Talk:List of United States congressional districts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
List of United States congressional districts is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
| place | This article is about one (or many) place(s). |
| A style guide for consistency among the 600+ congressional districts articles can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Congressional districts. |
Contents |
[edit] Better Rename A District
| The renaming discussed below was done in May 2006. This discussion is kept for archival purposes. |
| I think United States House of Representatives, Foo District number (example: United States House of Representatives), Iowa District 3 is inelegant and doesn't fit in with Wikipedia's rule on Naming Conventions.
I think we should rename them all (sigh, yes, all):
Let's generate some discussion. Is the current naming system OK? Is there a better way to name them, other than what I've proposed? Add your options after my Option A, above. But if nobody posts discussion, I'll just slog through and change them all starting on May 1, 2006. —Markles 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'm going to start changing article names. I'll try to get through all of it by May 15, 2006. See also Template talk:Ushr#Better Rename A District. —Markles 13:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Need to be done
Leave the red links on this page.
|
[edit] Active districts
All of the active districts are done.
[edit] Obsolete districts
- Arkansas's 5th congressional district, redirects to Arkansas's congressional districts
- Arkansas's 6th congressional district, redirects to Arkansas's congressional districts
- Arkansas's 7th congressional district, redirects to Arkansas's congressional districts
- Illinois's 20th congressional district, redirects to United States congressional delegations from Illinois
- Illinois's 21st congressional district, redirects to United States congressional delegations from Illinois
- Illinois's 22nd congressional district, redirects to United States congressional delegations from Illinois
- Illinois's 23rd congressional district, redirects to United States congressional delegations from Illinois
- Illinois's 24th congressional district, redirects to United States congressional delegations from Illinois
- Illinois's 25th congressional district, redirects to United States congressional delegations from Illinois
- Illinois's 26th congressional district, redirects to United States congressional delegations from Illinois
- Indiana's 11th congressional district
- Indiana's 12th congressional district
- Indiana's 13th congressional district
- Iowa's 8th congressional district
- Iowa's 9th congressional district
- Iowa's 10th congressional district
- Iowa's 11th congressional district
- Kansas's 5th congressional district
- Kansas's 6th congressional district
- Kentucky's 8th congressional district
- Kentucky's 9th congressional district
- Kentucky's 10th congressional district
- Kentucky's 11th congressional district
- Kentucky's 12th congressional district
- Kentucky's 13th congressional district
- Oklahoma's 6th congressional district
- Oklahoma's 7th congressional district
- Oklahoma's 8th congressional district
- Oklahoma's 9th congressional district
- Pennsylvania's 22nd congressional district
- Pennsylvania's 23rd congressional district
- Pennsylvania's 24th congressional district
- Tennessee's 10th congressional district, redirects to Tennessee's congressional districts
- Tennessee's 11th congressional district
- Tennessee's 12th congressional district
- Tennessee's 13th congressional district
- West Virginia's 4th congressional district
- West Virginia's 5th congressional district
- West Virginia's 6th congressional district, redirects to United States congressional delegations from West Virginia
- Wisconsin's 10th congressional district
- Wisconsin's 11th congressional district
[edit] List of all state's districts
- Louisiana's congressional districts
- Maryland's congressional districts
- New Hampshire's congressional districts
- Texas's congressional districts, redirects to United States congressional delegations from Texas
- Vermont's congressional districts
- Washington's congressional districts
- West Virginia's congressional districts
[edit] Renaming: Should be capitalized
Option A2, above, should be preferred to A1 ("Congressional District" instead of "congressional district. And the first and only four representatives whose websites I checked concur: "Maryland's Eighth District", "GA's Fourth District", "Maryland's Fourth Congressional District", "19th Congressional District of Florida". --zenohockey 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree... I did a random sampling of the House websites, and I found Ohio's First Congressional District, Maryland's 1st Congressional District, 9th Congressional District, The Second District of Kansas, 22nd Congressional District in California, Florida's 20th Congressional District, 10th District of Virginia, 13th District of Georgia, and Nevada’s Third Congressional District. So while not universal, capitalisation is much preferred over the lower case "congressional district". Is there some sort of bot we could use to move them to their proper location? --LV (Dark Mark) 19:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree simply from my own experience. I thought 'Congress' or 'Congressional' was always capitalized. And in the letterhead from my Congresswoman, 'District' is capitalized in "3rd District, Kentucky". Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the above cases represent times when "Congressional District" is capitalized because it is a title. For example, "It Takes A Village" is capitalized because it is a title, but we wouldn't always capitalize "village."—Markles 13:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article malfunction?
Is anyone else having this problem: The main article template references are not functioning after South Carolina's 3rd congressional district? The list of districts after SC-3 appears as {{ushr}}; very strange. --G1076 13:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's a bigger problem. Wikipedia seems to be tempremental right now. Sometimes it transcludes templates, sometimes it doesn't. I thought I was the only one noticing the problem. I'd see {{USCongress}} and {{USCongresses}} instead of the transcluded template. I hope it will be fixed soon. —Markles 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox for Districts
I've had a bash and I've improved the 7 Alabama Districts and the 1st Arkansas over a few weeks, and I think statistical information could be better expressed with an infobox, considering every district article is going to have a Nat Atlas picture of it as well. Im not good with the technical side - any suggestions for a standard info box for districts? Orchid Righteous 08:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consistency using Templates, etc.
imo these should be used whenever possible to achieve consistency.
The US House of Representatives template - example "ushr|Arizona|1|" - translates into Arizona's 1st congressional district.
The Congressional map link - example "(http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/az01_109.gif map)" - translates into (map).Flatterworld 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] General ticket
- Please see a related discussion at Talk:General ticket#General ticket vs. Plural district vs. At-large.—Markles 16:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] At-large designation
I don't have time to discuss this now, but I've consolidated all the user discussions here.—Markles 14:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 |
For the sake of a broader audience, part or all of the discussion below has been transferred from the User namespace at User talk:Markles#At-large designation and User talk:Dcmacnut#At-large designation to this space below. Please continue the discussion here. |
You folks have me digging into Martis on the general ticket et al, and I think I've found a serious problem with the way we all use the term "at-large." Martis is quite emphatic that it only refers to instances where a seat is elected statewide when most of the seats are elected from districts. Hence it is not the generic term we have been using covering general ticket situations. We have all kinds of article titles and other designations that would seem to use the term improperly, especially in the 18th/19th century. A good example is Pennsylvania's At-large congressional district which, according to Martis, is not an at-large district at all. Nor does he use the "at-large" terminology when there is only one seat. So he would seem to say Delaware's At-large congressional district is wrong as well. Without having given the problem too much thought it seems we might replace "at-large" with "statewide" on these articles, renaming the first article "Pennsylvania's statewide congressional district." What do you think?
I also noticed the Pennsylvania's At-large congressional district is incorrect in that districts were used in the 2nd United States Congress. I know you're in the midst of a project on these and wonder if you would like me to make corrections like this, or do them yourself? stilltim 11:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- It seems to me that we have four scenarios:
- At-Large is when a seat is elected statewide when other seats in the state are elected by district.
- General Ticket is when the entire delegation was elected statewide (when two or more representatives came from the state).
- Statewide is when a state has only one representative.
- Plural District is a multi-member district that is not elected statewide.
Thus each instance of "At-Large" in all of the relevant articles should be examined to see which of the four scenarios really applies. We can use the table in the General Ticket article as the master list for that scenario. "Statewide" is pretty obvious (used every time and only when there is only one rep). Perhaps we should create two new articles, At-Large congressional districts and Plural congressional districts explaining when they are used, with master lists of those (similar to the table in General Ticket.--Appraiser 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- This I plan to do in the next day or so. stilltim 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- The other variable would seem to be whether or not these seats are filled from one ballot with all names, or separate contests for each seat, either statewide for A/L or G/T, or district wide for plural. I will research Martis further to try and get some conclusive data on this. stilltim 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Appraisers suggestion on the new articles. However, while we need a better way to describe multi-member at-large seats for the earlier congresses, I don’t think we can simply abandon the “At-large” terminology. Martis' definition seems to be the exception to the rule, and may be using an overly simplified definition of at-large to make a point. He is by far the most comprehensive source on districts and elections, but he is only one source, and I don’t think can simply use his definitions and ignore other, particularly government sources. I see the issue as breaking down as follows:
- At-large v.1: when a state is entitled to only one seat in Congress.
- At-large v.2: State is entitled to more than one seat, and chooses to elect one seat at-large and the others from individual districts.
- At-large v.3: State is entitle to more than one seat, and elects the entire delegation statewide on general ticket. In this case, General Ticket describes the method of election, and not the seats themselves.
- I think it would be simple enough to update and expand the at-large article to explain these three different situations in more detail.
- Plural District or Multi-Member District: The state is entitled to more than one seat in Congress, and the state assigns individual districts multiple seats.
- Martis uses plural district. Congressional Quarterly uses multi-member district. I’m open to either term, with a redirect from the one we don’t use for the main article.
To support keeping at-large, I would point out today all states that elect one member to the House refer to that seat as "At-large," which is supported by other scholarly works. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections uses the at-large designation for all statewide races, even in cases where more than one member elected was elected statewide. For those cases, it delineates one "At-large Seat" with multiple members elected on a general ticket, similar to the multi-member single district.
Moreover, At-large is used widely by official government documents today, particularly the Official Congressional Directory and the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Both the Congressional Directory and the Bioguide refer to all seats elected statewide as "Representatives At-large," whether the state had one or multiple seats in Congress. This is true for modern and historical elections.
At-large is also official defined in the two sections of the U.S. Code related to congressional districts, and is the term used by the Supreme Court in several districting cases in the 1960s (see Westberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims).
- : “In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a (a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).
- : In paragraph (c)(1)-(5) describes several situations in which members (even multiple members) could be elected by a state at large.
- Branch v. Smith 538 U.S. 254: U.S. Supreme Court decision on a Mississippi redistricting issue after the 2000 census, on whether Mississippi’s failure to redistrict automatically required all seats to be elected at-large. The Supreme Court mandated single districts, but the term “at-large” was used extensively to describe the statewide option.
I think we should rely on official government sources as much as possible in how to name the seats, and use Martis and other sources as supporting documentation. My recommendation would be to keep "At-large" as the term we use, and then break it down as a general ticket for two or more seats. For the Ordinal Congress articles, we can list those states as having “at-large” seat, but make it clear that it has multiple members on a general ticket, through footnotes, etc. For the delegation lists, we can do what Markles has done and list it as “At-large on a general ticket” with Seat 1, Seat 2, Seat 3, and so on. We can describe the issue for each general ticket election on a state-by-state basis in the "At-large" article for that state.
One option could be like this entry for New Hampshire for the 28th Congress, rather than listing each as a separate at-large seat.
- Edmund Burke (D)
- John P. Hale (D)
- Moses Norris, Jr. (D)
- John R. Reding (D)
Sorry for the long-winded response, but I’ve been giving this a lot of thought lately. I’m open to suggestions, but bottom line I think "At-large" is still the right term to use.Dcmacnut 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More thoughts
Having given it nowhere near as much thought, I am hesitant to weigh in again, but have the sense this is like we are trying to "fit a square peg into a round hole." Clearly the "at-large" terminology is perfectly appropriate for most 20th/21st century situations, and its common usage today would suggest it communicates the concept well to today's reader, even for earlier situations. Hence all of our wide use of it, both in WP and in the sources cited above. I imagine all of these terms have been created, abandoned and tossed around somewhat carelessly since 1787. My only concern is that our work not look sloppy and ignorant of the precise terminology. I honestly don't know whether Martis made up his semantic distinctions or is faithfully following some definitions known only in rarified circles, but he clearly is the giant scholar in the field, and his terminology should at least be noted.
So there would seem to be two directions we could go. 1) Avoid the use of the term "at-large" except in pure Martis "at-large" situations, replacing it with "statewide" and further qualifying whether it is a general ticket or single member state situation, or 2) using "at-large" in a generic sense for all multi-member situations, documenting that it is being used generically and that not all scholars use that terminology, and then noting the possible ways they are described in a note of some kind. We're kind of following the second path now, except some of the documentation is missing and the capitalization of "At-large" suggests a proper noun and therefore something not generic. Pending further discussion and research, the second alternative seems best to me right now, only because its the easiest, but I think we all need to keep reading and considering the ramnifications. stilltim 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Where vs. How
It seems to me that:
- "At-large" means from a greater area, as opposed to a limited district, whereas
- "general ticket" is a method of selecting multiple candidates either from a district or at-large.
That is… AL is where while GT is "how."
Therefore they can overlap and are not mutually exclusive.—Markles 19:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's accurate. The book The American Commonweath by James Bryce, on page 138, describes the general ticket. He is discussing it in terms of congressional redistricting restritions.
This seems to reinforce the Where and How difference. In all of my reviews of old Congressional Globe debates, the phrase general ticket was bandied about rather freely when referring to these multi-member elections, but the statutes resulting from those debates used at large to describe the area of the state the representatives served.Dcmacnut 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Where a State legislature has failed to redistribute the State into congressional districts, after the State has received an increase of representatives, the additional member or members are elected by the voters of the whole State on a general ticket, and are called "representatives at large."
[edit] More thoughts 2
As Stilltim suggested I did more research, and stumbled upon the Encyclopedia of the U.S. Congress (1995). The entry on congressional districts in the book was, as luck would have it, written by Martis, and he summarizes his terms in much the same way Stilltim lays out above.
• general ticket representation: no congressional districts and entire delegation elected statewide • plural district representation: one geographically defined district elects more than one person • at-large representation: the "majority of a state's delegation is elected from geographically defined districts, but one, two, three, or four additional representatives are elected statewide."
Martis goes on to say, with respect to general ticket, that he uses the term to differentiate between it and his definition of at-large representation. Moreover, his use of the term "geographically defined districts" seems to drive home his point that technically, under general ticket that there were no districts at all. That seems to hold true today for single-member statewide districts, but even those are referred to as "at-large districts."
However, in the entry on congressional elections, a different author, Jerrold Rusk, discusses "area of representation" and defines the terms like this.
• single-member district: electing one member per district • plural or multimember district: electing several members per district • mixed single-member/at-large system: electing some members from single-member districts and some statewide: • completely at-large system: electing all members statewide
It seems to me that Martis' definition is one of his own creation to differentiate between his three alternatives. Where I run into problems is that Martis appears to be the only one who defines districts in this manner, and if we use relied on his term terms, what naming system would we use? Do we call these "State's general ticket congressional district" or something else? That's not entirely clean by itself, particularly since many plural districts also used the general ticket method to elect their members. The alternative would be not to assign them a district at all, and use "State's general ticket congressional delegation." However, that would lead multiple articles focusing on the same issues, so using at-large seems cleaner, since it is easily understood. Regardless of how they were elected, all statewide members are referred to as "Representatives at Large" in official records. We would then sub-divide the at-large articles to describe those members elected statewide on a general ticket. We seem to be already part of the way there.Dcmacnut 17:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Texas
Texas has a link to Texas congressional districts that leads to Texas's congressional delegations that I think needs to be fixed or removed. Also, Texas has a banner saying the information is outdated. I took a look at the current layout, and everything from the 110th looks the same. Anyone know why the banner was put up? Brinlong (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Texas's congressional districts
- It correctly points to Texas's congressional districts, which then redirects to United States congressional delegations from Texas. The congressional districts article needs to be written, and until then the redirect will suffice.—Markles 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Update" banner
- The banner is there because the map was changed for the 110th Congress. The 23rd district, in particular changed. The map that's provided at List of United States congressional districts#Texas is from the 109th Congress. Someone could download the new map from NationalAtlas.gov and replace it in our article, then remove the banner. —Markles 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
