J. Williams Posted September 11, 2004 Report Share Posted September 11, 2004 Fair Representation? I'm trying to come up with a way to equitably establish a number of advisory/board positions for a new association. Would establishing two positions per Region outlined as follows work? If not, any suggestions? Region One (total population 95,015,624) Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana New Mexico Utah Wyoming California Nevada Oregon Washington Hawaii includes Canada Region Two (total population 89,935,877) North Dakota Alabama Alaska Arkansas Illinois Iowa Kansas Louisiana Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Oklahoma South Dakota Tennessee Texas Wisconsin Indiana Region Three (total population 132,853,393) Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Vermont Virginia West Virginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted September 11, 2004 Report Share Posted September 11, 2004 "Fair" depends on what the association is doing. When drawing boundaries for districts that send representatives to state and federal legislatures, the courts have held that districts should be within a "community of interest" to pass muster. That way you can't draw boundaries that divide strongholds of one party or the other other to make them a minority voice in other districts. The red flag I see is that someone in New Brunswick, Canada, might feel that she has more in common with someone in Maine than Hawaii, for instance. If this is a doggy association, I think you'll find that the way you've carved up the Midwest and East might also be a little bit problematic as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca, Irena Farm Posted September 11, 2004 Report Share Posted September 11, 2004 I definitely share more interests with people in Tennessee than those hoity-toity northerners in Massachusetts. Seriously, I agree that it depends on what the mission of the org is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Williams Posted September 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2004 The association being formed will, among other things, track competitive results for its membership, in three basic divisions, at any/all trials they attend, regardless of venue (location, site or setting); format (course); competition type (judged, point or time); or, sanctioning. I carved the regions by starting with the four US time zones, researching respective population numbers for each state within each time zone, totaling those numbers, then doing my best to even up the regions (population wise) by merging two time zones and moving split time zones to the region with a lesser population. I was left with concerns though... and now have more (which I appreciate). I am totally open to suggestions re: establishment of regions. Any ideas out there that I could try to work through in the alternative? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Williams Posted September 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2004 I've taken the e-mails received re: "region identification" (thanks to voiced opinions) and tried to reorganize using an idea proposed elsewhere. While it would be great to arrive at complete satisfaction, I'm guessing that won't be possible, but dang close counts. I will fine tune more based on feedback. References used: Stats - http://www.geohive.com/cd/link.php?xml=us&xsl=xs4 Map - http://www.worldtimezone.com/time-usa2.htm Region One (total population 47,497,220) Alaska Canada Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Wyoming Region Two (total population 48,162,190) Arizona California Hawaii Nevada New Mexico Utah Region Three (total population 43,670,180) Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Wisconsin Region Four (total population 45,621,911) Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Region Five (total population 67,108,477) Connecticut Maine Massachusetts Michigan New Hampshire New York Ohio Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont Region Six (total population 66,315,814) Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Kentucky Maryland New Jersey North Carolina South Carolina Virginia West Virginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennyT Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 What is the new organization for? For example, if it is going to track cattle trial results then fair representation might be based on how many such trials there are in various regions. Anyway, I am curious about which results from what kinds of events are in question. Penny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaos Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Speaking as a Canadian... I am curious as to why we are listed as just Canada... we have many provinces (akin to your states) each with their own unique cultural/regional/geographical perspectives.... why not assign provinces to the regions you have created, why lump such an enormous country in one single region? Just seems alittle odd. Sara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillTerry Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 It seems that you are trying to divide the regions fairly by population (people) but maybe it should be dog population. If one region has 80% of the dogs, they would not be fairly represented. Penny's suggestion about somehow utilizing the number of trials per region sounds like it is a format that should be researched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Williams Posted October 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Yes, cattle trial results. I have received a good number of notes suggesting representation based on the number of cattle trials and/or population of cattle dog handlers (rather than general population, which I agree is not the best answer). However, I'm unsure how to go about establishing those areas and relative numbers without a verifiable baseline that includes all cattle dog trialing venues (at least all those that don't exclude particpation based on registration, listing or breed requirements). Originally posted by PennyT:What is the new organization for? For example, if it is going to track cattle trial results then fair representation might be based on how many such trials there are in various regions. Anyway, I am curious about which results from what kinds of events are in question. Penny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Williams Posted October 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Well, the more I work on this the more I'd like to find a better way of doing it... but, at the time I was working strictly with population numbers, trying to make them as even as possible, and what I learned amazed me (although it's probably common knowledge to everyone else): Canada total sq. km: 9,976,140 Canada total population: 32,207,113 US total sq. km: 9,372,587 US total population: 288,368,698 So Canada, while a tad bigger than the US, has a popluation equal to about 8.95% of the US, which made it impossible to break down any further and maintain relative representation based on population numbers. (The Canadian area/population numbers, by the way, have prompted nightly dreams of relocation ) Originally posted by kaos:Speaking as a Canadian... I am curious as to why we are listed as just Canada... we have many provinces (akin to your states) each with their own unique cultural/regional/geographical perspectives.... why not assign provinces to the regions you have created, why lump such an enormous country in one single region? Just seems alittle odd. Sara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.