DWTL Region Shrinking Plan

[DownWithTheLeft]

I agree with the parlimentary system for the national government, but I agree with keeping the regions in tact.  However, I propose in order to stimulate regional activity we shrink to three regions.

I propose the following three region map:



Blue = Dirty South
Red = East
Green = West

[Purple State]

Heh, I've just been relegated to the South.

I do think this is a very possible stimulant that would generate increased activity and competitiveness in regional affairs. And it's something that can't really happen through conventional means outside of an actual Convention.

[afleitch]

I have long supported re-organisation of the regions. However I don't believe that this should be a 'pen to paper' task. I believe there may be a willingness for Atlasia to have more regions particularly if Smid's plan is adopted. Either way this should be a nationwide decision made by those registered in each state.

If we choose to retain active regional government as it is at present (again that is hypothetical) I see no reason why we should effectively abolish the Mideast considering it has an active and strong regional government at present. I do not see how such an example would contribute to better regional government.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It is kind of hard to make a three region plan to keeps the Mideast in tact because of its location.  The only logical three region maps would dissolve the Mideast and Midwest into other regions

[afleitch]

It is kind of hard to make a three region plan to keeps the Mideast in tact because of its location.  The only logical three region maps would dissolve the Mideast and Midwest into other regions

You can 'slice' the map in a similar way as Time Zones do and create 'East Coast' 'Central' and 'West Coast' regions

[Senator Ben]

I'd move Kansas to the West, but otherwise a good proposal.

[Senator MaxQue]

I think than we should draw a population equality map, and after, follow the Afleitch process for the states wanting to change regions.

[bgwah]

The U.S. can easily be divided into four regions. I was always perplexed that the "founding" fathers when with five.

[afleitch]

I think than we should draw a population equality map, and after, follow the Afleitch process for the states wanting to change regions.

Going with the SOFA figures, we have California with 10 voters forming a 'pivot'. NY/PA/NJ has 18 voters forming a second pivot. If 2 regions were abolished due to population/demography the likely candidates are suprisingly the Midwest and the Southeast. The Mideast has a 5 member state in Illinois and combined with next door Iowa also with 5 IIRC, that forms the third pivot.

EDIT: For a snapshot of 3 years ago - look here. http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=35836.msg810192#msg810192

[Hashemite]

Change state lines!

Now that's a radical idea.

[Senator Ben]

Virginia also has 4 voters, and combined with West Virginia we have 5 total.

[Meeker]

I support a three regions map.

[afleitch]

A 3 region split trying to attain a similar number of voters in each regions would at best look like this



DWTL's split would leave 2 regions with 40+ voters and the Southeast with about 25 or so. Any carve up into 3 would have to be a variation on West/Central/East.

[Senator MaxQue]

A 3 region split trying to attain a similar number of voters in each regions would at best look like this



DWTL's split would leave 2 regions with 40+ voters and the Southeast with about 25 or so. Any carve up into 3 would have to be a variation on West/Central/East.

That's much better. That does not look like a RPP gerrymandering.

[Senator Ben]

A 3 region split trying to attain a similar number of voters in each regions would at best look like this



DWTL's split would leave 2 regions with 40+ voters and the Southeast with about 25 or so. Any carve up into 3 would have to be a variation on West/Central/East.

I demand that WV, VA, TX, and OK be part of the same region as the rest of the South.

[President Marokai]

I prefer DWTL's map because it looks alot better to me and seems pretty reasonably (Western states are in the west, Southern states, in a Southern region, etc) without trying to mix and match states from different regions. I know some of you are worried about "gerrymandering" but people are bound to move states regardless of whatever map is made, guys.

That being said, I do support the idea of 3 regions, as regional government is largely inactive and regional elections mostly uncompetitive. We need some change there.

[afleitch]

I prefer DWTL's map because it looks alot better to me and seems pretty reasonably (Western states are in the west, Southern states, in a Southern region, etc) without trying to mix and match states from different regions. I know some of you are worried about "gerrymandering" but people are bound to move states regardless of whatever map is made, guys.

To be fair the same could be said of my map. It's a clear split west/centrasl/east. And if we reduce regions to 3, two regions are always going to abolished. I don't have an issue with DWTL's map on geogrpahy alone (however I reserve the right to fight to protect my region ) but if we want even a loose population balance it is easily challengable

For the record here is a population map adapted from the SOFA map data. Hope it is correct.



DWTL's proposal would see the SouthEast with 27 citizens, the East with 41 citizens and the West with 41 citizens. My own sketch would see the East with 35, Central with 36 and West with 38 (you may have to check my math!) It's not what I would propose - just an idea of what we would have to do if we wanted proportionality.

[bgwah]

In the past, for redistricting, we used the number of voters in the last Presidential election for population purposes. I think it might be preferable to the number of registered voters.

[DownWithTheLeft]

In the past, for redistricting, we used the number of voters in the last Presidential election for population purposes. I think it might be preferable to the number of registered voters.

I was just thinking the same thing.  The West contained about 10 SDP voters that have never participated in Atlasia.

[afleitch]

In the past, for redistricting, we used the number of voters in the last Presidential election for population purposes. I think it might be preferable to the number of registered voters.

To an extent I agree - however redistricting was periodic and using the presidential voting tally was not to the detriment of voters over the long term. Any 'set' regional split (which in itself is simply a snapshot of the day) would be better served by using the registered voters tally.

However - I'm not in favour a simple proportional split. All I am suggesting is that if we did that, because of the demographics, it is quite difficult to retain the 'south' (and indeed the mideast) even if we have 20 or so less registered voters in a southern region. We will face the same problems as we did during past redistricting efforts (the Maryland Bottleneck etc)

I am in favour of a more fluid split based on strength of feeling amongst voters in each state.

I'll try and pull together a map based on who voted in the last elections.

[Lief]

Here's another plan that tries to break up the current regions and make new ones, though due to its geographical location the Northeast is difficult to divide up.

I'm still not convinced that regions should necessarily be kept though. I don't know that making them larger would necessarily do anything to make them more interesting.

[bgwah]

In the past, for redistricting, we used the number of voters in the last Presidential election for population purposes. I think it might be preferable to the number of registered voters.

I was just thinking the same thing.  The West contained about 10 SDP voters that have never participated in Atlasia.

I'm not quite sure it's that many. Furthermore, I present the following:

http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/February_2009_Presidential_Election

In particular, look at the regional breakdown. This should give us a general idea of where people are located at the moment. There are a couple things worth pointing out: Speed of Sound did not make a valid Presidential vote, but his vote should count for these purposes, and you can add one or the Midwest for that. Meeker moved to the Pacific, so you can add one there and subtract one from the Mideast. I think I'll do a more precise count by state later (unless Afleitch wants to, which would be nice ), but I think this should help move this discussion along for now.
 
Preliminary regional populations based off Feb 09 Election:

Mideast: 11 (17.5%)
Midwest: 14 (22.2%)
Northeast: 12 (19.0%)
Pacific: 17 (27.0%)
Southeast: 9 (14.3%)

---


Additionally... What present regions would survive if we reduced the number to three of four? Which one or two regions will die?

If we go down this path, I propose a grand civil war to resolve the matter. Five regions enter the ring. Only three will come out. Who will win the epic struggle for survival?


---

Afleitch concern's are valid---these regions may very well be much more long-term than districts. Perhaps we can resort to a mix of the two strategies.

---

As for Lief's map, I again am hesitant to support the "three region" strategy and this is an example why. The U.S.  nicely divides into four regions (West, South<east>, North<east>, and Midwest), but three? Eh. Same problem we have with five regions--the Mideast region is kind of random and doesn't really follow anything. I also dislike the current system of insisting each region be ten states. State sizes (land area and population) differ so greatly that it seems silly to make sure they're divided this way.

[afleitch]

Any tinkering of the regions would mean that by nature of geography the NE and the Pacific would remain relatively intact whether there are 3 or 4 regions. The most vulnerable in terms of registered population and voting population is the South East. Hence the likelyhood of a 'time zone' style split should regions be re-arranged.

At the same time, could say, Washington function as a self governing region? Particularly if there is simply a governors office and/or small assembly. What about it taking in Oregon? If Smid's proposal goes through, taking it to it's conclusion it could be feasable to have more than a dozen regions operating in the same tier of goverment. This goes back to what I was saying back in October.

I suppose on reflection how many regions depends on what government we have nationall - whether it's close to the status quo or parliamentary. That doesn't mean that regions should simply be an afterthought but it makes setting the number of them difficult.

[Senator MaxQue]

In the past, for redistricting, we used the number of voters in the last Presidential election for population purposes. I think it might be preferable to the number of registered voters.

I was just thinking the same thing.  The West contained about 10 SDP voters that have never participated in Atlasia.

Pacific, not West. And we don't like those inactive voters, even if they are in our party.

[Purple State]

Because 3 regions aren't really working, consider four of them. Here is a rough outline based on nothing other than geography. I don't have numbers to put to it.



I would just like to point out, as Marokai stated, that regardless of the split up people will likely be moving around a bit, settling in different states to match the region they want. Membership will change.