On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 08:59:28PM -0400, Jeffrey Embry wrote:
> If this is indeed the case, then perhaps Virginia, Massachusetts, Kentucky,
> and Pennsylvania, while politically different are technically Commonwealths
> and not States.
Whatever.
I think they are states.
Let me see
US States have two senators each in the congress:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm/
Choose a State...... Those states are all listed.
>
> While I will admit that DC is not a state,
Ok - it is not a state. That is the reason it is not a mult
in the NAQP - and that was K9NW's question.
> but Constitutionally a 'Federal
> City' is is a separate political entity. Personally, I can see no reason
> why DC should not be its own mult. But, one wants to play semantics with
> words and definitions, then remove the Commonwealths as multipliers.
I am not playing word games - as you said DC is not a state.
By the current rules when DC becomes a US State it will become a mult
in the NAQP. I would start working on statehood.
But if the real question is something like:
"Why can't DC be made a mult for the NAQP?"
Then your arrguement that it is a "separate political entity" would be
a good place to start as to why it should be a mult.
My question to everyone that wants to make DC a mult in any contest is:
Why do you want DC to be a mult?
--
George Fremin III - K5TR
geoiii@kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/~k5tr
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|