Cris Survey - Consolidation

[Senator Cris]

1 - Are you in favor or against the passage from 5 to 4 regions?
2 - Are you in favor or against the passage from 5 to 3 regions?

5 DAYS.

[Cranberry]

3 Regions

[TNF]

3 regions would be ideal.

[DemPGH]

Yes to both, but especially option 2. Three regions for a healthier Atlasia!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Against both, of course.

[Potus]

Against both, of course.

[Donerail]

Three regions.

[Adam Griffin]

Three regions.

[LeBron]

Preferably, I don't want any form of consolidation at all, but 4 regions would be better than 3. The Mideast and IDS are still struggling to recooperate from inactivity post-Keaton/post-Scott and I wouldn't mind seeing those regions merge in some way.

The Midwest is doing great on its own. Could we do better? Yeah, but I'm not willing to consolidate with the Pacific in return for bicameralism.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think we need to break down the bastions a bit - I support three regions... still opposed to bicameralism.

[Maxwell]

4 or 3 is good, but 3 is preferable for me. Either way, I think consolidation is a good goal for the future.

[Donerail]

It is possible to make a map like this which (apart from shifting Oklahoma) keeps four of the five regions intact (EDIT: forgot about Delaware being part of the Northeast, but apart from a couple one-state switches it keeps 4/5 solid).

[Maxwell]

Preferably, I don't want any form of consolidation at all, but 4 regions would be better than 3. The Mideast and IDS are still struggling to recooperate from inactivity post-Keaton/post-Scott and I wouldn't mind seeing those regions merge in some way.

The Midwest is doing great on its own. Could we do better? Yeah, but I'm not willing to consolidate with the Pacific in return for bicameralism.

Of course Scott left like a week ago, so yeah, no big rush right?

[Adam Griffin]

Preferably, I don't want any form of consolidation at all, but 4 regions would be better than 3.

The problem with 4 regions is that the primary reason for consolidation - inactivity and a lack of being able to fill all regional offices effectively - would only be addressed partially if we went to 4. Such a large change - as it has proven to be with more than a year of talks on the matter - might prove to be useless if we only eliminate 5-7 offices instead of 10-14. I recall several of us discussing this issue many months ago and somebody had a very compelling argument as to why we shouldn't bother with 4, which hinged on the outlined point above.

It is possible to make a map like this which (apart from shifting Oklahoma) keeps four of the five regions intact.

Which isn't fundamentally different than the CARCA map that came out of the convention (sans OK, MO, MN & IA). As I recall, there was a lot of heavy debate about this general region in the map making process.

I will point out that your map doesn't keep 4/5 regions intact wholly (not sure if that's what you meant). The NE gets split because of DE going south, the ME is obviously divided and the MW is divided due to OK.

[GAworth]

4 is ok with me but would simply allow regions to maintain their shape and carve up one, I think that three is better, but the real question is not basing it around the current lines.

[TNF]

Personally I'm kind of partial to this arrangement -