Anyhow, I will not support any bill that re-institutes districts. Gerrymandering is a concern to me and I doubt it will help very well, activity wise.
Hmm, gerrymandering could be a problem, but then I know there are others out there who supported districts when the idea came up a couple months ago. Just throwing that out there. Perhaps under the new four district system we could have two additional senators that each are elected in two regions as a sort of in between of the At-Large and Regional seats. Senator 9 elected in the Northeast and IDS, and Senator 10 elected in the Midwest and Pacific.
As for the competitiveness problem, elections are traditionally uncompetitive simply because not enough candidates run. The Northeast and Mideast elections were fairly competitive last weekend, but the Midwest, Pacific, and IDS ones were not because only one person was running in each of them.
And increasing the populations of each region will prompt more candidates to run.
Entirely disregarding the fact that this is a horrible idea in general, if we're going to have four regions that roughly coincide with US Census regions, why don't we just call them Northeast, South, Midwest, and West?
That is for the regions to decide.
No; never. It's all or nothing. Eliminate regions, implement some sort of actual reform, radically restructure regional boundaries so that everyone needs to deal with having a new region, but eliminating just one region makes no sense at all. I've made this point before, and I'll make it again: you're only proposing getting rid of the Midwest because it's the least active one right now. I'd probably dispute that point, but, fine, let's say it's true. But there's no reason whatsoever to presume that it will be the least active region forevermore. Back when similar proposals have been floated in the past, it was traditionally the Mideast that was proposed to be axed, because it was historically the least active region and viewed as the one with the least distinctive "regional culture", plus it was in the middle so it was easy to carve up.
Why am I proposing to divide up the midwest? Yes it has been the least active region for years, but that isn't the only reason. The Midwest is in the middle and so is easy to split up (the northeasterners started pissing and moaning when it was suggested that they absorb some mideastern states; besides, they have so large a population that they do not need to expand). Also, the current borders are horrid; these are much prettier. But if you want to propose a different division go right ahead. All I wanted to do with this bill is move the debate from the Fantasy Elections to Fantasy Government.
In destroying the Midwest, I can say for sure you're demolishing a region with a proud and interesting history and a distinct regional identity - we're the region of *hughughug*, happiness, comity, a strange infatuation with personalist governments, and loony leftism. That's fine if you have a compelling reason to do so, but I haven't even seen one being presented. If you feel strongly about competitive elections, you ought to support the abolition of regional senate seats in favor of districts or, better, more at-large seats, so that we Midwesterners wouldn't have to look on as the Mideasterners have all the fun.
That's a shame. We could keep the Midwest largely intact and just have it absorb the Pacific if that would be more to everyone's liking. You all need to realize that I am not going to take a very hard line on the regional redrawing so long as certain logical units are kept in place. Feel free to make counterprosals! Just please, please quit whining about what an awful idea this is without articulating your position like ilikeverin has done. Yes, Nathan, I'm talking to you.
