DWTL Region Shrinking Plan

[Purple State]

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.

Maybe you can move once whenever and then only once every year after that. Because when people are first getting acquainted with the game it's hard to know what you're getting yourself into in each region.

[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.

Maybe you can move once whenever and then only once every year after that. Because when people are first getting acquainted with the game it's hard to know what you're getting yourself into in each region.

Maybe you're allowed to move once within a month or two of registering, and then never again. (Currently, you're allowed one free move after registering before the time limit kicks in.) Allowing movement once a year doesn't solve the problem at all. It just means a flurry of re-registrations at one point in the year.

[Purple State]

That seems fine. And perhaps allow for one move for all current members of Atlasia upon passage of the Constitution.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

When I first joined, I registered in Minnesota but soon moved to Virginia since I didn't like the silliness/regime of the Midwest.

[Smid]

There may also be people who register where they live (Bacon King, for example, mentioned that he was changing his registration to Louisiana because he was in college there - and I think that was even an intra-regional transfer), so I think the ability to move should be retained, I just think it should be difficult or rare to shift around.

Even if restricting transfers to once or twice a year led to a sudden flurry of re-registrations, people would have to make decisions based on the present status, without knowing who might or might not transfer in or out of the region that they'd just transferred into. They would also have to vote in possibly numerous elections with that regional composition. This degree of uncertainty would, I believe, act as a disincentive for people to carpetbag.

[Verily]

There may also be people who register where they live (Bacon King, for example, mentioned that he was changing his registration to Louisiana because he was in college there - and I think that was even an intra-regional transfer), so I think the ability to move should be retained, I just think it should be difficult or rare to shift around.

But... why? It isn't as if your real-world home has any actual bearing on Atlasia. Okay, so you register in Georgia and then move to Louisiana in the real world. (BK was actually registered in Puerto Rico for a very long time, but whatever.) Why should we reflect this in Atlasia? What beneficial purpose does it serve? The past has clearly shown that there is a significant problem with allowing people to move, even relatively rarely as is the case right now. But is there any advantage? Not that I can see.

In fact, I would go so far as to question why we even still have states. Just register in a Region. But that might be too radical for most people.

Even if restricting transfers to once or twice a year led to a sudden flurry of re-registrations, people would have to make decisions based on the present status, without knowing who might or might not transfer in or out of the region that they'd just transferred into. They would also have to vote in possibly numerous elections with that regional composition. This degree of uncertainty would, I believe, act as a disincentive for people to carpetbag.

But people don't just carpetbag to run for election. In fact, that's not my objection. People move for gerrymandering purposes, e.g. the RPP's intentional takeover of the Southeast, or past attempts (failed) by the SDP and predecessors to pack voters into the Pacific and defeat JCP candidates. That's the real problem with allowing people to move; fixing a time would actually make it easier to coordinate. I don't really have a problem with carpetbagging to be elected.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think Verily brings up (perhaps intentionally) another good point that carpetbagging isn't always successful.  It worked in the Dirty South because the RPP came in and dominated what was, for the most part, a completely dead region.

On the other hand, the SDP decided to build a base in the Pacific which epically failed.

[Senator Ben]

North: 31 voters
South: 39 voters
West: 38 voters

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

But... but... you MUST object to that map, no?

[Senator Ben]

But... but... you MUST object to that map, no?

Actually, I can give West Virginia and Ohio to the East, and take back Texas and Oklahoma.  So, this map works:


North: 33 voters
South: 39 voters
West: 36 voters

[Joe Republic]

LOL, the states around the Great Lakes are in a region named 'South'.

[Senator Ben]

LOL, the states around the Great Lakes are in a region named 'South'.

They prove to be a problem.  They have a lot of voters between them, so they'd probably need to be split between two regions.

[ilikeverin]

Apparently my proposal is too radical to merit discussion, as per usual.

[Smid]

There may also be people who register where they live (Bacon King, for example, mentioned that he was changing his registration to Louisiana because he was in college there - and I think that was even an intra-regional transfer), so I think the ability to move should be retained, I just think it should be difficult or rare to shift around.

But... why? It isn't as if your real-world home has any actual bearing on Atlasia. Okay, so you register in Georgia and then move to Louisiana in the real world. (BK was actually registered in Puerto Rico for a very long time, but whatever.) Why should we reflect this in Atlasia? What beneficial purpose does it serve? The past has clearly shown that there is a significant problem with allowing people to move, even relatively rarely as is the case right now. But is there any advantage? Not that I can see.

In fact, I would go so far as to question why we even still have states. Just register in a Region. But that might be too radical for most people.

As a foreign member, who obviously can't enrol in my home area, I have no qualms about it, but I'm just saying, perhaps others do. The fact that (and perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought it was BK) transferred states (but not regions - and indeed was criticised for "wasting" a transfer), suggests that some people like to enrol in the state where they live.

Even if restricting transfers to once or twice a year led to a sudden flurry of re-registrations, people would have to make decisions based on the present status, without knowing who might or might not transfer in or out of the region that they'd just transferred into. They would also have to vote in possibly numerous elections with that regional composition. This degree of uncertainty would, I believe, act as a disincentive for people to carpetbag.

But people don't just carpetbag to run for election. In fact, that's not my objection. People move for gerrymandering purposes, e.g. the RPP's intentional takeover of the Southeast, or past attempts (failed) by the SDP and predecessors to pack voters into the Pacific and defeat JCP candidates. That's the real problem with allowing people to move; fixing a time would actually make it easier to coordinate. I don't really have a problem with carpetbagging to be elected.

Sorry, I mustn't have been clear there - what you're saying is exactly what I'm saying too. I'm least concerned about people switching regions to run... what I dislike is transferring regions to stack out a particular regions with aligned voters to lock that region in for that party. If it's too easy to transfer between regions, gerrymandering is pointless because people transfer around to escape the boundaries. Indeed, it negates the usefulness of the Regions themselves - if people can transfer into a region on a whim then there is no need for a phsyical boundary. It would be pointless discussing whether one state should be included in one region or another if as soon as we make that decision people transfer into the region they want to be in anyway.

[Verily]

Apparently my proposal is too radical to merit discussion, as per usual.

I support it above all others, although I have nothing further to add. But others have a romantic love for regions which cannot be explained by reason. Indeed, no one has yet offered a serious defense for the continuation of regions. If no one does so, I will make a big stink about it.

[Brandon H]

Another thing that I suggested, back when Joe Republic was President, was (other than new registrations) to limit moves to the two week period between the election and the time the new officers take over. Something else we could consider.

[President Marokai]

LOL, the states around the Great Lakes are in a region named 'South'.

Yeah, I was about the say the same thing. It seems nonsensical to include Minnesota in a "Southern" region.

[Lіef]

LOL, the states around the Great Lakes are in a region named 'South'.

Yeah, I was about the say the same thing. It seems nonsensical to include Minnesota in a "Southern" region.

Well, it should be called the Central Region or something, but Ben just loves him the South way more than is healthy.

Apparently my proposal is too radical to merit discussion, as per usual.

I support it above all others, although I have nothing further to add. But others have a romantic love for regions which cannot be explained by reason. Indeed, no one has yet offered a serious defense for the continuation of regions. If no one does so, I will make a big stink about it.

For the record, I also support abolishing the regions. They can stay as symbolic entities (if we'd like to remain a federal system), but they shouldn't be given any in-game duties or responsibilities or offices or anything.

[Sibboleth]

Ben, stop this. I put out a new edition of the Eye yesterday and don't have the time to do one more than every few days or so. Please try to limit your idiocy somewhat.

[ilikeverin]

Apparently my proposal is too radical to merit discussion, as per usual.

I support it above all others, although I have nothing further to add. But others have a romantic love for regions which cannot be explained by reason. Indeed, no one has yet offered a serious defense for the continuation of regions. If no one does so, I will make a big stink about it.

A good idea.  As my original desire for abolitionism has evidently failed, I am all for the complete and total abolition of regions now.  Honestly, people, they serve no purpose.

(though in this post I was referring more to my really weird-looking maps on the second page, which are "too different", I'm sure)

[Purple State]

Apparently my proposal is too radical to merit discussion, as per usual.

I support it above all others, although I have nothing further to add. But others have a romantic love for regions which cannot be explained by reason. Indeed, no one has yet offered a serious defense for the continuation of regions. If no one does so, I will make a big stink about it.

A good idea.  As my original desire for abolitionism has evidently failed, I am all for the complete and total abolition of regions now.  Honestly, people, they serve no purpose.

(though in this post I was referring more to my really weird-looking maps on the second page, which are "too different", I'm sure)

Determination of regions will happen during the development of the Constitution, as we decide what the Constitution addresses. As you can see in the first Constitution the regions are clearly marked. It is something that could just be left out if the delegates so choose.

I would just warn that if regions are abolished by the Constitution, I will attempt to have a union of states coalesce into a renewed Mideast regional power. I would also expect other regions to do the same and form their own regional Constitutions.

[Devilman88]

What about this one.



Red: 28
Green: 28
Blue: 27
Grey: 28

[Big DaddyTX]

What about this one.



Red: 28
Green: 28
Blue: 27
Grey: 28

Awww... the Northeast stays the same.

[Meeker]

We could always give the regions non-directional names. Perhaps after famous Atlasians of the past?

FTR though I would support abolishing them altogether. At a minimum they should be reduced to three.

[Verily]

Apparently my proposal is too radical to merit discussion, as per usual.

I support it above all others, although I have nothing further to add. But others have a romantic love for regions which cannot be explained by reason. Indeed, no one has yet offered a serious defense for the continuation of regions. If no one does so, I will make a big stink about it.

A good idea.  As my original desire for abolitionism has evidently failed, I am all for the complete and total abolition of regions now.  Honestly, people, they serve no purpose.

(though in this post I was referring more to my really weird-looking maps on the second page, which are "too different", I'm sure)

Determination of regions will happen during the development of the Constitution, as we decide what the Constitution addresses. As you can see in the first Constitution the regions are clearly marked. It is something that could just be left out if the delegates so choose.

I would just warn that if regions are abolished by the Constitution, I will attempt to have a union of states coalesce into a renewed Mideast regional power. I would also expect other regions to do the same and form their own regional Constitutions.

In this post, you're demonstrating exactly the problem with regions. You're being provincialist, but you can't defend the need for regions. "I want them" is not a valid reason for this Convention to approve the continuation of regions--even if most delegates feel the same way. You must provide some reason why it would be better for Atlasia if there were regions than if there weren't; I see no evidence for this.