Regional Consolidation: Where to draw the lines?

[Adam Griffin]

Move over, boys, and let me show you a man's map:

• Virtually equal in population.
• Panders to the Mideasterners by keeping the vast majority of the region together (which is frankly as much as any region could expect).
• By keeping the vast majority of all five regions intact (and two of the regions completely intact), we minimize the likelihood of increased movements following its implementation.
• While I haven't crunched the exact numbers yet, by my glance it would seem that all three regions would be very competitive on both a partisan and ideological level.

Effectively, the ME & MW would merge, along with the PAC & IDS. Now I know some are going to say, "Adam, that red region looks ridiculous". Maybe just a bit, but stay with me here.

The current Mideast would lose Virginia, Maryland and Nyman to the new "Eastern" region. The Midwest would be preserved (save for Oklahoma) and join the bulk of the Mideast to form the "Mid" region.

The Pacific would be preserved in its entirety and join the bulk of the IDS, along with Oklahoma to form the "South-West" region. North Carolina and South Carolina would be transferred to the "Eastern" region.

The Northeast would be preserved in its entirety and join the remnants of the Mideast and IDS to form the "Eastern Region".

Areas in lighter colors below show the total number of territories that would be impacted by this redistricting (as in, territories that would no longer be with the bulk of their current region). 6/53 ain't bad.



EDIT: Whoops. Doing a disservice to a fabulous former Labor President by not including our Canadian friends in the calculations. Each Canadian territory is left with the bulk of its native region:

[Adam Griffin]

[status quo]

I guess that's what I get for being Obama-esque and attempting a compromise before dialogue. I guess that'd make you...

Can we leave Canada out of this? Canada is a hideous, ugly thing that makes every map worse.

Two out of three of my maps posted there do not visually include it, but Canada is here to stay and so it is important to at least consider it in the process.

[Adam Griffin]

Adam:

Including Canada on the maps would not be appropriate because, strictly speaking, no part of Canada is part of any region and the Canadian provinces are only associated with specific regions due to a bilateral treaty that can not be altered without the consent of the Canadian government!

Sounds like a job for the SoEA & GM!

[Adam Griffin]

While I support the reduction of regions, I feel like having 3 would be too drastic.

4 would still leave a region that is inactive and small party legislatures could take over fairly quickly (like how PJ and I are trying to revive the pacific and the dead zone known as New Mexico) such  as the Pacific and the Northeast.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. While I am glad that many have recently embraced regional consolidation to some degree, the fact of the matter is that a 4-region system would not go far enough in terms of accomplishing the goals laid forth for such a proposal: a reduction of inactivity and an increase in competition. A 3-region model allows us to combine the regions (as outlined in my proposal) in such a way that the large portion of each remains together, while also making each and every region competitive. If we go with the 4-region approach, then we are likely to fall short of accomplishing the point of regional consolidation. The prime goal coming out of any regional consolidation effort should be to have all regions active and competitive, in my opinion. I don't think a 4-region approach will adequately address those issues.

Has anyone even polled this issue

I recall two polls, but I can now only find one. One was done sometime in July and had a clear majority of people against it. The second one (I think was about a month ago and maybe done by the President) showed a slight majority in favor of some form of regional consolidation. I clearly recall seeing that second poll when it was posted, though, as I cheekily lol'd to myself about how strong consistent public dialogue is in terms of persuasion.

[Adam Griffin]

A lot of you loved my previous 3-region proposal for its fairness and simplicity. If you liked that one, then you're gonna love this! It turns out that this recent implosion in population - from the perspective of creating regions of fairly equal population based on current numbers, anyway - was a blessing.

• Virtually equal in population.
• Panders to 4 out of 5 regions.
• By keeping four regions completely intact, we minimize the likelihood of increased movements following its implementation.
• Not as ideologically-balanced as my first attempt

The Midwest and Pacific would be combined to create the West.

The Northeast would be preserved in its entirety and join the majority of the Mideast to create the Northeast.

The IDS would be preserved in its entirety and join VA, KY, WV & MD to create the Southeast.

I've purposefully left Nyman out of this. I have some cool ideas about what we could do with Nyman, but I'll leave that for later as I haven't brainstormed enough just yet.

Areas in lighter colors below show the total number of territories that would be impacted by this redistricting (as in, territories that would no longer be with the bulk of their current region). 5/53 (including Nyman) is pretty awesome. We keep four of out five regions together and split the ME 55/45.

[Adam Griffin]

Let me just say that this map is about as fair as it can get with respect to preserving regional identities. Keep in mind that this has been a huge part of the anti-consolidation crowd's argument. I encourage anyone who thinks that they can do better - using contiguous boundaries - to use my updated population map to construct one of their own. There's no way to leave the Mideast intact without having to split up multiple regions in the process.

A lot of the proponents' and detractors' comments here have merit:

Interesting that everyone assumes that the new regions would need to be contiguous.

I tried some versions that were non-contiguous, but they were quite ridiculous for the most part. You could theoretically preserve the Mideast and attach PA/DE/NJ to it, but the remainder of the Northeast would have to be anchored to the current IDS. The Midwest & Pacific merger would still hold as-is, though.

The Mideast has to be split up in order to add states to the Northeast, since the Mideast is the only region it is connected to. There is absolutely no way to create a balanced, 3-region map without splitting up the Mideast, which is unfortunate, because if any region deserves to remain intact, it is the Mideast.

I wouldn't mind the IDS getting Delaware or Oklahoma, but this seems like a very fair map.

Even in the IDS/Pacific merger map they find a way to preserve the Midwest and leave the Mideast on the cutting room floor.

The Midwest Labor party literally has no power (for god sakes, three terms of right-winger Governors with no opposition), if the argument you are trying to make is that Labor is trying to consolidate power, than that's just flat out wrong.

Either way, the Mideast is in an area that makes it very hard to cut out by itself. In addition, the Northeast is couped up in a corner where only adding parts of the Mideast would change it without making it ugly. If you're looking at the maps instead of thinking about the opposing sides intentions I think you could see that geographic reality.

Thanks for being reasonable here. The truth is that the most recent version of the map posted is more favorable to conservatives than the first (which consisted of 3 swing-regions). The NE/ME would be conservative-leaning, the Southeast would be heavily conservative and the PAC/MW would be heavily liberal under the current Census numbers.

I guess the difficult thing with preserving the Mideast and implementing a reduction plan is that the mideast simply doesn't make sense from a US geographical standpoint..

I mean, Virginia, KY and WV are considered the South and the rest are considered midwest or northeast, so it just doesn't mesh, which is too bad because it's the best functioning region we have now. I tried to come up with plans myself IF this is something we end up going through with, and I really couldn't make one that kept the mideast together.

Right. The Mideast is an anomaly and frankly doesn't have the same level of raison d'etre as the other regions do in terms of real-life justification. Under this proposal, it actually has more justification as an entity (effectively matching Confederate boundaries). I think most Southerners would agree that the areas highlighted in this proposal are true Southern areas. The irredentism in the IDS is strong: hopefully it won't go soft now that it has the best chance of expanding its cultural domain.

I have been looking at the maps Max. I understand the difficulty of keeping the Mideast whole but ripping one of the stronger regions apart (by splitting it between two other stable regions) while preserving the two weakest by merging them is just not right.

The Midwest and the Pacific, yes, are the two weakest from a general standpoint. They also take up the western half of the country and now have a combined population that merits a clean merger. Before, I had merged most of the ME & MW together, but Census numbers change.

This plan is fine. But it will likely fail I guess...

Don't be discouraged. These things take time.

Griffin, why is the Mideast region getting ripped to pieces while the others get to stay intact. Every time these three region scenarios comes up they all have that in common. That's why I will urge all Mideasterners to oppose any three region map proposal.

I guess the idea is the following: Most Mideasterners are likely to oppose "regional consolidation" anyway so the Mideast can as well be abolished. On the other hand, it is a lure for those in the IDS who are skeptical of "regional consolidation" because according to this scheme the IDS remains intact.

Pretty much. My original proposal was met with near universal criticism from the Mideast, while the rest of those who weighed in were more reasonable. It looks like you guys are going to reject any form of consolidation, no matter what. I see no reason that the majority of the country's will be held hostage by obstructionists in one region. Combined with the difficulties mentioned above that the Mideast's geography presents, there is simply no incentive not to split it up.

[Adam Griffin]

Honestly, I am starting to think a three region map might not be so bad (especially if it starts from scratch with regional boundaries, I'd definitely prefer this to preserving everything but the Mideast).  Griffen has made some pretty good points (and interesting maps) and I have actually had something of a change of heart on this issue as a result.  However, I don't think I can possibly support it unless (sorry if this has already been addressed) I see a convincing and through explanation of what problem this will actually fix (I've heard inactivity bandied about, but I don't know if that's the pro-consolidation consensus or just one person) and more importantly, how it will fix the problem.

Is anyone going to even try to provide a good explanation for what problems this would fix and how it would fix them?  I suppose silence is an answer of sorts, but surely someone from the pro-consolidation side can a least make a go of it.

Silence is indicative of other things going on.

First of all: we can start off this discussion by not listening to Hagrid. He and his party never managed to effectively control more than two regions, and as such, never built movements from the ground-up in all five regions. Frankly, I don't think he has any clue how the 5-region system works as one entity and how the flaws in one or more regions propagate to all of them. We can thank him for his talking points, though.

Competition and activity are crucial: they are the reasons for this, and they will be solved with regional consolidation. From what I've gathered, we have never had a healthy 5-region system - even in peak times, there has been at least one or two regions that were in the doldrums. Even with four of the biggest power-brokers recruiting every available person to the game (including some who were using off-site sources), we still didn't have five healthy regions. We're never going to have five healthy regions. The creation of five was a mistake from its inception - not some divine and infallible creation that dare not be tampered with.

As it stands right now, each region requires at least one power-broker in order to thrive. At the peak of the game's population and activity, you had Napoleon pumping up the Northeast, myself and Hagrid pumping up the IDS, Wolfentoad pumping up the Pacific and Tmth pumping up the Mideast. When Napoleon moved to the Pacific, the Northeast crashed. When I stopped caring in the IDS, so did Hagrid and it crashed. When Tmth moved out of the Mideast, activity dropped markedly. When Wolfentoad quit, the Pacific collapsed and birthed the origins of Rimjob. See my point? At any given time, there are only a few people in the game willing to do this sort of thing - in a 5-region system, you encourage them to spread themselves out and sew the seeds of their own domain.

Now I know some will say, "Adam, that's good! We need activity in all corners of the country and this is how you revive regions". Except we've done that. You can revive regions, but you cannot make them sustainable with this approach. It doesn't work. Unfortunately, once someone grows tired of their actions, it all begins to collapse once again. The zombies die off. The population implodes. New people swoop in to take advantage of the situation and it causes chaos.

This is one reason why regional consolidation is necessary: you need to reduce the number of regions in order to reduce the number of fiefdoms, forcing multiple sociopaths to fight over the same region. This breeds competition, which obviously breeds activity. If one of them suddenly grows tired of the game, then it is less likely that the region itself will collapse into anarchy. The IDS was probably the only region as of late that had more than one person competing for dominance, which would explain why its voter activity surged the most out of any region during our "Golden Age" of late-winter/early-spring.

As far as the ratio of citizens to offices goes, I'm willing to have that debate as part of a separate discussion - preferably once we pass a regional consolidation plan. The population has decreased quite a bit since I first advocated that (was around 3.7:1), though. It currently sits at 3.25:1. In other words, this has changed quite a bit recently. As the game's population stabilizes once again, we can more effectively determine the ideal number of offices to citizens. I don't think more competition in regional elections is necessarily a bad thing, though - it should be hard to get elected and that helps encourage newer individuals who may not win their first race to get involved in other areas of the game.

Another great reason/summary for consolidation is what I told an individual via PM just a day or so ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In conclusion:

• Regional consolidation will force there to be competing interests in each region, rather than spread-out kingmakers who can pick their own region, build it up and let it collapse when they're finished - activity, in other words
• Regional consolidation will create regions large enough so that a rogue person (like wolfentoad or myself) cannot enter a region, move a few people in/register a few new people and subsequently take over the region's politics - competition, in other words
• Because of these two elements, regional consolidation will prevent the worst of regional collapses. It is not a total cure for inactivity, but it takes care of the issues that we have historically seen in the Pacific and Midwest, and would have helped us avoid this most recent regional implosion if it had been in place