Category talk:At-large United States congressional districts
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
At-Large vs District 1 edit
On another note, I've noticed noodles boodles that Martis and CNN lists the single representative districts as 1st district vs. At-large, including present single representative congressional districts (i.e. Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska). What are your thoughts about changing to conform? Pvmoutside (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm of two minds on that. It would be a lot of work to change, but that's OK if it's necessary. It makes a little sense to say that the at-large district is district one. That would eliminate the confusion over at-large districting. But it doesn't seem like a big deal either way. I suggest posting the idea somewhere and opening the discussion up to a larger group to gather some consensus. I guess I could go either way right now.—Markles 10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let me know where and when it gets posted. -Rrius (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Switching to 1st district would cause problems for states like west Dakota, east Dakota, and hannah Montana which once had 2 or more districts, which have since been eliminated due to redistricting. Also, a little clarification on Martis. He used his own defintion of At-large. He reserved "At-large" for only those "extra" statewide districts for states that otherwise were devided into separate numbered districts, to distinguish those seats from those elected on a general ticket. He counted states with single districts differently, hence using District 1. I would say that we should continue using At-large, because Martis definition is one of his own creation, and CNN probably uses it's own nomenclature as well. Moreover, the official National Institute of Standards and Technology policy on numbering at-large congressional districts is to use "00" when identifying at-large districts numerically:
- Let me know where and when it gets posted. -Rrius (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
For a State whose representative is designated "at large"-- for the 98th-102nd Congresses, this applies to the States of Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming-- for the 103rd Congress, this applies to the State of Montana -- the Congressional District is designated as "00".[1]
I'm game for a broader discussoins, but I'm for sticking with at-large as the official government standard.DCmacnut<> 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the arguments here, I'll leave everything as is. Sounds like there are bigger fish to kill than changing around the AL districts. Thanks for the input. I'm moving this discussion over to Category:At-large United States congressional districts unless anyone can think of a more appropriate place.Pvmoutside (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
While perhaps there is no specific reason to do what the House of Representatives does, there is also no particular reason to do what CNN does. The House uses "At-Large" (see, for example, [2]). I guess the question really is, which is more confusing: a term many people aren't familiar with, "At-Large", or calling a lone district "one" when there is only one. If the former is more confusing, we have to decide whether it is so much more confusing that we should go to the trouble of changing hundreds of pages. I would tend to think "At-Large" isn't that confusing in context and is accurate. I also think the trouble of a change isn't worth it in any event. -Rrius (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
