So, let me get this straight...if we create more offices, we'll have to destroy two of the Regions to solve the problem of...too many offices? If that's the case, why create more offices two begin with?
You'll be pleased to know that the strawman you just erected isn't actually relevant to the debate.
The bicameral system is not being proposed to reduce the number of offices (though it will, likely, have that effect, but only slightly) - it is proposed because some people think that a bicameral system would be more fun to play than a unicameral one. However, because a bicameral system must lead to an increase in federal offices, because there are only a finite number of players, we need to decrease the number of regional offices.
Consolidation is a necessary byproduct, but a byproduct is all it is.
But is consolidation the only solution capable of balancing out the number of offices? If you include consolidation in this, it won't have a chance of passing anyway.
Sorry if this has already been proposed, but why not just eliminate the At-Large seats and reduce the Senate to five offices? That would empower the Regions while ensuring that there aren't too many offices.
