DWTL Region Shrinking Plan

[ilikeverin]

Here are my solutions for three and four Region plans that divide the regiosn up relatively equally.


^^^the colors, not the thick lines and Region names, are what you're looking at here.

[Senator Ben]

As I've said, I object to any map that does not keep all of the Old Confederacy in one region.

[Senator MaxQue]

As I've said, I object to any map that does not keep all of the Old Confederacy in one region.

Well, we have to break up with the past to go forward. All regions will do sacrifices, I don't understand why you shouldn't.

[Purple State]

As I've said, I object to any map that does not keep all of the Old Confederacy in one region.

We aren't the US. We are Atlasia. There is no Confederacy. There are only states we have modeled.

[Meeker]

As I've said, I object to any map that does not keep all of the Old Confederacy in one region.

What a bizarre, immature and pointless demand.

[Senator MaxQue]

As I've said, I object to any map that does not keep all of the Old Confederacy in one region.

By the way, you are not a delegate, you are a felon.

[DownWithTheLeft]

As I've said, I object to any map that does not keep all of the Old Confederacy in one region.

What a bizarre, immature and pointless demand.

Yea I must say, extreme Zionism and extreme Confederate pride do not go hand and hand for starts

[Marokai]

I don't see the point of arbitrarily keeping certain states in certain groups. There is no "confederacy" here and there's no real need for them to be kept together. However, there is the point that you can't just slap a name on a collection of states and expect them to make sense.

(For instance, Texas is part of the South, so it would be silly to not include it in a southern region. But there is no reason for including Virginia or Missouri in a Southern region since they're not literally in the Southern portion of Atlasia.)

[SPC]

Rather than doing it by arbitrary geographic means, why don't we look up partisan distribution by state and use that to make competitive regions (i.e., ones with relatively equal numbers of RPP, JCP, SDP, DA)?

[Purple State]

Rather than doing it by arbitrary geographic means, why don't we look up partisan distribution by state and use that to make competitive regions (i.e., ones with relatively equal numbers of RPP, JCP, SDP, DA)?

We should look at this in a completely non-partisan fashion, neither disadvantaging nor aiding any party purposely by the divisions. Once you let current parties play a role in determining one aspect of a new Atlasia you open a box that is best left untouched.

[Senator MaxQue]

Rather than doing it by arbitrary geographic means, why don't we look up partisan distribution by state and use that to make competitive regions (i.e., ones with relatively equal numbers of RPP, JCP, SDP, DA)?

Impossible, because of the JCP and of the RPP. Too concentrated in the same place.

[Hashemite]

Rather than doing it by arbitrary geographic means, why don't we look up partisan distribution by state and use that to make competitive regions (i.e., ones with relatively equal numbers of RPP, JCP, SDP, DA)?

This is a non-partisan convention. We're not here to do favours for our respective parties or gerrymander regions.

[Smid]

Rather than doing it by arbitrary geographic means, why don't we look up partisan distribution by state and use that to make competitive regions (i.e., ones with relatively equal numbers of RPP, JCP, SDP, DA)?

I consider gerrymanders to be unethical - whether to make an electoral district/region more competitive or less competitive.

Depending on the model we adopt and role of the regions within that model, I like Afleitch's suggestion about having a variable number of regions depending on the numbers of active participants. If we followed a parliamentary model where the regions played roles (such as the basis of Senators) without the requirement of heavy regional activity levels (such as Governors, individual legislatures, etc), we could perhaps consider redistricting regions at various times (perhaps annually) with the objective of regions containing approximately 10 participants each (and if a state has more than 10 participants, it is automatically a region in its own right). Obviously there'd be some necessary margin for error, maybe making a region comprise of not less than 7 participants and not more than 15.

Actually, this is becoming difficult to put into words, so may be too complex. Someone else probably knows what I'm trying to say and might be able to come out with a better explanation.

Using Afleitch's map:

California would be a region by itself. Washington State could be, or could be combined with either of its neighbours, whichever would work out best.

[afleitch]

Actually, this is becoming difficult to put into words, so may be too complex. Someone else probably knows what I'm trying to say and might be able to come out with a better explanation.

I get where you're coming from. To pull back a bit, a lower house with total participation as in your proposal could allow for districting in the sense that Washington would be divided into say 9 seats and each representative would effectively represent one of those seats. This would mean that someone could 'represent' part of Seattle etc. If economic issues become the main issues, some people would probably wish to represent rural areas, rust belt cities, Chicago etc and the people and interests you would expect to be found there. Once every few months the whole map undergoes redistricting.

At present people register in states or in states to be in certain regions. It would be better to actually represent what that stands for. Al for example used to represent mining concerns in WV - it's something he knows about and is passionate about.

Therefore regions may not necessarily have to follow state lines as a result.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I don't think population and/or parties should be considered.  It is way to easy to self-gerrymand as the RPP has proved

[SPC]

Here's an egalitarian plan to give every region the same number of people:


Note: Kansas and Kentucky are under dual authority of the Midwest and Mideast, and the Mideast and Dirty South, respectively. Nyman is part of the Mideast.

[Senator Ben]

As I've said, I object to any map that does not keep all of the Old Confederacy in one region.

By the way, you are not a delegate, you are a felon.

I make no claims to be a delegate.

[Brandon H]

At one time I would have supported four regions, but some population shifts have occurred since then.

There was a movement to keep all of Dixie together (see the Dixie Union Caucus - 2005) but that movement failed.

As someone from Louisiana, I would really like to see La. remain in the same region that reaches to Georgia and Florida (not sure how far north) and would like Texas as well, but recognize that under the right circumstances Texas could be a better fit in a western region.

If we do anything with the regions, this should be separate from the convention and discussed with the entire population. See how the residents of each state feel. Only thing is we have many people registered in a different state from which they live and some that aren't even in the real U.S.

[Smid]

Only thing is we have many people registered in a different state from which they live and some that aren't even in the real U.S.

I was considering at one point suggesting that we have the regions, plus an "Overseas Territories" region, but eventually figured we don't have enough foreign posters in Atlasia to warrant it.

[Brandon H]

Only thing is we have many people registered in a different state from which they live and some that aren't even in the real U.S.

I was considering at one point suggesting that we have the regions, plus an "Overseas Territories" region, but eventually figured we don't have enough foreign posters in Atlasia to warrant it.

I think we do, but I'm not sure how it would fit in. Getting way of topic, I think we should allow registrations in Canada and then establish diplomatic relations between the two countries. But that would make things way more complicated than they need to be.

[Senator MaxQue]

I don't think population and/or parties should be considered.  It is way to easy to self-gerrymand as the RPP has proved

Population is a good way to avoid unintentional gerrymandering, like you have proven.

[Smid]

I don't think population and/or parties should be considered.  It is way to easy to self-gerrymand as the RPP has proved

Population is a good way to avoid unintentional gerrymandering, like you have proven.

If it is relatively easy to carpetbag, then it's impossible to gerrymander. If people don't like how the regions are drawn, they will simply switch regions to work their way around it. Brandon already pointed to the fact that we have a large number of people in regions they don't physically live and often this may be for partisan reasons.

As such, I consider carpetbagging to be of a similar nature to gerrymandering and both lessen the value of the regions. Consequently, I think that it's important to adopt strict guidelines in relation to changing regions. Since there are foreigners such as myself, and since it can be hard to prove where someone lives, I would suggest that a participant may change their state of registration, but only at certain times of the year. In my draft, I set two particular months in which people could change their state of registration.

[afleitch]

Only thing is we have many people registered in a different state from which they live and some that aren't even in the real U.S.

I was considering at one point suggesting that we have the regions, plus an "Overseas Territories" region, but eventually figured we don't have enough foreign posters in Atlasia to warrant it.

I think we do, but I'm not sure how it would fit in. Getting way of topic, I think we should allow registrations in Canada and then establish diplomatic relations between the two countries. But that would make things way more complicated than they need to be.

If Canada, why not the UK and Australia? I agree that that would make things a little too complicated, unless we decided to make a game with different 'nations' and have diplomacy as a strong point. But then that becomes a different game! I'd be happy with it, but I don't know who else would

[CultureKing]

Personally I favor the four region approach, divided up via equal population (or at least close in terms of population).

[Verily]

I don't think population and/or parties should be considered.  It is way to easy to self-gerrymand as the RPP has proved

Population is a good way to avoid unintentional gerrymandering, like you have proven.

If it is relatively easy to carpetbag, then it's impossible to gerrymander. If people don't like how the regions are drawn, they will simply switch regions to work their way around it. Brandon already pointed to the fact that we have a large number of people in regions they don't physically live and often this may be for partisan reasons.

As such, I consider carpetbagging to be of a similar nature to gerrymandering and both lessen the value of the regions. Consequently, I think that it's important to adopt strict guidelines in relation to changing regions. Since there are foreigners such as myself, and since it can be hard to prove where someone lives, I would suggest that a participant may change their state of registration, but only at certain times of the year. In my draft, I set two particular months in which people could change their state of registration.

Actually, for simulation reasons... Why allow people to move at all? Wouldn't it be a better idea to prevent people from moving once they've registered? It would help us with maintaining the simulation.