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

[Adam Griffin]

x Adam

[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 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.

[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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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 problem Adam is that the size of regions didn't really change a lot for a while

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.

It's the same one that I had posted a few weeks ago. Keeps 4/5 regions wholly intact and is roughly equal in population (57 South, 57 Northeast, 55 West). Oceania to Pacific, Puerto Rico to South).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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
  

[Adam Griffin]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Adam Griffin]

[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

[Adam Griffin]

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 Griffin]

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: