Talk Elections

Two years ago, Adam Griffin and other members tried to consolidate the regions. Unfortunately it failed. Now that inactivty is a big problem (and with all the defections), I'm restarting this.

How we will proceed. Firstly, people who wish to consolidate the maps, please sign up. When there will be enough members, people will start proposing their map (three region map, four region map etc etc) and then we will select the "map".

For more informations, read the previous thread 2 years ago: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179784.0

FIRST STEP: PLEASE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CONSOLIDATE THE REGIONS, SIGN UP.

xWindjammer

The problem is, of course, that some region are working just fine (Mideast comes to mind here) and some are, despite best efforts of those involved, going static (Pacific).

You can still sign up :P

X Harry S Truman


That depends on your definition of "fine". If all that matters is keeping the Regional government fully staffed, then the Mideast, Northeast, and South are doing fairly well; if your goal is competition at the Regional level, they're barely scraping by. Though the Mideast has been able to keep 4 of 5 seats in the Assembly filled over the past seven months, it has struggled to find enough candidates for competitive elections (this month was the first in which there were more candidates than available seats, and two of those were write-in options). The Northeast has had similar struggles recently, and the last legislative election in the South drew 2 candidates for 3 seats. Consolidation won't solve all our problems, but a larger pool of voters is almost certain to lead to more competitive elections. I therefore support a 3 Region plan.

X rpryor03

x pikachu

It's become quite obvious that we can't have 5 regions functioning well at the same time. At this point, a more streamlined Atlasia is necessary for its survival.

X New Canadaland

x Cris

If there will be a ConCon, I'm sure that this map will be debated by the delegates.

x Kalwejt

Given the situation, I think we ought to have a very open mind, perhaps something along these lines:

()

Red: North
Blue: South
Green: West

(Puerto Rico is in the South; Oceania is in the West)

X DC

x Simfan

xVega

Why do we keep recycling this moronic idea?  The idea that the problems of Atlasia can be solved by perpetuating the structures of Atlasia is clearly insane to me, under that definition of insanity that goes "trying the same thing twice and expecting a different result each time".

This does not have my signature. I oppose this because the regions are too different to consolidate. We need to look into better ways to do things as is, rather than lumping everything together.

How so? A statute reboot would eliminate any legal differences between the consolidated areas, and I don't think cultural quirks (like the different state names in the MW) are an insurmountable boundary to consolidation.

Such as? The current system is clearly not working. Regional inactivity is not a new issue, and I fail to see how we can sustain five active Regions in the current climate.

x Gass3268

x Polnut

This vote is to support the discussion and debate. But there MUST be more to this than tinkering with maps.

I think politically each has its own separate legacy and climate that might be harmed by consolidation.

How to reform it? Make things more accessible to newbies. I don't know specifically how that might be done, as I myself do not have a terrible amount of experience, but it's a suggestion. Possibly keeping the wiki up to date on more things would help? 

Well, yes, consolidation would alter the political climate of the Regions. Seeing as things are pretty terrible right now, I consider that a good thing.

Accessibility is certainly something we should strive for, and it was with that in mind that I drafted and fought to pass the Fix the Constitution Amendment and the Accessible Statute Act as a member of the Mideast Assembly. But to suggest that poor record keeping is the source of the current crisis is frankly naive and ignores the much deeper issues plaguing Atlasia. People like Nix and Hagrid did not leave because the wiki was not kept up to date.

As someone who joined Atlasia in January, started a newspaper within a day of registering, and was elected to the Assembly two months later, I can testify that it is perfectly possible for new citizens to get involved in the current climate. More troubling are the many structural instabilities facing Atlasia: shrinking populations in the Pacific and Midwest, a stagnant party system, an excessive number of offices, and a dearth of true ideological competition, to name a few. Like it or not, we are entering a period of decreased interest in the game and we must tighten our belts accordingly; consolidation is the best and most efficient way to do this.

I was in favour of keeping 5 regions until some time ago, but really... believe me. It's impossible keeping 5 regions.

I suggest holding referendums in the Midwest and Pacific to consolidate them. They would probably agree to that. Then we'll see what 4 regions would do for us, and if that doesn't work, I'd jump on the bandwagon/fire engine for 3 regions as well.

Well,
Just to be clear,
This "convention" isn't only for three regions maps, you will be able to propose four regions maps if you wish to and advocate for it.

This is ridiculous.  Someone, anyone, dear God, please, tell me why continuing the current form of government would help anything.  The Titanic is sinking and you're talking about throwing a couple of chairs overboard.

Well,
At least we will be trying something. Still less ridiculous than playing a game you want it to die.

In that case:

X Leinad

Why not? It's a chance to change things; hopefully for the better.

Who says I want it to die?  I want it to live - which is why the federal government or the regional governments must be abolished.

X North Carolina Yankee

We should at least be discussing this option too. I am not opposed to a three region map and wih the Mock Parliament going, the need for consolidation is most likely unavoidable.

But consolidation alone is not the answer to the problems and I think most would admit that. As for viability of consolidation, it is rather viable indeed though that might have changed since the last time I dsicussed the numbers with Griffin.

X DemPGH

I'll sign, and probably the other one also. It's really do-or-die now, IMO, and with the parliament game still forming up, why leave options on the table here? May as well try.

This makes sense. Those who have wanted to leave have already left.

Membership
Northeast: 4
Mideast: 5
South: 2
Midwest: 3
Pacific: 3
TOTAL: 17

Newest Member: DemPGH

Well,
If you want to propose new maps.
Let's go :D.

Here's one to get us started:

()
PLAINS   17+OC       DIXIE   15+PR       GREAT LAKES   18+DC

My goal was to create a map that was aesthetically pleasing, adhered to real-life historical and cultural traditions, and had Regions of roughly uniform size. I'd be open to putting Maryland and DC in Dixie, but I thought it looked better to have Maryland and Delaware in the same Region.

As for the names, I was trying to come up with labels that were more creative than "North, South, West" while avoiding being overly silly.

Well, this looks like the map endorsed 2 years ago.
This is indeed aesthetically pleasing, adhered to real-life historical and cultural traditions.

I have some concerns though. When I was MW Governor 1-2 years ago, I recalled that half of the MW population was in Minnesota and Iowa. So, could you give us the estimates for the regions please? I have the feeling the "green" region might be too overpopulated and the blue region might be too underpopulated.

So maybe giving MN and IA to the blue region and gibing MD and DE to the South would solve the problems???

()
Numbers of residents per state.

Canada provinces and territories are not counted. Personally, I'd like to remove them from the map.

Good point, I hadn't thought about that. Unfortunately, that map is rather lopsided in terms of population (86 voters in the Great Lakes, low thirties in the other two Regions). Making the changes you suggested does fix that for the most part, though the northeastern Region still has the largest population (68, compared to low forties in the other two).

I don't think we should be too concerned with balancing the population, given the frequency with which voters change their registration. That said, it's probably not the best idea for one Region to have a huge population surplus right off the bat.

Thank you.
So Truman's proposal:

Blue region: 30
Red region: 38
Light green region: 65

I love the drawing of the map but unfortunately, we have a region that is too overpopulated: the green region while the blue and the red regions are too underpopulated.

While having 3 regions that are exactly equal shouldn't be a goal, the differences in term of numbers are too big right now with this proposal :(.

Here is my proposal:
Blue region: 43 (the truman blue region +IA + MN)
Red region 44 (the truman red region + MD and DE)
Green region: ( the truman green region - IA-MN-MD-DE): 46

()

What do you think about that???

I don't have any logistical objections to Windjammer's map, though I do think MN and IA look odd as part of the western Region.

Here's another possible map, once again with three Regions centered roughly in the Northeast, West and South. Compared to my first proposal, I've transferred MD, DE, DC, NM, and AZ to the South and MN, IA, WI, and IL to the West. The Northeast has a smaller number of states than the other two, but populations roughly balance out. It's worth noting that the West (excluding the Pacific Coast) is less densely populated than the Northeast in real life, so it makes sense for the former to have more states.

()
WEST   19+OC (Pop. ~50)      SOUTH   19+DC & PR (Pop. ~45)      NORTHEAST   12 (Pop. ~51)

Well, you don't like having "MN and IO" in the western region, but that doesn't bother you even more IL and WI haha? :P

Thanks for submitting a new map. Hopefully people will give their input and propose new maps!

I just thought they looked odd tacked onto the side of the West, so I sent IL and WI to keep them company.

()
How about 4 regions instead of 5? I'm wary of only having 3 regions...

If I supported consolidation (which I don't) I woul be most amiable to this map.

x Adam

People?

I'll just re-submit the original CARCA map, which was the by-product of voting and debate among 15+ people who came from practically every movement and party in 2013. Granted, many of those people are no longer here, but the sentiment of CARCA and the way in which it operated was that it would take into account all of the rather consistent and always-present issues ("save muh region", "balance it on game population", "balance it on real life population", "balance it on political leanings", etc).

I still firmly maintain that balancing a region based on real-life population is pointless (for instance, the Pacific and the South are the top two most populated regions IRL). I also maintain that balancing a regional system based on in-game population is rather useless as well, as in-game population centers shift over time (due to natual ebb/flow and due to strategic registration). In addition, by making the regional legislative process more competitive with fewer offices and with fewer regions in general will ensure that the latter constantly occurs. I have several ideas in order to ensure that a three-region system doesn't produce regions with radically different numbers in population that I'll unveil at some point in the future.

One very important point to consider in drawing new maps (that isn't being featured in the drawings as of yet) is how we'll allocate Canada. Perhaps, depending on the map, the entire country could be under one region's jurisdiction. Perhaps we leave it the same. Perhaps we give it all to the perpetually least-populated region (or maybe even make it a toss-up; it becomes associated with whichever region is the least-populated at the beginning of a two or four month period!).


For those curious about population distribution (again, in the long-term, it won't matter):

Blue: 79
Green: 41
Red: 32
Canada/OC/PR: 7

Even though I outlined above that long-term discrepancies in regional pop will equalize and that I have ideas on how to ensure that, it is worth noting that - unless I am sorely mistaken - that the recent de-registration wave has disproportionately impacted the South and the Pacific, while the Mideast has been virtually untouched and the NE/MW have only had moderate nicks in their population. I know that in 2013, the regional population differences between these regions was a lot less (and am confident it would equalize long-term even without proactive legislative measures to ensure it).

EDIT: found the old populations when the map was proposed. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179784.msg3888026#msg3888026) Here is what it looked like in late 2013:

Blue: 66
Green: 61
Red: 39
Canada/OC/PR: ???

Adam,
This goal of this convention is to solve problems. Having a region that has 79 citizens and an another 32 citizens doesn't solve anything, it just creates other problems.

Please read everything I wrote before weighing in so critically. The huge discrepancy right now is caused by extraordinary circumstances regarding certain cliques (TPP et al, who controlled the South and the Pacific) de-registering; in addition, any structural discrepancies can and will be fixed through other means. Thanks.

Adam, this isn't not an "extraordinary" circumstance. I have been MW governor before, and MN and IA had always been the 2 most populous regions in the MW and it has never changed. I recalled myself PMing you because I was worried about the CIRCA map because of the regions that weren't equally populated.

Maybe recently the fact that the IRC left this game has made the differences worse, but it has always been like that.

The western part of the country is always less populated than other areas; to have three equally-sized regions based on the tendency of the current incarnation of the game means a western region that crosses the Mississippi river in some places. They don't have to be equal based on that metric - they just need to be close enough to be functional. Because we're building a new game, however, a new Constitution provides us with the flexibility to include provisions that penalize regions that become too large for their own good. In addition, there'll be fewer regions and more competition; there will be a greater incidence of people moving to the least populated region in pursuit of running for office. People already do that today but because there are 2 or 3 lowly-populated regions instead of 1, it doesn't have a strong enough of an effect.

I'm confident that we will not have regions that encompass 50% of the game's population or more once everything settles, through both codified provisions in law and through the newly-established competitive elements that only having three regions will provide. Having "dramatically" different proportions in population in such a system as we do in the current system (minus the Pacific) is not inherently a problem when there are only three regions (i.e.: a region with 75, a region with 60, and a region with 45) because in all cases, there are plenty of people to fill any and all positions.

Adam, why are you so opposed to have regions that are more balanced honestly?

I'm not "opposed" to it (you sound like a certain pro-Israel poster who responds with non-sequiturs!); the term "balanced" is subjective and multiple, and the definition used to achieve that is often shoddy. There are loose tendencies in terms of regional population trends, not absolutes. I think it's a bad idea to try to pin it to such an individual metric inherently because you'll end up creating national maps where the trend is only strong in select areas.

Practically any map created will have the western region with the fewest people in it based on your definition of "balance" (unless you put CA & HI in the same region as MS or IL). Practically any map created on the population of today will be flawed because a disproportionate number of people from select regions have de-registered. Practically any map created based on real-life population will be flawed based on that balance not existing in-game. Creating a map that very loosely takes those items into consideration should be done, with the remainder of balance being sorted out by parties, movements, power-players, candidates who want to be elected and international recruits.

To use one simple example I know you'll understand: imagine three regions. After a few months due to movements (which you also inevitably have to allow when redrawing the maps the first time), one region is solidly leftist, one is solidly conservative, and one is a swing region. Both hemisphere inevitably get into a heated contest like Hagrid and I did in the South (which took it from the smallest region to the second largest at one point), pouring members from their strongholds into the region. Before you know it, the swing region has many more people than the other two regions from a war of attrition. The point is that there is no guarantee for "balance" - you analyze as many elements as possible, consider them, and them remind yourself that the game will sooner or later piss all over the concept of any balance. I think in a three-region system, this is much more likely, since there will inevitably only be one competitive region and one region solidly held by each faction sooner or later.

If you want to play this game:


1-1

------------------------
Adam,
I do not believe my map is perfect or whatever, but when you have a region that is so big and an another region that is so small, this is a huge problem.

The problem Adam is that the size of regions didn't really change a lot for a while: the ME and the NE have been for a while the 2 biggest regions of this game. Indeed, a region can become extremely big because of registration tactics. But it doesn't justify the fact that the size of regions shouldn't matter. For example, I invaded last year and it was already the biggest region, and it became an even more bigger problem for the size. Any region can be invaded and we don't know *which* region. For instance,y ou invaded the south that was conservative at hell 2 years ago. So why not trying to have *relatively* equal regions in order to make sure that the partisan registrations tactics do not change the dynamic too much?

Instead of comparing your convention participants to psychopaths and attacking everyone's ideas as soon as they are presented, maybe you should relax, take a chill pill, and let everyone get their ideas out and discuss them with one another before proceeding. That's what this convention is supposed to provide. I'm sure we all thought we were signing up for the "Convention for Agreement on Regional Consolidation in Atlasia" and not the "Have Jambles Harangue Us Immediately and Constantly Until/Unless We Agree with Him".


The sizes of identical areas/states compared over time did change. We're not keeping entire regions whole. Compare these two maps (which are nearly identical in boundaries) over two years to see how the population changed considerably relative to the national population.



Though not relevant, the regions' populations changed quite a bit in relation to one another, considering we have roughly the same number of people as we did two years ago:


Adjusting the populations in the 2013 map above to account for differences in boundaries and under a stable population scenario, the red region would have right now about 45 people, the green region around 45, and the blue region a little over 60. Perfectly acceptable, aesthetically pleasing, culturally reasonable, keeps 4/5 regions largely intact, etc.

Lmao I love you, your sensitivity is so funny, and I'm being sincere. :P
 

While I peronally support a more aesticslly pleasing plan (like windjammer's or Truman), I do think that this idea has geographic contiguity while have somewhat more equitable regions:

()

I would recommend putting WV in the red Region: it makes for a cleaner border.

Well guys, I guess we need "schedules" :P. So people have until the end of the week to submit the maps. Then we will proceed to a debate.

()

Three regions, all around 48 in population. PR is in the green region. Each region, instead of being named after a geographic location, is named after an Atlasian icon from each region.

Red: Harry
Blue: Gustaf
Green: YoungRepub

So, we move onto debate now?

Right, Here all the maps proposed:
Kalwejt:
Map 1
()

Harry S Truman
Map 2
()
PLAINS   17+OC       DIXIE   15+PR       GREAT LAKES   18+DC

Map 3
()

Windjammer:
Map 4
()

vivaportugalhabs:
Map 5
()


Adam Griffin:
Map 6
()[/center]


Pikachu:
Map 7
()

Rpryor:
Map 8
()


I hope I didn't forget any map. I will contact the sponsors so they will be able to advocate for their map.

I support my map because I believe 3 regions is too few. First of all, 4 is better than the status quo and provides for more newcomer/player choice. Also, it preserves regional identities and longtime traditions. I feel that it's important to maintain the political cultures of the regions in general and also the laws and ways of working that have been established. I feel that 4 is a good starting point from which we can further evaluate the situation.

I'd like 2, 4, or 6. Or simply just merging the Midwest and Pacific into a West region.

Tbh, I'm not particularly attached to my map, but it has population balance (which is something that people were worried about), is aestically pleasing, has three regions, and makes some sense culturally and geographically. Also, it dramatically changes each region.

Ftr, my favorite maps are 2, 4, and 6.

Maps 2 and 6 are virtually identical and have the advantage of being grounded in real life cultural and geographical trends. Maps 3 and 4, meanwhile, are slightly less appealing from an aesthetics standpoint, but more evenly balance the Atlasian population. I would strongly suggest that the convention reject the maps that put states like Maine and Minnesota in the same Region as Florida and Texas.

Ultimately, I think Griffin is right in saying that the populations of the three Regions will balance out over time. If each Region only has 5-6 offices (1 Governor, 3 Legislators, a CJO and possibly a Lt. Governor), it doesn't make sense that 60-70 people will crowd into one Region if there is an opportunity to get elected somewhere else. We've seen this happen recently in the Pacific, with citizens from other Regions (Lumine, Classic Conservative) relocating to take advantage of vacant offices there.

People have until the end of this week to defend their preferred map.

BUMP.
(Just to let this thread on the first page)

I endorse maps 2, 4, and 6.

Everyone seems to like 2, 4, and 6.

Let me break that down a little bit here:

Each map has three (3) regions. Basically: west, north/northeast, and south/southeast.

States which are in each region in all 3 maps:

West: Current Pacific, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

North: Current Northeast (minus Delaware), Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan.

South: Current South, Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.

Now, as far as substantive differences are concerned, these 3 maps have different fates for Minnesota-Iowa (grouped together) and Maryland-Delaware-DC (also grouped together).

Map 2: MN-IA and MD-DE-DC both in the North.

Map 4: MN-IA in the West and MD-DE-DC in the South.

Map 6: MN-IA in the North and MD-DE-DC in the South.

Honestly, I'd go with an alternate that has the other combo: MN-IA in the West and MD-DE-DC in the North. Why would we move Delaware, currently in the Northeast, to the South? And if we put MN-IA in the West instead of the North, it keeps the entire Midwest region intact except Oklahoma--although merged with the Pacific.

When making these maps, it's important to consider the current borders and not change things too drastically. I understand the cries for radical change, and I often agree with those cries, but when drastic change works, it's when it's objectively better than before. Sending the new regions into chaos because of a map that slices old regions with no regard to past boundaries will not help anything.

Something like this would work, I think:

The Leinad Plan:

()

An alternate would be to move Oklahoma to the west, which would thus make it where the Mideast is the only region not staying in tact, although even then it will retain most of it's core. Even without that, this map makes sense, and is only very slightly different to the 3 consensus maps.

To me, this is the best of both worlds of map 2 and map 4. I suppose it's rather late, but again, it's only slightly different to some maps already proposed.

I endorse that, too.

The justification for my submission (#6) is simple yet multi-faceted. You can find a more detailed explanation at the end of the second page and the beginning of the third page of this thread, but here's why in essence:

• It is culturally/geographically as sound as a map can be with three regions
• While the western region will continue to remain the smallest, a more competitive regional climate will lead to more equalization in population across regions over time
• This map is the winner of the first CARCA, being the most-preferred crowdsourced map based on the input/votes of ~20 individuals
  

I like your map, but have doubts (which I expressed with the creation of my way-after-deadline map)--why would we move Minnesota, Iowa, Delaware, and to an extent Maryland and DC to different regions? You addressed that the West would have less people, so why can't we simply keep Minnesota and Iowa out there, maybe Oklahoma as well? And Delaware, which is currently in the Northeast, being moved to the South of all places seems a bit odd to me as well--culturally I'd say MD, DC, and DE fit in with the Northeastern states more so than states like Alabama or Texas.

Those 5 states are the only substantive differences between maps 2, 4, 6, and mine. We should try to provide logical reasons to put each state in a region--if we do that the decision will be easy, whatever that ends up being.

Some people explicitly and proactively protested including MN & IA with the western region last time, which led to the map I've posted being the overall winner in the 2013 CARCA.


Mason-Dixon line simplicity. In addition, even though I believe populations will even out more than may be obvious right now, adding more territory to the South is needed to prevent the Northeastern region from truly being overpopulated.

I'm still not convinced, but those are fairly solid reasons why your map makes sense.

I'd like any of those 4 maps I discussed (2, 4, 6, and my own one that's unnumbered because it's not technically a map since I submitted it several days after the deadline). They all seem fairly sensible; they reduce the number of offices (thus increasing competition) but still have some basic recognition of the old borders.

Kalwejt:
Map 1
()

Harry S Truman
Map 2
()
PLAINS   17+OC       DIXIE   15+PR       GREAT LAKES   18+DC

Map 3
()

Windjammer:
Map 4
()

vivaportugalhabs:
Map 5
()


Adam Griffin:
Map 6
()[/center]


Pikachu:
Map 7
()

Rpryor:
Map 8
()


I hope I didn't forget any map. I will contact the sponsors so they will be able to advocate for their map.

Leinad
Map 9
()
[/quote]



PLEASE READ: The method of this vote is score voting (0-9), not PR-STV. Please rank each map based on your preference, with 0 being the least favorable and 9 being the most favorable. Multiple maps can be assigned the same number, unlike PR-STV.

Voting will commence immediately and will last for 168 hours, or until all 17 CARCA convention members at the time of the opening of this voting booth have voted. The map with the highest overall score at the end of the vote will automatically be endorsed as the selected map of this convention.

[   ] Map 1
[   ] Map 2
[   ] Map 3
[   ] Map 4
[   ] Map 5
[   ] Map 6
[   ] Map 7
[   ] Map 8
[   ] Map 9

I don't support a change to the regions.

[7] Map 1
[9] Map 2
[8] Map 4
[7] Map 3
[1] Map 5
[9] Map 6
[3] Map 7
[3] Map 8
[7] Map 9

[5] Map 1
[6] Map 2
[3] Map 3
[7] Map 4
[1] Map 5
[8] Map 6
[2] Map 7
[9] Map 8
[4] Map 9

Ontario will just be in whatever region MI is in, I'm guessing?

[5] Map 1
[4] Map 2
[6] Map 3
[2] Map 4
[9] Map 5
[3] Map 6
[8] Map 7
[7] Map 8
[1] Map 9

[5] Map 1
[6] Map 2
[4] Map 3
[7] Map 4
[1] Map 5
[9] Map 6
[4] Map 7
[2] Map 8
[6] Map 9

Map 6 - 9 points
Map 2 - 7 points

I don't care about the rest.

Provisional Count
Map 1: 28
Map 2: 38
Map 3: 20
Map 4: 25
Map 5: 19
Map 6: 43
Map 7: 25
Map 8: 29
Map 9: 19

9.  Map 9

Surely we could have merged some of these? It's hard to tell the differences between some of these. Map 6 and 2, for example, differ only in their allocation of Washington, DC. When you throw in Iowa and Minnesota, we're down to just 4 or 5 different maps, I think. Only three maps don't have what I see as the common characteristic of a "United South".

[9] Map 2
[8] Map 5
[7] Map 9
[6] Map 6
[5] Map 4

[9] Map 5
All the rest: 0

Is it too late for me to join? If not...

x JoMCaR

[3] Map 1
[5] Map 2
[3] Map 3
[7] Map 4
[2] Map 5
[7] Map 6
[2] Map 7
[2] Map 8
[9] Map 9

Yes, how is this being scored? Is the vote merely open to people who signed up before the vote (how I did it), or what?

Adam,
Honestly I prefer to let everyone have the possibility to vote.
However, if I realize that someone PMs zombies in order to boost his map, I will only count votes from those who have had signed up. Fortunately, right now that doesnt seem to be the case.

[9] Map 9

1. Map 2
2. Map 6
3. Map 7
4. Map 4
5. Map 5
6. Map 9

Official results?

Unsure of how to count Pikachu's vote since he did not vote in the appropriate manner, but logically speaking, if we were to "rank" his preferences, then it wouldn't change the overall outcome:

()

Map 6 has been selected.