Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 2

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 2

Last young leaders

Who were some of the last young political heads of state (younger than 18) that wielded actual de-facto power (aka not with a regency like Puyi)?--96.41.155.253 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of youngest state leaders since 1900 should answer your query. Jean-Claude Duvalier ("Baby Doc") was 19 when he assumed power in Haiti following the death of his father, François Duvalier ("Papa Doc"). Hussein of Jordan came to the throne at 16; a regency council was appointed until he turned 18. Neutrality^talk 04:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Alexander Nevsky? (13th century, maybe you wanted more recent). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  John I of France became head of state as a fetus. He became king at -5 months, and died at +5 days. That may be the world record. --Jayron32 15:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not quite true. His father died leaving his unborn child to succeed him, but the child did not become king until he was born. His kingship lasted 5 days, not 5 months and 5 days. In the meantime there was an interregnum, covered by a regency, which remained after John's birth and would have continued until he reached a suitable age. Except he didn't. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, OK. Then he was zero when he became king, which means his record could only be tied, and not broken... He still wins. --Jayron32 20:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Jesus has been king for millenia preceding the still-unknown date of the Second Coming. So that puts his age at -2000 or so at the start of this reign. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Merging interstate US cities

The Canadian city of Lloydminster exists in two separate provinces, but it's legally one city by agreement of the provinces in question. In the USA, there are plenty of population centers that straddle state lines (I was in Bristol last weekend), but all cases, the municipalities in question are separate. Do we know if any state legislature has ever enacted its consent to any attempted interstate compact that would have created a Lloydminster-type city, a single city existing in both states? Some multi-state local governments do exist (see Union County–College Corner Joint School District, for example), so it's not as if there's no precedent for the general idea. I tried searching for <"twin cities" "interstate compact">, but all I got was interstate compact-related stuff from twincities.com of metro Minneapolis, and even adding <-minnesota> didn't help. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

People not addressing the question

Can students there attend school in the state they don't live in? (like if it's closest) Does a classroom teach the history/flag/geography of one state or both? (do they have divided classrooms?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Check out Derby Line, Vermont. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC) The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Istanbul, Eurasia if we're listing things. The Port Authority Bus Terminal's the busiest in the world, it gets 8,000 buses a day. So they just need to rename it to superterminal and get a Port Authority Bus Super Terminal bus loaders union employees' retirement, insurance, benefits and bonuses official negotiator so he can put up a sign that says PABST BLUE RIBBON. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Europe has a few large cities very close to international borders, where the urban area stretches into two countries. Actual mergers have not happened, but there are cross-border arrangements. Geneva is a good example - http://www.grand-geneve.org/ - as is Basel, which extends over three countries - http://www.eurodistrictbasel.eu/de/ Wymspen (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Interstate governments in the U.S. are very rare because of the way state sovereignty works in the U.S. While socially and culturally and geographically, cities like Bristol or Texarkana or Kansas City may feel like a single entity, politically they remain two cities. There are a few special purpose districts, like the NY/NJ Port Authority (already cited) which operate across state lines, but those are unusual in the U.S. The reason why cities can't exist (politically) in two states is that states in the U.S. do not cooperate on laws and regulations and the like; Bristol, Tennessee residents are under held to standards under Tennessee law, and Bristol, Virginia residents are held to standards under Virginia law. There are a few ways in which states cooperate as independent states, for example AASHTO is an interstate organization to coordinate transportation policy, but again as a general principle, states just don't work together like that. --Jayron32 14:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC) That's why I asked about any state legislatures resolving to create interstate compacts by which such twin cities be merged. The existence of interstate school districts proves that states have worked out ways to regulate dual-state local governments. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• As to why the question cannot be answered, the answer is you can't prove a negative. We cannot find reference to say "it has never happened" because it has never happened. If you're seeking a source that says "It happened in the case of these two cross-border cities", if it never happened ever, we simply can't produce a source. Such cross-border cities in the U.S. are fairly rare as it is. The three biggest in population I have already noted (Bristol, Kansas City, and Texarkana) and others are small towns, like Delmar, Maryland and Delmar, Delaware which have a combined population of a large Texas high school or a mid-sized New York City apartment block. These places are rare enough to be weird, and we can't provide you references for cross-border municipalities in the U.S. because they do not exist. I'm not sure what you expect us to do for you, if they existed, we could give you sources. They don't. Wishing they had, or believing they should, doesn't make it happen. If wishes were fishes we'd all swim in riches... --Jayron32 01:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• The question is about the US. The OP does not seem to understand that the states are sovereign, and that municipalities are created according to state constitutions, while state boundaries cannot be changed without at the minimum, Congressional approval. The District of Columbia is the only exception. See the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question "could two states, in co-operation with each other, each separately pass laws in their own legislatures which allowed the creation of a joint municipality?" I don't see why not, as long as the municipality was only charged with enforcing local by-laws (which both states would have their own legislation recognizing), not state-level laws. The same police enforcing State laws could be accredited as police by both states, and patrol the entire city, prosecuting a given case based on where in the city it occurred. (I know there such police districts hee in Australia in the outback, where state boundaries are in middle of the desert, it makes sense to have joint patrol units across the entire area). The question arose in Australia with the proposal to create one city council for Albury–Wodonga despite a state border separating the two cities. General view was that it would be messy to set up the necessary legal structures, but there is no reason it hypothetically could not be done. Is there anything in the Federal constitution which would prohibit two states acting in concert to each pass their side of the legislation implementing such a scheme? Or is it just too messy or politically unviable? Eliyohub (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, no. One state could voluntarily cede territory to another, this sometimes happens when the courses of rivers change. But cities simply are not sovereign, states are in the US system. There are such things as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey which involve interstate compacts to run bridges between states and so forth. But there is simply no provision for a "free city" other than Washinton DC. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This earlier post may answer some of your questions:

This can be approached in various ways. At the national level there is the condominium. One example of local cooperation is Victoria Park, London#Modern times. As an example of self help, when the Berlin Wall was being built in 1961 (?) a homeowner through whose house the old provincial boundary ran saw trouble and forestalled it by bricking up its access to the East. 81.129.13.203 (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Enclave is also a useful read. 86.151.49.189 (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not useful. The OP specifies US interstate mergers. The American system makes no arrangement for them, no matter what furriners imagine. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If by "makes no arrangement" you mean it hasn't happened, fine. If you mean it's constitutionally barred from happening, then see the article interstate compact, already linked above. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. In the case of the three big cities straddling state lines, an interstate compact in each case as to how the city is to run may well make sense. I don't want my child to be forced to go to a different school than his/her friend, just because they live two streets away. This isn't so much a matter of sovereignty as much as efficient sharing of resources. Do any of these three cities have such compacts? Or are you stuck with two different garbage collection contracts, two different school systems, and a lot of other wasteful duplication? Eliyohub (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Does a European Union body publish a "yearbook" or some summary of what happened during the last period?

I'm looking for a text that would summarize the most important events/actions that happened during the last year/longer period in the European Union, in the domains of politics, law and economics mostly. Perhaps something similar to the cabinet exit memos issued in the US a while ago.

I've only been able to find documents related to plans for the future which is less useful than a summary of what's actually happened/been accomplished.

A journalist's summary would be fine, too, as a starting point, I guess, but an official document would be better.

Petr Hudeček (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not the same thing as the EU, but the Council of Europe publish an Annuaire Européen/European Yearbook in French and English, which Amazon UK will sell you for only £446. If it were me I'd be looking for a library copy. --Antiquary (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Deadliest days in law enforcement

I'm looking for the deadliest days / incidents in terms of non law-enforcement civilians dying or being killed in a law-enforcement operation.

The U.S. record, by far, is the Waco siege, April 19, 1993 - 76 dead.

The U.K. record, I'm guessing, would probably be Bloody Sunday (1972), I'm guessing, with a "mere" 13 dead on the day, and one who later died from his injuries? The soldiers may have been "military", but this could hardly be classified as a military operation (the protestors were unarmed), as opposed to one of a law-enforcement nature. Is this British law enforcement's deadliest day in the modern age, in terms of civilians killed?

Which other major incidents are there in which large numbers of civilians died or were killed in what was essentially an act of a law-enforcement, as opposed to military, nature, regardless of whether the perpetrators were police or soldiers? I'm sure we would have articles on the incidents in question, can anyone give me some links? Eliyohub (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre is another UK example, with 15 dead. There are quite a few here List of events named massacres --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Category:Lists of massacres by country leads to a lot. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• See Nika riots, in which tens of thousands of civilians were killed. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

More recently, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 had a death toll of 241 (officially) while western commentators have put the figure as high as a thousand. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also problematic is the difference between law enforcement, military, and paramilitary. In some countries, which practice stricter civilian control of the military and set harder lines between the roles of law enforcement and the military, one can clearly define people killed by police versus people killed by military. But such lines are not always clearly drawn, and we run into a lot of gray areas. Kristallnacht for example resulted in about 100ish deaths at the hands of the Sturmabteilung, which is usually classified as a paramilitary organization and an organ of the Nazi Party, and not of the German State, but really, was there a functional difference between the German State and the Nazi Party in 1938, and were uniformed forces carrying out actions under orders from the Nazi Party any different than police acting on orders from the German State. Even among more legitimate governments, you run into issues of how to classify Gendarmeries and Posse comitatus and the like. --Jayron32 18:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There are six countries at Lists of killings by law enforcement officers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks fellow wikipedians, but note that "dying in a law-enforcement operation" does not always equal "directly killed by a law enforcement officer". The example I gave was the nightmare of Waco. Have there been any other such incidents around the world?

In that case, would something like the Hillsborough disaster (96 dead) count, which I think occured in part because the police responded to what should have been a crowd management/safety issue as a law-enforcement/riot-control problem? Iapetus (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32:, Kristallnacht could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a "law enforcement operation". In Western countries, a common way of differentiating between "police" and "law enforcement" is powers of arrest. Police have vast powers of arrest, soldiers tend to have far fewer. The reason being, police are there to apprehend criminals, soldiers are there to fight. (Note that intelligence agents such as ASIO or the National Security Agency or CIA have vast power to snoop, but few, if any, powers of arrest. If they want someone arrested, they must pass the matter on to the police). Eliyohub (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

sentenced to 15 years, 5 of them in prison

What does that mean? Are the other 10 years on probation, and if yes, is there a reason they didn't say so? Do they have someplace other than prison to lock him up (I thought jail was for people pending trial and shorter sentences)? The person "pleaded guilty Thursday to aggravated assault, obstruction of an officer and violating the state’s Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act. He was sentenced to 15 years, five of them in prison".[1] Thanks. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears that The Telegraph was the only Google-crawled source to have anything to say about this guy since his arrest two years ago. That means short of contacting the reporter who wrote the piece, there is nothing anyone here can tell you with confidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounded like a standard type of sentence so I wondered what it meant. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that the article you linked to includes the journalist's full contact details (both phone and email), or you can get contact details for the relevant district attorney at [2], whom, I presume, will happily answer you if he can do so easily. Note that the remaining 10 years may be parole, not probation, in which case he is by no means guaranteed to be released after five years. He would have to apply for parole, and it may or may not be granted by the parole board. I don't know which of the two it is, but you have the contact details if you want to pursue asking the question. Eliyohub (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the phone number, though didn't see an email (just a twitter handle). I don't have any special interest in that particular offender. I only happened across the article and wanted to understand what the sentence meant. Thanks. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know in this case but a form like that can be used sometimes when a person is given a prison sentence and then is liable to serve more time in prison if they break some condition of good behaviour within a further time span after being let out. Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean Parole, or something different? Parole systems are pretty common. Eliyohub (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, there are other forms of incarceration other than prison, for example work release and house arrest and labor camps. The sentence may have specified some lesser form of incarceration for the remaining 10 years of the sentence. --Jayron32 15:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No I don't mean parole. Prisoners have to apply for parole and make promises and things like that. More like a commuted sentence. Dmcq (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really like a commuted sentence, which would put an end to judicial oversight of the person. Probation after the jail time is imposed by the judge, and involves seeing a probation officer regularly and running the risk of having probation revoked and a return to jail in case of bad behavior. Loraof (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not true parole always requires application or promises (maybe in the jurisdiction involved, but I think if we knew the range of options this wouldn't be so unclear). See e.g. [3] [4] [5] New Zealand Parole Board. Nil Einne (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I think the business about requiring prisoners to say thy are sorry about their crime is very bad and would prefer it to be automatic dependent on their behavior in prison beforehand being reasonable. That's assuming they don't obviously pose a risk like saying they're going to get back at people. For instance considering the number of people in the US who haven't committed a crime but are in prison because of plea bargaining to avoid worse charges getting them to say they are sorry for what they haven't done and have been in prison for is just asking for a very bad attitude to society when they get out. Dmcq (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure "saying sorry for what they've done" is the issue, as much as undertaking to comply with any conditions attached to their release on parole, such as turning up for drug tests, attending rehab programs, staying away from their victim(s), etc. Hardly unfair, IMHO. Parole does not equal unconditional release. Eliyohub (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

In this context the term for saying they're sorry is remorse. Now see Innocent prisoner's dilemma. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I remember reading a story of someone accused of something serious. This issue came up. He said "I have absolutely no problem signing a statement promising to never do anything like that, but I absolutely will not sign a statement that I did it". But my point was, remorse may not be the issue with parole, as much as undertaking to comply with any terms the parole board attaches to the prisoner's release, which, unless modified by the board, apply until the expiry of the full maximum sentence. Admitting guilt may well not be a prerequisite, but promising compliance with one's parole obligations likely would be. Eliyohub (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

People turning to right wing politics when economy is doing poorly,left wing politics in times of economic prosperity

Are voters more likely to turn to right wing politics when the economy is doing poorly and to left-wing politics when the economy is doing well?Uncle dan is home (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, people turn against the party in power when the economy does poorly [6]. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that economic hardship during the First World War gave rise to the Bolsheviks in Imperial Russia and the Spartacists in Imperial Germany. I found Economic crisis and political extremism in Europe: from the 1930s to the present by Antonis Klapsis. Sadly the article is not freely viewable, but the abstract says: "...no matter how strong the linkage between economic crisis and the rise of political extremism might be, economic crisis is not the only factor to be taken into account when analysing the phenomenon of political extremism, as other parameters (historical, social and so on) are also important". Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

To give an example of voters turning to the left when the economy went bad... at the start of the Great Depression of the 1930s, votors elected Franklin Roosevelt. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In the US last year, the left wing Bernie Sanders and the right wing Donald Trump both got large popular followings. The candidate in the middle, Hillary Clinton, won her party's nomination in part through very heavy support from the party establishment (superdelegates) and went on to lose to the right wing candidate. One can break down the campaigns into microscopic parts arguing about what happened, but in at least some interpretations, the country simply wasn't in the mood for a centrist establishment candidate, so it picked the outsider, who happened to be the conservative outsider. It would have been interesting to see Trump and Sanders face off against each other, or maybe to see Sanders or Clinton against a moderate Republican (there were a few of those in the GOP primaries but they got eliminated early in the season). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

While Hillary certainly had heavy backing from the Democratic establishment, it is worth noting that she won the primary by ~1000 delegate votes but there are only ~700 superdelegates so their votes did not directly change the outcome. See Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Dragons flight (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but there were many other ways the party establishment tried to tilt the primaries, through endorsements, control over election processes and debate schedules, influencing media narratives, etc. The DNC was supposed to be a neutral facilitator of the primary process, but it intervened heavily for Clinton (this came out in Wikileaks disclosures of internal DNC email) to the point where that DNC chairperson had to resign after the convention over the leaks (she immediately joined the Clinton campaign), etc. This has all been debated endlessly in the usual places online. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The party is "supposed" to be a neutral facilitator? Who says? Parties are groups of like-minded individuals who get together to choose a candidate they can agree on. If you let non-like-minded candidates and voters into the process, what's the point of having a party in the first place? --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The lawsuit was against the Democratic National Committee in particular, not the party as a whole. The DNC is a corporation that has a chairperson and staff who are paid to handle various party functions, supposedly neutrally per Article 5, Section 4 of the party charter, shown on p. 21 of the court filing. I spent a few minutes unsuccessfully trying to find the current status of the suit so I don't know how or whether it was resolved. Ordinary party members can of course support whoever they like, but DNC officials are supposed to stay impartial, and the DNC chairperson who resigned claimed to have been acting impartially. The claim was refuted by the Wikileaks disclosures. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I suspect it hasn't changed from this 17/18January update [7] Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Even at that, it's doubtful Bernie could have defeated Trump. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• This book might be interesting.  :((( 50.0.136.56 (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Populist movements gain support in downturns, not specifically left or right wing movements. Note the rise of far right movements in the UK, Netherlands, France, Denmark, Hungary etc in recent years. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• More counterexamples: The U.S. economy was doing poorly in 1992 and 2008, when the White House went from the right-leaning Republican party to the left-leaning Democratic party (see, for example, It's the economy, stupid, the campaign slogan that ended up helping defeat George H. W. Bush) . Contrawise, the U.S. was doing economically very well in 2000 and in 2016, when the right-leaning Republican party won the White House. So I can find many specific examples in the U.S. that work exactly opposite from the OP's assertion. --Jayron32 14:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• During economic downturns, the Republicans typically tell the people it's their own fault if they're poor and/or unemployed. Democrats are more likely to offer a safety net. When unemployment is fairly high low, as it is now, Democrats don't do as well. When times are tough, Republicans don't do as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The unemployment rate is currently 4.7%[8] and has been declining since it was about 10% back in 2009. How is that "fairly high"? uhhlive (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.

• Lots lots more counterexamples - Greece turned to the staunchly left Syriza during the debt crisis (the far-right Golden Dawn also gained, but substantially less) and Spain saw big gains for the left wing Podemos; the struggling post-war UK elected Labour in a surprise landslide; Italy's current insurgent Five Star Movement isn't really left or right, but on most policies apart from immigration, they'd fall on the socialist (public water and transport, no to global trade) or liberal (gay marriage, environmentalism, anti-corruption) side. More than turning to one side or the other, what voters really seem to want to do in hard times is just kick whichever side happens to be in charge. Smurrayinchester 16:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(One footnote - the Greek economy is still weak after 5 years of Syriza, and so sure enough, public opinion is turning on the left wing party in favour of the right wing New Democracy. The wheel of fortune keeps on turning.) Smurrayinchester 16:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Syriza according to some made bad errors right after getting into power, that are still with them, that prevented things from getting any better (i.e. more or less guaranteed preserving the bad status quo). Basically they ruled out doing a Grexit if they couldn't get good terms from the EU, so they had no negotiating strength after that. If they Grexited then there likely would have been near-term chaos with no obvious predictable longer-term result, so not guaranteed to be better than where they are now, but a shake-up one way or the other. By electing Syriza in the first place, it sounded to me like the voters had wanted to roll the dice and they didn't get that. They are now in something like the pre-Syriza situation so they're looking to try a right-wing party next. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Roughly right, but on a couple points - Syriza did get good terms from the EU - better than I expected. They were offered a negotiated exit from the Euro by Wolfgang Schauble. By the way, when he was negotiating with Varoufakis (who recently revealed this tidbit), to his credit he admitted that he would not have accepted the terms he was giving Greece if he were in Varoufakis's shoes. The quite predictable result of a Grexit would be a short change-over period - chaos is too strong - followed by a "robust recovery" (Mark Weisbrot) which is the typical result of escaping from absurd, poorly thought out and unworkable monetary systems, the Euro being perhaps the worst in history. Basically what happened is that the Greeks after voting in Syriza, made it quite clear that they were fed up with the EU & the Euro in the referendum, and then Tsipras snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory by accepting terms worse than the ones that Schauble himself admitted were not acceptable! Getting good terms from your neighbors is not really the important thing; elementary common sense, sanity and honesty at home are.John Z (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

District 23 and District 33 of North Dakota House of Representatives which counties

Which counties does District 23 and District 33 represents in the North Dakota House of Representatives? I am asking because I am curious about which counties gave their vote to Bernie Sanders during the Democratic Party primaries and caucuses of 2016. Donmust90 (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a map from the state website: [9] District 33 is Mercer, Oliver and Morton counties, while 23 comprises Eddy, Nelson, Griggs and Steele counties. --Xuxl (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's a numbered map of districts in the article North Dakota House of Representatives. There are maps of named counties in List of counties in North Dakota#List, so you can collate them. Loraof (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)