[CQ-Contest] Counting DC as a Multiplier and Not as PartofMaryland.

Joe Subich, W4TV w4tv at subich.com
Wed May 23 11:21:33 EDT 2007

NN3W writes:

> > 
> > Nothing I said prevents them from participating.  It is entirely 
> > reasonable to keep them with Maryland.  NAQP is the descendent of 
> > the old "CD Parties" where multiplies were based on Sections. 
> > 
> How is it reasonable that a political entity which issues its 
> own drivers licenses, issues its own license plates, has its 
> own representation in Congress, votes as a separate entity in 
> elections, has countable votes in the Electoral College for 
> President, is recognized as a separate entity by the U.S. 
> government, and has NO influence by the state of Maryland 
> should be lumped together with the state of Maryland?  While 
> its certainly true that NAQP is a decendent of the CD 
> parties, that should NOT preclude a recognized political 
> entity from being counted.  Indeed, your position that the 
> legacy of NAQP as a decendent of the CD parties would justify 
> the removal of NWT and Nunavut as separate multipliers since 
> the NWT territory used to be one section in the past.  Do you 
> think VY1JA or the other hams would appreciate that?  
> Absurd.

The "Political" (in the national sense) status of the District of 
Columbia has absolutely nothing to do with whether is should be 
a separate multiplier, independent of Maryland for contest purposes. 
To link the two, or to create a separate multiplier for the district 
to "political" (lower case, amateur sense) purposes is what is 
absurd.  There is no justification for doing so other than to 
appease the sensibilities of a few stations in the district who 
don't want to compete in the category defined by the rules.  

> > So?  NAQP is the successor to the old CD parties which were 
> > based on the Field Organization structure (sections).  There 
> > is still no imperative to change it.  For the record, I also 
> > believe there is no justification for separate DC multipliers 
> > in ARRL DX, ARRL 10, etc. and I objected to making DC a separate 
> > multiplier in FQP (even though it only effects in state stations. 
> > By the way DC is not a multiplier - it's sections - in ARRL 160.    
> > 
> There is absolute imperative to change it - its a separate 
> entity.  But for the ARRL section system, there is NO 
> political or legal connection of the District and Maryland.  
> None.  And, BTW, you should note that I never said that ARRL 
> 160 recognized DC as a separate multiplier.  It is indeed 
> sections.  Thank you for making note of the obvious.

By the same logic, 4U1WB and operations from every embassy, Indian 
Casino and reservation should be multipliers as they are also separate 
entities not subject to the laws and control of the United States or 
the states within the boarders of which they reside.  It is only when 
traveling outside the boarders of those "entities" do the US laws 

> > There is no benefit in making the change other than for the 
> > political aims of a limited number of DC residents.  Contests 
> > with large numbers of small, relatively rare multipliers tend 
> > to be frustrating (and confusing) to new contesters and casual 
> > participants.  Adding another small, rare multiplier is an 
> > overall negative for most contests.  
> > 
> See, that's where you're totally wrong.  First, there is NO 
> political aim of the D.C. hams on this one.  

I did not use "Political" (capital P as in policy) - the attempt 
to create a new multiplier is "political" (small p) in this 
regard.  Political activity does not always refer to national, 
state or local policy issues - it also refers to policy issues 
in other activities. 

> As to the contesting as a whole, what is the problem with 
> adding another multiplier - especially one that is justified. 
>  Do you advocate the elimination of Delaware as a multiplier 
> since there is little activity from there?  Do you advocate 
> the elimination of Nunavut as a multiplier as there is little 
> activity from there?  Do you advocate the elimination of 
> North Dakota as there is little activity from there?  

I don't care about the level of activity - I object to the quest 
to create multipliers for the sake of multipliers or to create 
new categories simply to exclude or separate a given subset of 
participants when doing so requires a change in the rules.  

That DC is part of Maryland (Maryland/DC section) for most ARRL 
activities (including ARRL DX and ARRL 10 until changed for 
political reasons) is the nature of the ARRL field structure.  

Perhaps Sweepstakes should be changed to eliminate the section 
based multipliers and go to states/provinces and territories?  
It makes as much sense as carving out a separate multiplier 
for DC in NAQP.  Heck, it might even be easier for new contesters 
to understand.  


   ... Joe, W4TV 

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list