Opinion of this redistricting proposal?

[Oakvale]

Under this map, the Pacific and Midwest regions would be merged into one, to be named the "West", while the Southeast and Mideast regions would be combined into the "East" region. The Northeast region, which has long been the most populous, would remain unchanged.

This proposal would also, necessarily, reduce the number of regional Senators by two, bringing the total membership of the chamber to eight.

I think such an admittedly drastic change to the game's geographical structure. The two "super regions" would, hopefully be a lot more active than the fairly slow Pacific and Southeast regions, and cutting down on the number of regions makes it harder for a political party to establish dominance in a region. The Southeast and Midwest would also be able to keep their unique culture under this plan, by simply electing representatives of the former regions. There's nothing stopping the West's legislature from being called the Alping, etc, etc.

Probably needs some tweaks, but hey.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As a member of the RPP, the Regional Protection Party, I feel I am obligated to oppose this.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

No.

The map I posted a few weeks ago is the only thing I'd accept.

[Lambsbread]

I'd add Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma to the "East" and move Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia and D.C into the Northeast.

[Lambsbread]

As a member of the RPP, the Regional Protection Party, I feel I am obligated to oppose this.

And as a member of the Silly Party, I think Herman Cain would make a great President.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd add Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma to the "East" and move Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia and D.C into the Northeast.

No. No. No. I like Ohio right where it is, and the Virginias can stay as well. By all means, shove Maryland off to the North-East. Aside from that, however, No.

[Oakvale]

As a member of the RPP, the Regional Protection Party, I feel I am obligated to oppose this.

I would have assumed the RPP is about protecting the rights of the regions, not just the regions themselves existing for their own sake, no? I'm a strong supporter of federalism and regional rights, this map doesn't affect that.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Not in favor.  As I've said in the other thread, this proposal would make these regions less competitive because it would leave us with one liberal region, one conservative region, and one competitive region.  And while I love to see Northeast have the influence it does in these elections, I don't believe it would be fair.  The boundaries should be kept the same, but the South needs to have better legislators, is all.

I'd add Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma to the "East" and move Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia and D.C into the Northeast.

Gerrymandering.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Regions with failed legislatures should be shut down.

[Yelnoc]

That looks like a gerrymander.  From a non-Silly POV, I would prefer the Pacific combined with the IDS.  And the Midwest-and Mideast combined into one heartland region.  That would make elections more competitive in both regions.  That is not to say I endorse this; I like the IDS how it is (though yes, we could use a little more activity).  But if I had to prune the regions down to three, that's how I would do it.

[Cincinnatus]

Not in favor.  As I've said in the other thread, this proposal would make these regions less competitive because it would leave us with one liberal region, one conservative region, and one competitive region.  And while I love to see Northeast have the influence it does in these elections, I don't believe it would be fair.  The boundaries should be kept the same, but the South needs to have better legislators, is all.

How is this any different than what we have now?  We currently have 4 uncompetitive regions, with one competitive one. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This proposal would also, necessarily, reduce the number of regional Senators by two, bringing the total membership of the chamber to eight.

Lets see, 3 Regional Senate seats, 5 At-Large. Nope, no imbalance against the regions there.

[TJ in Oregon]

I live the Mideast quite a bit and would be sad to see it go under this plan. Yet, it would be a lot of fun forming a committee to go through both constitutions and every law on the books in both regions to piece together a new region.

Lets see, 3 Regional Senate seats, 5 At-Large. Nope, no imbalance against the regions there.

We could do two senate seats from each regional. With five at large we would then have 11 senators. I suppose we could just get rid of the Vice-Presidency then as well.

No. No. No. I like Ohio right where it is, and the Virginias can stay as well. By all means, shove Maryland off to the North-East. Aside from that, however, No.

I'm glad to be wanted

[Associate Justice PiT]

Not in favor.  As I've said in the other thread, this proposal would make these regions less competitive because it would leave us with one liberal region, one conservative region, and one competitive region.  And while I love to see Northeast have the influence it does in these elections, I don't believe it would be fair.  The boundaries should be kept the same, but the South needs to have better legislators, is all.

I'd add Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma to the "East" and move Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia and D.C into the Northeast.

Gerrymandering.

     I would like to add that the Imperial Legislature worked well for over a year, from March 2010 to August 2011. Even so, it would be in great shape today except for Kalwejt, Jbrase, & now Yelnoc running for Senate in special elections, which is of course their prerogatives & something that I harbor no ill will over. The recent batch of Legislators has been disappointing, but there is simply no basis for destroying the region when considering what has actually gone on here.

     If anything, I would dare to say that our sin is that we have been too successful. When half of the Senate will hail from one region, that says something about the people of those lands.

[Cincinnatus]

Lets see, 3 Regional Senate seats, 5 At-Large. Nope, no imbalance against the regions there.

We could do two senate seats from each regional. With five at large we would then have 11 senators. I suppose we could just get rid of the Vice-Presidency then as well.

Or simply make the Vice President a Senator as well...

Though, 12 Senators is quite a bit.  In fact, I find 10 to be quite a bit already.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Now this I could back. Talk about competitive!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

We certainly don't need to be adding Senators considering what we have now could be argued as too many.

[Lambsbread]

Now this I could back. Talk about competitive!

I still support Maryland in the Northeast.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Lets see, 3 Regional Senate seats, 5 At-Large. Nope, no imbalance against the regions there.

We could do two senate seats from each regional. With five at large we would then have 11 senators. I suppose we could just get rid of the Vice-Presidency then as well.

Or simply make the Vice President a Senator as well...

Though, 12 Senators is quite a bit.  In fact, I find 10 to be quite a bit already.

Reduce the Senate to 6 members!

Or better yet
Each region elects it's own senator by whatever means it wishes
The SoFE and RG draw up 3 electoral districts based on STV that elect 1 senator each
ad 4 at-large Senators.

[Yelnoc]

We certainly don't need to be adding Senators considering what we have now could be argued as too many.

The regions (under Teddy's plan) could each elect three senators, while at-large elections could be done away with.  (Just a thought).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Removing the At-Large would create a firestorm of opposition from it's irreconcilable backers.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Lets see, 3 Regional Senate seats, 5 At-Large. Nope, no imbalance against the regions there.

We could do two senate seats from each regional. With five at large we would then have 11 senators.

Six Regional Senate seats and 5 At-Large seats creates an imbalance in the opposite direction. The whole idea is to keep them even, so their interests are balanced.

[TJ in Oregon]

We could do four regions and have four regional and four at-large senators:

I just drew this really quick without checking how it would change things, but we could gerrymander it to make two competitive regions and one safe for each party (and to make the populations work).

[Yelnoc]

Trade West Virginia for Kansas and that is a more sensible set-up from an OTL US perspective than the current 5 region scheme.  The only thing that jumps out at me as problematic is the size of the new Western Region.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Not in favor.  As I've said in the other thread, this proposal would make these regions less competitive because it would leave us with one liberal region, one conservative region, and one competitive region.  And while I love to see Northeast have the influence it does in these elections, I don't believe it would be fair.  The boundaries should be kept the same, but the South needs to have better legislators, is all.

How is this any different than what we have now?  We currently have 4 uncompetitive regions, with one competitive one. 

The South, at least in terms of the voters, appears somewhat moderate.  If it's merged with the Mideast, it's solid RPP/right-leaning.  If the Pacific (I suppose the 'moderate' alternative of the Midwest) is merged with the Midwest, it's solidly JCP/left-leaning.