Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 193

2026 Convention Workbook
158 
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
7 
It must at the same time be asked, however, if districts were to take advantage of changed circuit 1 
requirements to realign circuits to optimize for representation, how significant the change in proportional 2 
representation or in the total convention size would be. A significant increase in convention size might have 3 
undesirable budgetary and logistical complications, and a significant potential for districts to increase their 4 
proportion of representation, potentially at the cost of visitation or other “working” aspects of current 5 
circuits may also raise appropriate concern. The previously described Max -P algorithm was used to 6 
“optimally” form electoral circuits under a wide range of parameters, based on SY2024 data. Table 3 shows, 7 
for a range of congregation and confirmed membership requirements, the theoretical potential increase in 8 
the size of the national convention (lefttable),7 if all districts redistricted “optimally,” and the percentage of 9 
optimally formed circuits that would require exceptions after the elapse of three years (righttable).10
�able �� �otential for increase in number of electoral circuits relati�e to an �optimal� baseline and proportion of resulting circuits 11
re�uiring e�ceptions after a �- year inter�al (present data; no accounting for future change�12
Congregations Confirmed Members in SY2024 (present) Confirmed Members in SY2027
800 1000 1200 1500 800 1000 1200 1500
4 66% / 97% 47% / 74% 32% / 56% 14% / 35% 26% 32% 35% 46%
5 52% / 80% 38% / 63% 26% / 49% 9% / 29% 19% 25% 36% 42%
6 37% / 62% 27% / 50% 18% / 40% 4% / 24% 17% 23% 30% 39%
7 23% / 48% 17% / 38% 10% / 33% – / 18% 12% 19% 24% 35%
Potential increase in convention voting delegation 
gi�en �arious changes in circuit minimums, relati�e to 
optimal (588 circ�� � (ital�� 2026 actual (497 circ�)
�roportion of �optimally formed� circuits 
li�ely to fall below minimums after 3 
years (7% conf� membership decline�
For example, if the bylaw bounds were to be adjusted to require 1200 confirmed members and five 13
congregations instead of 1500 and 7, the number of delegates could be increased by as much as 49% relative 14
to current alignment (or by 26%, if we imagine a theoretical maximum number of delegates at present).36% 15
of the circuits formed, however, at that “optimal alignment” would likely fall below the new bar within one 16
triennium. To reduce to five congregations and 800 members could result in a voting delegation 80% larger.17
Table 3 reflects formation of circuits based on present statistics, a definite upper bound on increases. Given 18
that 2029 is the first convention for which changed requirements would take effect, and given that districts 19
tend to desire some stability in circuit formation, Table 4 shows the change in number of circuits relative to 20
optimal formation at current parameters and relative to 202 6 counts, for a variety of parameters, assuming 21
districts figure on a 7% triennial confirmed membership decline to form circuits that will li�ely be �alid in 2032. For 22
more conservative parameter changes (e.g., to 6 congregations and 1,200 members) this likely better 23
estimates the “upper bound” on convention size impact relative to 2026. 24
�able �� �otential for increase in number of 2029 electoral circuits (formed on the assumption of a  7% triennial membership 25
decline) relati�e to an �optimal� baseline and proportion of resulting circuits re�uiring e�ceptions for the 2032 convention26
Congregations Confirmed Members in SY2027 (2029 Conv.) Conf. Mbrs. in SY2030 (2032 Conv.)
800 1000 1200 1500 800 1000 1200 1500
4 68% / 88% 48% / 47% 31% / 47% 12% / 25% 23% 28% 36% 41%
5 55% / 74% 39% / 41% 26% / 41% 8% / 22% 20% 25% 33% 42%
6 41% / 58% 30% / 34% 20% / 34% 5% / 18% 14% 22% 30% 34%
7 28% / 43% 19% / 25% 11% / 25% – /12% 12% 18% 24% 33%
Potential increase in convention 2029 voting delegation given 
�arious changes in circuit minimums, relati�e to 
optimal (�57 circuits� � (ital�� 2026 actual (497 circuits)
�roportion of �optimally formed� circuits
li�ely to fall below minimums after another 
� years
7 P ercentages set in Roman type are relative to optimally formed circuits, given current requirements (7 congregations and 1,500 
members); on SY2022 data, 602 such circuits are possible, 1 3% more electoral circuits than are currently formed (15% of which are 
currently exceptional). Italicized percentages are relative to the actual number of 2023 electoral circuits, of which there are 532.
8 
The interaction of congregation confirmed membership sizes, counts, and geographical factors, and their 1 
peculiar combinations in the different districts and regions mean that variation of parameters does not have 2 
a uniform effect across the Synod. Figure 7 shows the potential for relative increase in the number of electoral 3 
circuits as estimated by the Max -P algorithm, configured to form circuits with sufficient excess confirmed 4 
members today to survive a continued 7% triennial decline until the 2029 convention, for (a) a variety of 5 
parameter combinations, by region; and (b) for circuits with a minimum 6 congregations and 1,200 6 
members, by district. In (a), variation in the confirmed membership requirement is along the x-axis; 7 
variation in the congregation count requirement is indicated by the different line styles. Variation in the 8 
latter requirement has a more pronounced effect in the regions with a greater proportion of relatively larger 9 
congregations. ESE and WSW regions struggle to add circuits at a rate similar to other regions (of course, 10
their “baseline” includes a greater proportion of exceptional circuits already, so they have more “negative 11
inertia” to overcome). P erhaps p aradoxically, though, lowered requirements would allow other regions12
(especially in the GP region, but for reasonable parameters also in the GL and CEN regions) to add circuits at 13
a higher rate than these could.14
Taking one example of moderate change to parameters in Figure 7(b), with 6 congregations and 1,200 15
members required, one can see a great variety in the ability of districts to add new circuits, ranging from 16
increases at or below 25% (SELC, MDS, KS, IE, SW, MI, TX, and most of the ESE region) to over 60% (MT, NW, 17
WY, SD, NI).8 Such potential swings in representation are neither “right” nor “wrong,” but are significant to 18
note and perhaps of broader variance than might be expected, even in districts that are not among the 19
smallest. Note also that these figures include no exceptional circuits (the task force is proposing eliminating 20
them). 21
6. Alternate Requirements for Electoral Circuit Formation22
Similar circuit formation experiments were performed with alternative requirements for electoral circuit 23
formation, including requiring 4, 5, 6, or 7 parishes instead of congregations, or requiring 2, 3, or 4 installed 24
pastors in addition to the existing requirements for congregations and confirmed members. The former 25
would bring circuit formation into line with representation of congregations as parishes in circuit forums, 26
district conventions, and the vote for President. The latter would have a similar effect, but also impact 27
8 District-level rates of potential representation change range from 1.00 to 2.00, with a mean of 1.36 and standard deviation of 0.20. 
Comparing “optimal” circuits of 7 congregations and 1,500 members to those of 6 congregations and 1,200 members (using the 
“optimal” instead of 2026 actual as baseline), district -level rates of potential representation change range from 1. 14 to 1.50, with a 
mean of 1.21 and standard deviation of 0.066. A significant amount of the potential change and the variability in the potential change 
is due to pre-existing differences in how “optimally” districts have selected circuits (see all prior caveats on the sense of “optimal”).
(a) �ith a �ariety of parameters , regionally (b� �ith � congs� and �200 conf� mbrs�, by district  
Figure 7: �hange in electoral circuits, relati�e to 202 6 actual, using Max -P and forming for 2029 with the assumption of 
continued 7% triennial confirmed membership decline