Extremely negative. I have no idea what is up with everyone wanting to destroy the Midwest. At the very least, people should realize that the current Midwestern and Pacifican streak of inactivity is a symptom of an underlying problem, not an issue in-and-of-itself.
That the regional system allows for such disparities between the regions, sequestering activity within a certain segment of the population rather than allowing it to spread beyond the borders of a certain segment of Atlasia. If, say, the Northeast were able to influence the activity in the Midwest and Pacific, the current problems in those regions could easily be resolved; it's not like the government systems in those regions are permanently broken. (Okay, the Midwest's needs to be fixed a bit, but I'm trying to work on that
) However, because 1) no one wants to move and 2) the Regions are, well, legally independent Regions, there's no way for activity in one region to influence another. Thus, the Midwest and Pacific remain shells of their former self.
The reason why the idea that abolishing the Midwest will make things magically better is a particularly stupid one is that the problems that we and the Pacific are having are not at all intrinsically due to the composition of the regions, as I previously stated. These problems could just as easily happen to the Northeast, the Southeast, or the Mideast (and, indeed, when such proposals were floated in the past it was usually the Mideast that was proposed for abolition, because it used to be the low-activity region and doesn't make much sense geographically). Even should one wish to conclude that universalism or whatever it is the Pacific has are failures, we could change our constitutions to make it better. Let's say we do get rid of the Midwest. What if the Pacific continued being as inactive as it is? Do we get rid of that, too? And what if the Mideast is next?
Poll
