2008 12:55:23 GMT -6
So actually, in terms of just population distribution, and shared culture, as well as shared borders, PA should be part of the middle-eastern bloc.
|
|