191:
complete a similar succession table using the "follow the person" rule and because there probably would be a number of judgement calls to make I'm not certain I'd be able to do so without violating the "no original research" rule. Unless, perhaps, someone publishes succession information for congress using the "follow the person" rule? If not, you'd certainly need a much wider range of sources than just the congressional biographies because of all the corner cases.
354:
31:
242:
because he moved and then defeated the previous incumbent for his new district. Similarly, if a politician serves as a congressman, leaves to do something else for one term, and then returns to congress his predecessor would change (perhaps even to be his former successor if he doesn't change districts).
316:
Redistricting should not "follow the number". It is not just an "ugly result", it makes no sense, unless the person actually moved to establish residency. To say that "surfin'" Dana
Rohrabacher, first elected in 1988, was preceded by Loretta Sanchez, who was first elected to her landlocked district
190:
I wasn't suggesting it supported one or the other approach. I just pointed it out to show that someone was able to build a complete succession table using the "follow the number" rule, and was able to do so with only the official congressional biographies as his source. It would be a lot of work to
276:
So the tradeoff seems to be: occasional hard cases with "follow the politician", possible problems looking back in history; no need to check every politician when redistricting occurs for a possible change to the predecessor (as, for example, California in 2002); versus an easy way to determine who
253:
What's most interesting to me about the
California table you pointed out is that if you look at the 21st to the 53rd, you'd think that there had been a massive influx of new politicians in the 2002 election, given the discontinuity in almost every column. And yet, of course, that's not true - there
229:
The advantage of following the politician is that the predecessor is locked in - it doesn't matter what happens to the district, a politician has a predecessor, once and for all. As for the successor, if a politician runs for office and loses, then that is obvious. If he/she doesn't run, then it's
130:
And the matter could be far worse if seats are renumbered significantly; politician X could go from district N to district O, numerically, even though N (old census) and 0 (new census) overlap 95%, so that politician X clearly hasn't moved at all. And yet his/her predecessor would CHANGE. To me, it
122:
If we follow by DISTRICT, then politician A (now in district 3) was proceeded by no one, even though he/she had a predecessor in district 1 in 1998 or earlier; politician B (now in district 1) was proceeded by politician A, even though BOTH of them served in
Congress together in 2001-2003 (and A may
336:
to show that he had no predecessor when he was the representative for the
California's 45th congressional district and now that he is the representative 46th congressional district. If you're going to change one politician, shouldn't you change the dozens, or perhaps even hundreds, that currently
161:
Another thought: how would you handle the case of a district that is neatly divided into two or more new districts or the case of two or more districts being merged into a single new one? If one didn't adopt the "follow the number" rule, couldn't these cases result in a politician who has two or
298:
I agree with everything you describe here. I'll just note that if redistricting occurs a lot of stuff has to change in WP no matter which system one adopts (all of the district pages and maps have to be updated, the page for every congressman affected by the redistricting needs to be updated to
145:
You certainly have a valid point. However, WP does seem to have adopted the "stay with the numbers" rule, perhaps because its much simpler to apply uniformly (i.e. what would you use as an authoritative source for whether or not a district change is minor or not going back a 100+ years?) As an
241:
I certainly agree that "follow the person" has advantages. However, just to nitpick, a predecessor isn't necessarily locked in for a particular politician under the "follow the person" rule. For example, a congressman might serve an unbroken sequence of terms of office but change predecessors
118:
2000: District 1 is held by politician A, District 2 by politician B. In 2002, a third seat is added to the state, District 3. Most of old district 1 goes into district 3; most of old district 2 stays in district 2, and district 1 now consists of parts of old district 1 and old district 2.
126:
If we follow by POLITICIAN, then politician A was proceeded by whomever held district 1 before politician A won it; politician B likewise was proceeded by whomever held district 2 before politician A won it; and politician C was proceeded by no one. As may be clear, I prefer this example:
337:
are using the "follow the number" approach in their succession boxes? I find it unlikely that two relatively new users of WP like us are the first to run into this quandary. I wonder how we can find out if this has previously been discussed somewhere on WP? --
131:
makes no sense a minor change in the boundary of a district, together with a new number, means that a predecessor CHANGES. To 95% of the individuals in that
Congressional district, nothing whatsoever has changed except an arbitrary number for the district.
213:
I'm sure you're correct. I was just pointing out that to switch WP to using "follow the person" would involve more than just editing the pages for current and past members of congress, you'd also have to re-architect the various succession templates (e.g.
92:
I thought about it, but since that other image has the diameters listed I figured I'd leave it as a more comprehensive comparison for the actual TNO page. I might create another one like it in the future, including Orcus, though.
162:
more successors or predecessors, respectively? It might make sense, but wouldn't this mean that all of the WP templates for successor/predecessor would have to be modified to accommodate the possibility of multiple entries? --
176:
147:
115:
I admit that there are two ways to handle redistricting where the number of districts in a state change: stay with the numbers, or stay with the people. An example may help:
202:
As for the template, I thought the point of templates was that they are easy to change just once, and the change then replicates itself whenever an article is opened.
119:
Politician A runs in district 3 and wins. Politician B runs in district 1 and wins. Politician C runs in district 2 and wins. The three win again in 2004.
123:
have been elected AFTER B, for all we know, which makes it very odd that he/she is a PREDECESSOR); and politician C was proceeded by politician B.
215:
179:
is impressive, but it doesn't follow that the table supports one approach or another - it's just a listing of facts.
361:
38:
402:
394:
389:
282:
150:. Could you construct a similar table using the "stay with the person" rule that could be reliably sourced? --
136:
79:
71:
66:
332:
Shouldn't a single approach be picked and then used consistently throughout WP? I noticed that you changed
99:
318:
218:, etc.). They currently make the assumption that each has exactly one predecessor and one successor.
278:
132:
230:
still obvious unless the retirement coincides with redistricting (one out of five elections only).
299:
reflect their new district number, etc.). Thanks for the discussion, I found it interesting. --
177:
United States
Congressional Delegations from California#United_States_House_of_Representatives
148:
United States
Congressional Delegations from California#United_States_House_of_Representatives
333:
370:
127:
politician C didn't have to run against an incumbent; there was really no predecessor.
47:
17:
369:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
265:
Yes, that is definitely one of the ugly results of the "follow the number" rule.
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
341:
321:
303:
285:
166:
154:
139:
105:
338:
300:
163:
151:
254:
simply was a renumbering that affected most incumbents, who run and won.
348:
25:
146:example take a look at the GIGANTIC table at
8:
367:Do not edit the contents of this page.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
24:
352:
29:
106:21:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
342:02:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
322:22:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
304:01:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
286:19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
167:18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
155:17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
140:16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
421:
317:in 1998, is rediculous.
277:the predecessor was.
365:of past discussions.
42:of past discussions.
216:USRepSuccessionBox
111:Who succeeds whom?
408:
407:
377:
376:
371:current talk page
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
412:
386:
379:
378:
356:
355:
349:
334:Dana Rohrabacher
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
420:
419:
415:
414:
413:
411:
410:
409:
382:
353:
113:
104:
96:
90:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
418:
416:
406:
405:
400:
397:
392:
387:
375:
374:
357:
347:
346:
345:
344:
327:
326:
325:
324:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
291:
290:
289:
288:
279:John Broughton
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
258:
257:
256:
255:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
234:
233:
232:
231:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
206:
205:
204:
203:
197:
196:
195:
194:
193:
192:
183:
182:
181:
180:
170:
169:
158:
157:
133:John Broughton
112:
109:
98:
94:
89:
86:
83:
82:
77:
74:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
18:User talk:RP88
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
417:
404:
401:
398:
396:
393:
391:
388:
385:
381:
380:
372:
368:
364:
363:
358:
351:
350:
343:
340:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
323:
320:
315:
314:
313:
312:
305:
302:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
287:
284:
280:
275:
274:
273:
272:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
252:
251:
250:
249:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
228:
227:
226:
225:
217:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
201:
200:
199:
198:
189:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
178:
175:The table at
174:
173:
172:
171:
168:
165:
160:
159:
156:
153:
149:
144:
143:
142:
141:
138:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
110:
108:
107:
103:
102:
87:
81:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
383:
366:
360:
129:
125:
121:
117:
114:
100:
91:
88:Largest TNOs
60:
43:
37:
359:This is an
36:This is an
319:Mattfiller
403:ArchiveĀ 5
395:ArchiveĀ 3
390:ArchiveĀ 2
384:ArchiveĀ 1
80:ArchiveĀ 5
72:ArchiveĀ 3
67:ArchiveĀ 2
61:ArchiveĀ 1
362:archive
39:archive
16:<
339:RP88
301:RP88
283:Talk
164:RP88
152:RP88
137:Talk
101:talk
281:|
135:|
399:ā
97:/
76:ā
373:.
95:ā
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.