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

[windjammer]

Two years ago, Adam Griffin and other members tried to consolidate the regions. Unfortunately it failed. Now that inactivty is a big problem (and with all the defections), I'm restarting this.

How we will proceed. Firstly, people who wish to consolidate the maps, please sign up. When there will be enough members, people will start proposing their map (three region map, four region map etc etc) and then we will select the "map".

For more informations, read the previous thread 2 years ago: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179784.0

FIRST STEP: PLEASE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CONSOLIDATE THE REGIONS, SIGN UP.

xWindjammer

[windjammer]

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).

You can still sign up

[windjammer]

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.

[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.

[windjammer]

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

[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???

[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???

[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!

[windjammer]

People?

[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.

[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.

[windjammer]

Adam, why are you so opposed to have regions that are more balanced honestly?

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want to play this game:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1-1

------------------------

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Adam,
I do not believe my map is perfect or whatever, but when you have a region that is so big and an another region that is so small, this is a huge problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem Adam is that the size of regions didn't really change a lot for a while: the ME and the NE have been for a while the 2 biggest regions of this game. Indeed, a region can become extremely big because of registration tactics. But it doesn't justify the fact that the size of regions shouldn't matter. For example, I invaded last year and it was already the biggest region, and it became an even more bigger problem for the size. Any region can be invaded and we don't know *which* region. For instance,y ou invaded the south that was conservative at hell 2 years ago. So why not trying to have *relatively* equal regions in order to make sure that the partisan registrations tactics do not change the dynamic too much?

[windjammer]

Lmao I love you, your sensitivity is so funny, and I'm being sincere.
 

[windjammer]

Well guys, I guess we need "schedules" . So people have until the end of the week to submit the maps. Then we will proceed to a debate.

[windjammer]

Right, Here all the maps proposed:
Kalwejt:
Map 1

Harry S Truman
Map 2

PLAINS   17+OC       DIXIE   15+PR       GREAT LAKES   18+DC

Map 3

Windjammer:
Map 4

vivaportugalhabs:
Map 5

Adam Griffin:
Map 6
[/center]


Pikachu:
Map 7

Rpryor:
Map 8

I hope I didn't forget any map. I will contact the sponsors so they will be able to advocate for their map.

[windjammer]

People have until the end of this week to defend their preferred map.

[windjammer]

BUMP.
(Just to let this thread on the first page)

[windjammer]

Kalwejt:
Map 1

Harry S Truman
Map 2

PLAINS   17+OC       DIXIE   15+PR       GREAT LAKES   18+DC

Map 3

Windjammer:
Map 4

vivaportugalhabs:
Map 5

Adam Griffin:
Map 6
[/center]


Pikachu:
Map 7

Rpryor:
Map 8

I hope I didn't forget any map. I will contact the sponsors so they will be able to advocate for their map.

Leinad
Map 9

[/quote]

CARCA ENDORSEMENT BALLOT:

PLEASE READ: The method of this vote is score voting (0-9), not PR-STV. Please rank each map based on your preference, with 0 being the least favorable and 9 being the most favorable. Multiple maps can be assigned the same number, unlike PR-STV.

Voting will commence immediately and will last for 168 hours, or until all 17 CARCA convention members at the time of the opening of this voting booth have voted. The map with the highest overall score at the end of the vote will automatically be endorsed as the selected map of this convention.

[   ] Map 1
[   ] Map 2
[   ] Map 3
[   ] Map 4
[   ] Map 5
[   ] Map 6
[   ] Map 7
[   ] Map 8
[   ] Map 9

[windjammer]

Adam,
Honestly I prefer to let everyone have the possibility to vote.
However, if I realize that someone PMs zombies in order to boost his map, I will only count votes from those who have had signed up. Fortunately, right now that doesnt seem to be the case.

[windjammer]

Map 6 has been selected.