Talk Elections

I agree with the parlimentary system for the national government, but I agree with keeping the regions in tact.  However, I propose in order to stimulate regional activity we shrink to three regions.

I propose the following three region map:

()

Blue = Dirty South
Red = East
Green = West

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.

I have long supported re-organisation of the regions. However I don't believe that this should be a 'pen to paper' task. I believe there may be a willingness for Atlasia to have more regions particularly if Smid's plan is adopted. Either way this should be a nationwide decision made by those registered in each state.

If we choose to retain active regional government as it is at present (again that is hypothetical) I see no reason why we should effectively abolish the Mideast considering it has an active and strong regional government at present. I do not see how such an example would contribute to better regional government.

It is kind of hard to make a three region plan to keeps the Mideast in tact because of its location.  The only logical three region maps would dissolve the Mideast and Midwest into other regions

You can 'slice' the map in a similar way as Time Zones do and create 'East Coast' 'Central' and 'West Coast' regions

I'd move Kansas to the West, but otherwise a good proposal.

I think than we should draw a population equality map, and after, follow the Afleitch process for the states wanting to change regions.

The U.S. can easily be divided into four regions. I was always perplexed that the "founding" fathers when with five.

Going with the SOFA figures, we have California with 10 voters forming a 'pivot'. NY/PA/NJ has 18 voters forming a second pivot. If 2 regions were abolished due to population/demography the likely candidates are suprisingly the Midwest and the Southeast. The Mideast has a 5 member state in Illinois and combined with next door Iowa also with 5 IIRC, that forms the third pivot.

EDIT: For a snapshot of 3 years ago - look here. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=35836.msg810192#msg810192

Change state lines!

Now that's a radical idea.

Virginia also has 4 voters, and combined with West Virginia we have 5 total.

I support a three regions map.

A 3 region split trying to attain a similar number of voters in each regions would at best look like this

()

DWTL's split would leave 2 regions with 40+ voters and the Southeast with about 25 or so. Any carve up into 3 would have to be a variation on West/Central/East.

That's much better. That does not look like a RPP gerrymandering.

I demand that WV, VA, TX, and OK be part of the same region as the rest of the South.

I prefer DWTL's map because it looks alot better to me and seems pretty reasonably (Western states are in the west, Southern states, in a Southern region, etc) without trying to mix and match states from different regions. I know some of you are worried about "gerrymandering" but people are bound to move states regardless of whatever map is made, guys.

That being said, I do support the idea of 3 regions, as regional government is largely inactive and regional elections mostly uncompetitive. We need some change there.

To be fair the same could be said of my map. It's a clear split west/centrasl/east. And if we reduce regions to 3, two regions are always going to abolished. I don't have an issue with DWTL's map on geogrpahy alone (however I reserve the right to fight to protect my region :) ) but if we want even a loose population balance it is easily challengable

For the record here is a population map adapted from the SOFA map data. Hope it is correct.

()

DWTL's proposal would see the SouthEast with 27 citizens, the East with 41 citizens and the West with 41 citizens. My own sketch would see the East with 35, Central with 36 and West with 38 (you may have to check my math!) It's not what I would propose - just an idea of what we would have to do if we wanted proportionality.

In the past, for redistricting, we used the number of voters in the last Presidential election for population purposes. I think it might be preferable to the number of registered voters.

I was just thinking the same thing.  The West contained about 10 SDP voters that have never participated in Atlasia.

To an extent I agree - however redistricting was periodic and using the presidential voting tally was not to the detriment of voters over the long term. Any 'set' regional split (which in itself is simply a snapshot of the day) would be better served by using the registered voters tally.

However - I'm not in favour a simple proportional split. All I am suggesting is that if we did that, because of the demographics, it is quite difficult to retain the 'south' (and indeed the mideast) even if we have 20 or so less registered voters in a southern region. We will face the same problems as we did during past redistricting efforts (the Maryland Bottleneck etc)

I am in favour of a more fluid split based on strength of feeling amongst voters in each state.

I'll try and pull together a map based on who voted in the last elections.

()

Here's another plan that tries to break up the current regions and make new ones, though due to its geographical location the Northeast is difficult to divide up.

I'm still not convinced that regions should necessarily be kept though. I don't know that making them larger would necessarily do anything to make them more interesting.

I'm not quite sure it's that many. Furthermore, I present the following:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/February_2009_Presidential_Election

In particular, look at the regional breakdown. This should give us a general idea of where people are located at the moment. There are a couple things worth pointing out: Speed of Sound did not make a valid Presidential vote, but his vote should count for these purposes, and you can add one or the Midwest for that. Meeker moved to the Pacific, so you can add one there and subtract one from the Mideast. I think I'll do a more precise count by state later (unless Afleitch wants to, which would be nice :)), but I think this should help move this discussion along for now.
 
Preliminary regional populations based off Feb 09 Election:

Mideast: 11 (17.5%)
Midwest: 14 (22.2%)
Northeast: 12 (19.0%)
Pacific: 17 (27.0%)
Southeast: 9 (14.3%)

---


Additionally... What present regions would survive if we reduced the number to three of four? Which one or two regions will die?

If we go down this path, I propose a grand civil war to resolve the matter. Five regions enter the ring. Only three will come out. Who will win the epic struggle for survival?


---

Afleitch concern's are valid---these regions may very well be much more long-term than districts. Perhaps we can resort to a mix of the two strategies.

---

As for Lief's map, I again am hesitant to support the "three region" strategy and this is an example why. The U.S.  nicely divides into four regions (West, South<east>, North<east>, and Midwest), but three? Eh. Same problem we have with five regions--the Mideast region is kind of random and doesn't really follow anything. I also dislike the current system of insisting each region be ten states. State sizes (land area and population) differ so greatly that it seems silly to make sure they're divided this way.

Any tinkering of the regions would mean that by nature of geography the NE and the Pacific would remain relatively intact whether there are 3 or 4 regions. The most vulnerable in terms of registered population and voting population is the South East. Hence the likelyhood of a 'time zone' style split should regions be re-arranged.

At the same time, could say, Washington function as a self governing region? Particularly if there is simply a governors office and/or small assembly. What about it taking in Oregon? If Smid's proposal goes through, taking it to it's conclusion it could be feasable to have more than a dozen regions operating in the same tier of goverment. This goes back to what I was saying back in October.

I suppose on reflection how many regions depends on what government we have nationall - whether it's close to the status quo or parliamentary. That doesn't mean that regions should simply be an afterthought but it makes setting the number of them difficult.

Pacific, not West. And we don't like those inactive voters, even if they are in our party.

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.

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.

()

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.

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

What a bizarre, immature and pointless demand.

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

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

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.)

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

I make no claims to be a delegate.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.


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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

What about this one.

()

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

Awww... the Northeast stays the same.

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.

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.

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.

We could just split the country in half and have two big regions. Each region would have a head of Government and 3 to 5 Assembly members. The Assembly members would come up with bill and debate the bills, if passed then the bill would go to the head of Government and that person can sign/veto bills.

They would have alot of work to do to start off with, trying to come up with a constitutions for the new regions, name the regions and so on.

Haha. East-West. Names done. But, seriously, this isn't a bad idea. However, I would much rather have many regions (10) and have one or two elected members of parliament (judging by the voting) than having only two regions and a bunch of elected officers from each.

OK, I couldn't get the map to be more than 4 colors, but I present a 9 region plan, based on Afleitch's population map. The Northeast is split into 3 regions, which are not shown on the map. Two regions each share the colors blue and red, but they are not one region. Take only the contiguous regions. Alaska is part of Washington's region and Hawaii is part of CA's. The Southern gray area is one region, but can be split in two to make a 10th region if necessary. The Northeast could be split 4 ways instead of 3 to serve the same purpose.
()

The thing is there isn't alot of active members, I believe that the less regions we have the better off we are. It will be very hard to find someone active in all of them regions.

Now, If we had two or three region it would be better for the game. One you will have better elections because more people would be running also it will get parties to have primaries if the have more then one cadidate wanting to run. It would bring the game to a new level that we don't have right now.

However, most active members would get a meaningful say in this system.

If the delegates vote on one of the plans that makes a lower house where every citizen is a member, active member would get a say.

3/4 of those regions would be inactive. There would be a whole lot of trouble to actually get one name on the ballot in every regional election in those regions.

People would move regions to make it so.

Trust me, there wouldn't be enough activity.  And you'd still have the problems that "regions don't matter".  Because they don't.

Maybe we should make the game as a coalition of many countries, like the EU, except with an elected leader.

A great idea, but nobody supports abolishing the national government.

Who knows? Things change.

Not in Atlasia, sir, not in Atlasia ;)

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.

"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.

That is true. People like devilman and I are both only active on the regional level because we are new. Taking that away is like taking away the minor league system from baseball.