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.
Poll
