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.
Poll
