Talk Elections

Since so many seem to be entertaining themselves with the idea...

Is this something we want to pursue?

Yes, yes, absolutely yes.

Yes- but the Northeast, IDS, and Mideast stay the same.

Yes, but it depends on how they are redrawn. If it's done by current registration, there would have to be 3 regions as opposed to 4 or 5, due to the density of the Northeast.

Yes absolutely. The Northeast and IDS should remain intact though.
They don't necessarily have to be equal, just balanced enough to function. Activity doesn't come from having numbers. Merging the Pacific and Midwest would give a large region with an inactive population.

That isn't redrawing the regions map, that's redrawing a line between the Pacific and Midwest.

I'm considering moving to the Midwest once I'm done with my term. You guys seem like you need a lot more activity, and in addition I really hate snow.

:'(

I'm also considering a move to the Midwest if things in the ME don't pan out to my liking.

Which is the only thing that's really necessary.

Sorry guys, the two of you aren't allowed to do that until September.

It's been a long time since I've commented in Atlasia...

No. There's nothing wrong with the present map.

I know, I'm still planning to run for ME Assembly in July. The end of my term (if I were to be elected) would be in September.

I don't understand how you guys think the region map needs seriously redrawn, and then only want to redraw the two left-wing regions.

()

You people seem to forget what happened last time we attempted major political change, when we disbanded the RPP and JCP- and look at morass that's left us in.

I agree, if that is as far as people are willing to go then this is the most pointless and counterproductive exercise possible.

Several of us have been talking about condensing the map into three regions for quite a while.  So obviously, I'd be a Yes.

Maybe do something like this:

()

?

I think it became too serious of an idea (pertaining to the last 24 hours of talk); I just like making maps. :)


True about the size/function, but I am curious as to what other way the regions could be divided without going off of numbers? Activity would be a great way to base it, but how exactly do you quantify that into the process?

that east region would be huge.

Add SC, NC and VA to the green and IA, MO, AR and LA to the red?

here's another map I think could help with ideological diversity
()

Keeping 5 regions in this one:

()

So, how about one of you Senate dudes actually propose an amendment that would do this?

We could always descend into civil war and have that be the method of border adjustment.

If these maps are the alternatives, I would rather just keep the regions as they are currently drawn.  :P

I'd have thought of this, for the sake of geographic consistency :

()

Look, I don't see why it would be a good idea to balance the regions in terms of population - for all we know, the current population imbalance is just a temporary problem, and soon the Midwest is going to be hugely overpopulated or something.  I do agree that it should be addressed in terms of representation, which is why I introduced an amendment to reintroduce district seats to replace regional Senate seats, but population can move around.  It's just... not, for some reason.

I fully get what you are saying. I think it's a good idea to have district seats that allow for equalish representation as you mentioned. There doesn't appear to be any mechanism in place right now that takes that into account.

Population fluctuations are bound to happen, but it's not as if anyone can pack up and move from one region to the next on a daily basis. New recruits probably are going to join their respective home region, so it's difficult to take that into account when planning because we don't know who's going to join in the future. I realize this could be used against what I'm saying as well, but I don't see why initially basing a redraw off of current population is any worse than breaking apart existing regions and reassigning those states (randomly) to other regions. I mean, we already have an imbalance right now in activity and population between the regions; why go through the hassle of changing boundaries if we end up with a similar result?

While I do not advocate this policy, what if the regions were tied to the Census and redrawn every one, two, or three months? I can't see such an idea being all that popular and I would much prefer seeing a "House" take care of this, but I would think over time the same problems existing today (unequal population and activity) would manifest unless there were only 3 or (perhaps) 4 regions. I guess my summary is that no matter how they are redrawn (or if), there's going to be imbalance, but we could do a "one-time reset" on the problem and allow entropy to go from there.

I strongly support this map.

I like Antonio's map a lot myself. :)

Give the IDS MD and DE and that'd be my ideal 4 region map.

Is there anyone actually registered in Delaware?

Oakvale was registered in Delaware, but he left.  The state doesn't have a resident, as of yet, but I think the Northeast is best the way it is.

Per one of my campaign promises, I will oppose any changes to the Northeastern boundaries. ;D

But that makes it look silly. The Northeast looks fine, but then there's a Delaware-tail-thingy hanging off of Pennsylvania. Far more aesthetically pleasing to give em both to the IDS.

Ain't nothing wrong with a 'lil tail! :P  And frankly, I just don't see why the Northeast should feel compelled to give up a portion of its land (along with the businesses and agricultural resources that exist in it) just like that.  :P

It would invigorate the Midwest. The West would still be pretty dead, however.  My state would be in an even more strongly right-wing region than it is now, but we'd still find plenty to argue about.

And best-case-scenario, that's all it does.

I might consider Antonio's map, provided that the Regional seats are maintained as they are. And that the Senate is also restructured so as to preserve the balance between regional and popular interests. Any plan or reform that fails to meet that criteria is a non-starter as far as I am concerned.

Ah, yes, you wouldn't want to lose your Delaware Corporations...

How about something like this:

()

Green - North Region
Red - South Region
Blue - East Region

Now this is a map I can live with.  Is there any likelihood of it being taken up? 

It looks to be a good map (with Maryland going to the IDS, of course ;)), but might this hurt ideological diversity?

Half of a left-leaning region is combined with half of a right-leaning one (Midwest and Mideast); other than that, NE stays the same and competitive, and there's really not a practical way to get the Pacific competitive (of course, with current activity levels, its ideological tilt isn't that important). IDS gets a bit more conservative, but not terribly.

Doesn't sound too bad, for the most part.  This should definitely be considered.

Maryland (and by extension, DC) belongs to the Northeast -not the South.  Let the Potomac remain the dividing line between the two regions.  


Who knows what our membership as a whole will look like years from now.  The Mideast, for instance, has done a complete 180 within the past seven years.  It now rivals the South for being the most conservative region in Atlasia.  

The Northeast is a populous and active region the way it is, now.  It really doesn't require additional states or territories.

I know that regions change over time, but at the same time we should avoid gerrymandering as much as we can.

Even if you manage to re-draw the regions in any of the above-mentioned ways, don't forget that people could simply change their state of registration in order to stay in the same region as before. I for my part would certainly do that should Kentucky become a part of the South. If many people do this, the new map will not have a big impact.

Wouldn't people moving around cause some sort of activity anyways, as is the goal of this?

I don't mind left-wing, and I think we could sit down and squabble about precise borders, etc. all day long, but what's important is that the game is fun.  As it is, some regions are uncompetitive, and that's gotta change, and we could take a look at it.  But I think we should look at 2 or 3 different maps, let people vote their preference (which would include a "status quo" and "other" choices.)

Gather 'round kiddies, and let this old timer tell you a story.

Back when I was a little laddie, we had this same debate many, mnay times, and the only solution that ever worked was to maintain the regions as they were and have half the Senate elected by population-equal districts, that could be gerrymandered to kingdom come if the Governors wanted to, as they set the boundaries.

We also had to walk 15 miles every day in 8 meters of Snow just to get a slice of stale bread dipped in pig's fat.