Title: Ten State GRP Regions Proposal – Recommend to State Convention?
Shepherd: Merelice (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Co-Sponsors: Brian Cady(email@example.com), ….
Committees before which this will have gone: CDLC, Membership (approved),
The proposal is a change in the bylaws – specifically the section on how and when proportional representatives are elected to the state committee. The proposal would include changing the basis from counties to the ten proposed state senatorial regions mapped and described at: http://hopefulvision.blogspot.com/2013/06/proposed-green-rainbow-party-regions.html
It would also include what state com has already approved in concept but not yet changed in the bylaws, that is, regional conventions would be every four years instead of two and the terms of current proportional reps would be extended to 2016.
Summary: Instead of from counties, State Comm. Members will be elected from within ten GRP regions, which would meet every four, instead of two, years. Current StateComm rep.s would stay on 'til 2016.
Financial Inpact: Unknown
Implementation: tbd. (Merelice will help out with this as soon as she gets back settled from globetrotting, around Sept 24th.)
My main question is whether larger regions with more state senators will provide the political glue that prompted this exercise in the first place. My other question relates to how effectively proportional representation will be implemented with larger regions in which reps could be geographically clustered instead of spread out.
Regarding splitting municipalities, this is inevitable — at least in the case of Boston which has so many state senatorial districts. However, for regional conventions, it has usually been the practice for regions to combine so it is possible to keep municipalities intact for those conventions.
I believe it would be helpful to pass the current changes, even if only to put on record that there will not be regional conventions in 2014 as would be the case under the former system.
Anyhow – Using 5 districts per regions helps that geographic problem for us int eh west and arguably int eh southeast, but I have no idea if that would mess up the greater boston and metros regions, so I thought I’d ask if you already considered it, and if so, why is 4 districts per region better than 5?
While we want to group all of a municipality’s districts in the same region, a problem is that we also want to leave no single district at one end of the state grouped in a gerrymandered-like fashion into one region with a few spare districts in another part of the state.
Also, Worcester and greater Boston are so big that they each inevitably divide into multiple four-district regions, when we start from the corners of the state, so that no single senatorial district is orphaned alone in a corner. That is why both Worcester and greater Boston are divided in Merelice’s arrangement.
While one could try to better apportion the 40 districts into ten regions, I found that I could not, and so recommend accepting these regions as is.