The Convention for Agreement on Regional Consolidation in Atlasia (Voting)

[windjammer]

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.

[Leinad]

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.

In that case:

X Leinad

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

[ilikeverin]

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.

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[DemPGH]

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.

[Simfan34]

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

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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

Newest Member: DemPGH

[windjammer]

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

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[windjammer]

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???

[Senator Cris]

Numbers of residents per state.

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

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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 giving MD and DE to the South would solve the problems???

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.

[windjammer]

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???

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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)

[windjammer]

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?

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

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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?

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

[VPH]

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

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

x Adam

[windjammer]

People?

[Adam Griffin]

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!).

CARCA Results:

Map 1      8   8   4   7   0   1   9   4   9   8   9   6   9   8      90
Map 2      9   4   8   3   0   9   5   4   1   9   7   8   8   7      82
Map 3      9   4   8   3   0   9   5   4   1   9   7   8   8   7      82
Map 4      2   7   2   8   0   6   0   4   1   0   5   7   7   5      54
Map 5      1   5   1   9   0   9   0   9   1   0   1   5   2   0      43
Map 6      3   6   7   5   0   8   0   4   1   0   3   9   4   4      54
Map 7      3   2   5   6   0   1   5   4   1   0   2   8   6   5      48
Map 8      3   9   2   5   9   1   9   9   8   7   7   2   3   7      81
Map 9      7   3   9   2   0   9   5   4   1   7   6   5   5   7      70

Map 1 is hereby endorsed as the official map of CARCA.

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. Here is what it looked like in late 2013:

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

[windjammer]

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!).

CARCA Results:

Map 1      8   8   4   7   0   1   9   4   9   8   9   6   9   8      90
Map 2      9   4   8   3   0   9   5   4   1   9   7   8   8   7      82
Map 3      9   4   8   3   0   9   5   4   1   9   7   8   8   7      82
Map 4      2   7   2   8   0   6   0   4   1   0   5   7   7   5      54
Map 5      1   5   1   9   0   9   0   9   1   0   1   5   2   0      43
Map 6      3   6   7   5   0   8   0   4   1   0   3   9   4   4      54
Map 7      3   2   5   6   0   1   5   4   1   0   2   8   6   5      48
Map 8      3   9   2   5   9   1   9   9   8   7   7   2   3   7      81
Map 9      7   3   9   2   0   9   5   4   1   7   6   5   5   7      70

Map 1 is hereby endorsed as the official map of CARCA.

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. 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.

[Adam Griffin]

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!).

CARCA Results:

Map 1      8   8   4   7   0   1   9   4   9   8   9   6   9   8      90
Map 2      9   4   8   3   0   9   5   4   1   9   7   8   8   7      82
Map 3      9   4   8   3   0   9   5   4   1   9   7   8   8   7      82
Map 4      2   7   2   8   0   6   0   4   1   0   5   7   7   5      54
Map 5      1   5   1   9   0   9   0   9   1   0   1   5   2   0      43
Map 6      3   6   7   5   0   8   0   4   1   0   3   9   4   4      54
Map 7      3   2   5   6   0   1   5   4   1   0   2   8   6   5      48
Map 8      3   9   2   5   9   1   9   9   8   7   7   2   3   7      81
Map 9      7   3   9   2   0   9   5   4   1   7   6   5   5   7      70

Map 1 is hereby endorsed as the official map of CARCA.

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. 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.

[windjammer]

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!).

CARCA Results:

Map 1      8   8   4   7   0   1   9   4   9   8   9   6   9   8      90
Map 2      9   4   8   3   0   9   5   4   1   9   7   8   8   7      82
Map 3      9   4   8   3   0   9   5   4   1   9   7   8   8   7      82
Map 4      2   7   2   8   0   6   0   4   1   0   5   7   7   5      54
Map 5      1   5   1   9   0   9   0   9   1   0   1   5   2   0      43
Map 6      3   6   7   5   0   8   0   4   1   0   3   9   4   4      54
Map 7      3   2   5   6   0   1   5   4   1   0   2   8   6   5      48
Map 8      3   9   2   5   9   1   9   9   8   7   7   2   3   7      81
Map 9      7   3   9   2   0   9   5   4   1   7   6   5   5   7      70

Map 1 is hereby endorsed as the official map of CARCA.

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. 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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.