Whoops, make that S. Texas_Section_ reports only one member!!! --Dale WA8EFK -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:25:00 -0500 From: Dale Williams <dale.wms1@frontier.com> Reply-To: dale.wms1@frontier.com To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Did any one else note that the S. Texas Division reports only one ARRL Member? It causes me to question the posted data on the web pages. - Dale WA8EFK On 1/9/2016 12:25 PM, Richard J. Norton wrote:
This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average.
*Why?*
1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another.
2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair.
3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable.
*Overview*
This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous.
There may be a desire to change division names in some cases.
*Details*
The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division.
There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same. * * *Division by Division Proposed Restructuring*
Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%.
Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%.
Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division.
Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%.
Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%.
Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%.
Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%.
New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%.
Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%.
Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%.
Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%.
Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%.
Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%.
West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%.
The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised.
Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%.
Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%.
*Event Coverage*
I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it. * * *Summary*
The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state.
I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this.
I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board.
73,
Dick Norton, N6AA
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv