DWTL Region Shrinking Plan

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.