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.
I would seriously disagree with that. You only get a net increase of 5 offices. That does not warrant consolidating to three regions. Many supporters of consolidation (especially on the left) want to do so to send my region into oblivion out of political expediency.
I can't believe I am saying this, I believe I agree with JCL *shivers* I don't think consolidation is necessary. It may be helpful but not necessary.
Also, would the members of the house be eligible to serve as cabinet members like Senators (If I am not mistaken, this falls under the Semi-Presidentialism Amendment)
