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

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

X Harry S Truman

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).

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This does not have my signature. I oppose this because the regions are too different to consolidate.

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.

We need to look into better ways to do things as is, rather than lumping everything together.

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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

Newest Member: DemPGH

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

[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

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Official results?