DWTL Region Shrinking Plan

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Purple State]

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

[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.

[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.

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.

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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.

I would have to agree with Purple State. I am new here, as we all know, and when I first came here if the Mideast didn't have a place where I could get involved I wouldn't have stuck around. Of course, if one of the plans that has a lower house is passed by the delegates then the only reason why regions are needed are for electing Senators and Governors.

That could always be done in different ways (by parties or national seats like the Senate has now). Regions aren't really necessary for national elections. But they are a great way to become acquainted with Atlasia.

So I would promote the formation of extra-governmental regional spheres were they not included in the new Constitution.

[Purple State]

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.

I don't see removing regions as increasing national activity. People who participate tend to do so on all levels. And those who don't on one level rarely do so on either. The regions are a form of training wheels for new members. You can't expect everyone to just jump right in. It helps people understand what goes on here, you are introduced to other members. And it oftentimes can be more active than the national government, which gives people something to do during the slowdowns.

If there is a universal system we can probably take a look at reforming the regions, but I don't think we should just throw out this great asset.

[Purple State]

"Great asset"?!

Look, you said it yourself: the people who are active in the regions are active in the national government.  What's the point in keeping regions, then, if regions have no actual purpose?  As it is right now, there's nothing that regions do that the national government doesn't.

Because that is for veteran members. But new members usually are only active in the regions at first. I'm new enough to appreciate this I guess.