Regional Consolidation: Where to draw the lines?

[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!

[Donerail]

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!

Reporting.

[Goldwater]

I'm not entirely on board with reducing the number of regions, but if we do end up reducing them I think that Griffin's map would probably cause the least problems.

[Spamage]

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

[Flake]

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.

[sentinel]

Has anyone even polled this issue

[DemPGH]

As a likely presidential contender, I just have a recommendation. First, the way you get anything done is communication. That's everything. And the more info the better.

Now, some folks will prefer the status quo, and they should be respected. But if the majority wants to make this happen, set up a vote or a poll with as many people as possible, and choose: 1) a three-way map (I also like Griffin's) and 2) a four-way map, and then send both of the winners over to the Senate. That will give the Senate something concrete to work with that generally has backing.

It's not fool-proof, but it's something to go on - because right now everyone wonders what everyone else thinks, starting with the Senate and the execs. if this happens, it's going to involve a lot of people, so best to involve as many as possible at the outset to avoid snags.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I remember we discussed this a long time ago. In fact, I think I had a plan too but God knows what it was, considering it was 2009 or something.

What are the goals of this movement? Are we leaving the Pacific for dead and trying to incorporate them into something else? I imagine the IDS and Mideast aren't keen on having their territory messed with and you don't want angry southerners to come after you. Remember 1861, Fort Sumter?

[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.

[President Tyrion]

I would honestly oppose a 4-region proposal, because it has all the negatives of regional consolidation without necessary providing the positives.

We'll see statute loss, one region (likely the Pacific) getting torn apart, and little to no movement in actual regional effectiveness, in my opinion. Half measures of this nature are unacceptable.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I remember we discussed this a long time ago. In fact, I think I had a plan too but God knows what it was, considering it was 2009 or something.

What are the goals of this movement? Are we leaving the Pacific for dead and trying to incorporate them into something else? I imagine the IDS and Mideast aren't keen on having their territory messed with and you don't want angry southerners to come after you. Remember 1861, Fort Sumter?

We sure don't want our territory messed with. I don't think the regionalist elements of the IDS will be standing alone on this. Most of the Mideast wants to keep our region as it is because we have a good thing going and we want to improve upon it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I remember we discussed this a long time ago. In fact, I think I had a plan too but God knows what it was, considering it was 2009 or something.

What are the goals of this movement? Are we leaving the Pacific for dead and trying to incorporate them into something else? I imagine the IDS and Mideast aren't keen on having their territory messed with and you don't want angry southerners to come after you. Remember 1861, Fort Sumter?

We sure don't want our territory messed with. I don't think the regionalist elements of the IDS will be standing alone on this. Most of the Mideast wants to keep our region as it is because we have a good thing going and we want to improve upon it.

Well you're talking to the right guy, JCL!

If my ticket is election, I can assure you I will not make any brash decisions when it comes to removing regions from the game. Many regions have rich histories that must be considered before cutting/adding to them. I see regions like a a good woman. When you start dating her, you don't want anyone else infringing on your territory, especially the handsome guy who starts approaching you at the bar, promising to fix all your problems if you just let her open up.

I will admit I don't know a lot about this issue quite yet except that the Pacific has been in a mess for a while, but perhaps lopping off the left arm to fix a broken finger is a bit much.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I remember we discussed this a long time ago. In fact, I think I had a plan too but God knows what it was, considering it was 2009 or something.

What are the goals of this movement? Are we leaving the Pacific for dead and trying to incorporate them into something else? I imagine the IDS and Mideast aren't keen on having their territory messed with and you don't want angry southerners to come after you. Remember 1861, Fort Sumter?

We sure don't want our territory messed with. I don't think the regionalist elements of the IDS will be standing alone on this. Most of the Mideast wants to keep our region as it is because we have a good thing going and we want to improve upon it.

Well you're talking to the right guy, JCL!

If my ticket is election, I can assure you I will not make any brash decisions when it comes to removing regions from the game. Many regions have rich histories that must be considered before cutting/adding to them. I see regions like a a good woman. When you start dating her, you don't want anyone else infringing on your territory, especially the handsome guy who starts approaching you at the bar, promising to fix all your problems if you just let her open up.

I will admit I don't know a lot about this issue quite yet except that the Pacific has been in a mess for a while, but perhaps lopping off the left arm to fix a broken finger is a bit much.

In a mess in spite of the best efforts of Atlasians who are trying to bring the Pacific out of the caves of inactivity and negative gamesmanship.

[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.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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.

[Gass3268]

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.

As a proud Midesterner I support merging our region with the Northeast.

[ZuWo]

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.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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.

As a proud Midesterner I support merging our region with the Northeast.

Why do you support merging our region with the Northeast when we have every right to stand on our own and not be ripped to pieces? Is it that you want full Labour dominance at all levels of government if this goes through.

[tmthforu94]

In all honesty, I think the primary reason the Mideast is getting split is simply due to it's location.

[Donerail]

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

[ZuWo]

In all honesty, I think the primary reason the Mideast is getting split is simply due to it's location.

It is more than mere coincidence that the Mideast is the only region which gets ripped apart under this scenario.

[tmthforu94]

In all honesty, I think the primary reason the Mideast is getting split is simply due to it's location.

It is more than mere coincidence that the Mideast is the only region which gets ripped apart under this scenario.

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.

[ZuWo]

In all honesty, I think the primary reason the Mideast is getting split is simply due to it's location.

It is more than mere coincidence that the Mideast is the only region which gets ripped apart under this scenario.

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 understand that the Mideast would probably be split up in some way if the 3-regions plan were to pass. However, the issue I have with the proposed plan is that the Mideast is the only region that is ripped apart, and all I am saying is that I suspect that this isn't a coincidence. In fact, if the Mideast is the only region that has to undergo drastic changes, the 3-regions plan becomes more palatable to citizens in other regions.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

[windjammer]

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.

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