DWTL Region Shrinking Plan

[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.

[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.

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Regions provide a multi-faceted approach to the game and a new level of excitement when they are active. At the moment there is one incredibly active region (the Mideast) and four pretty much dead ones. My question to you is why give up that one because of the other four? The worst case scenario if we keep regions is that they are inactive and act like they don't exist. The best case is we get thriving regional politics that add a new dimension to everyone's game.

I began this game, and continue to play it, mainly on the regional level. The recent flurry of activity in the Mideast shows how they can be used properly. The regions serve as the best way for new members to become accustomed to and excited about Atlasia. Whether the veteran members choose to ignore them is their own prerogative, but if you ask Devilman, Persepolis, or myself about the value of regional participation you will get a far different response.

There have certainly been short-term bursts of activity from dormancy. But they don't last; long experience in Atlasia makes this very obvious. During my early years in Atlasia, I attempted to revive the Northeast. This worked for a time, working with a small number of other people. The Northeast was even more active than the Mideast is now. But, once I and Mr. Moderate were no longer driving the engine, it disappeared; the Northeast sank back into inactivity. The same will happen to the Mideast; I can guarantee it. It has happened before. There is nothing beneficial long-term from regional government.

The regions can't be used properly. Not long-term. They suffer from extremely intermittent interest, something reorganizing the regions won't alleviate in the slightest. Post here in a few months; if the Mideast is still around, it won't be legislating seriously any more.

[Verily]

So what if activity is not long-term? There is no "benefit" to abolishing the regions. Either you have intermittent flashes of regional activity or you abolish them and don't even have that.

If a region allows for even one new member to get excited about the game (and in my short time I can count at leas three already) then they are worthwhile.

If we abolish the Regions, people focus their activity on the federal government, meaning a more involved citizenry generally and more participation as well as a diversity in debates and opinions that we almost never have in Regions. This is, of course, in tandem with parliamentary (or presidential) universalism, but the convention has already made it clear that universalism is quite popular.