DWTL Region Shrinking Plan

[afleitch]

I have long supported re-organisation of the regions. However I don't believe that this should be a 'pen to paper' task. I believe there may be a willingness for Atlasia to have more regions particularly if Smid's plan is adopted. Either way this should be a nationwide decision made by those registered in each state.

If we choose to retain active regional government as it is at present (again that is hypothetical) I see no reason why we should effectively abolish the Mideast considering it has an active and strong regional government at present. I do not see how such an example would contribute to better regional government.

[afleitch]

It is kind of hard to make a three region plan to keeps the Mideast in tact because of its location.  The only logical three region maps would dissolve the Mideast and Midwest into other regions

You can 'slice' the map in a similar way as Time Zones do and create 'East Coast' 'Central' and 'West Coast' regions

[afleitch]

I think than we should draw a population equality map, and after, follow the Afleitch process for the states wanting to change regions.

Going with the SOFA figures, we have California with 10 voters forming a 'pivot'. NY/PA/NJ has 18 voters forming a second pivot. If 2 regions were abolished due to population/demography the likely candidates are suprisingly the Midwest and the Southeast. The Mideast has a 5 member state in Illinois and combined with next door Iowa also with 5 IIRC, that forms the third pivot.

EDIT: For a snapshot of 3 years ago - look here. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=35836.msg810192#msg810192

[afleitch]

A 3 region split trying to attain a similar number of voters in each regions would at best look like this

DWTL's split would leave 2 regions with 40+ voters and the Southeast with about 25 or so. Any carve up into 3 would have to be a variation on West/Central/East.

[afleitch]

I prefer DWTL's map because it looks alot better to me and seems pretty reasonably (Western states are in the west, Southern states, in a Southern region, etc) without trying to mix and match states from different regions. I know some of you are worried about "gerrymandering" but people are bound to move states regardless of whatever map is made, guys.

To be fair the same could be said of my map. It's a clear split west/centrasl/east. And if we reduce regions to 3, two regions are always going to abolished. I don't have an issue with DWTL's map on geogrpahy alone (however I reserve the right to fight to protect my region ) but if we want even a loose population balance it is easily challengable

For the record here is a population map adapted from the SOFA map data. Hope it is correct.



DWTL's proposal would see the SouthEast with 27 citizens, the East with 41 citizens and the West with 41 citizens. My own sketch would see the East with 35, Central with 36 and West with 38 (you may have to check my math!) It's not what I would propose - just an idea of what we would have to do if we wanted proportionality.

[afleitch]

In the past, for redistricting, we used the number of voters in the last Presidential election for population purposes. I think it might be preferable to the number of registered voters.

To an extent I agree - however redistricting was periodic and using the presidential voting tally was not to the detriment of voters over the long term. Any 'set' regional split (which in itself is simply a snapshot of the day) would be better served by using the registered voters tally.

However - I'm not in favour a simple proportional split. All I am suggesting is that if we did that, because of the demographics, it is quite difficult to retain the 'south' (and indeed the mideast) even if we have 20 or so less registered voters in a southern region. We will face the same problems as we did during past redistricting efforts (the Maryland Bottleneck etc)

I am in favour of a more fluid split based on strength of feeling amongst voters in each state.

I'll try and pull together a map based on who voted in the last elections.

[afleitch]

Any tinkering of the regions would mean that by nature of geography the NE and the Pacific would remain relatively intact whether there are 3 or 4 regions. The most vulnerable in terms of registered population and voting population is the South East. Hence the likelyhood of a 'time zone' style split should regions be re-arranged.

At the same time, could say, Washington function as a self governing region? Particularly if there is simply a governors office and/or small assembly. What about it taking in Oregon? If Smid's proposal goes through, taking it to it's conclusion it could be feasable to have more than a dozen regions operating in the same tier of goverment. This goes back to what I was saying back in October.

I suppose on reflection how many regions depends on what government we have nationall - whether it's close to the status quo or parliamentary. That doesn't mean that regions should simply be an afterthought but it makes setting the number of them difficult.

[afleitch]

Actually, this is becoming difficult to put into words, so may be too complex. Someone else probably knows what I'm trying to say and might be able to come out with a better explanation.

I get where you're coming from. To pull back a bit, a lower house with total participation as in your proposal could allow for districting in the sense that Washington would be divided into say 9 seats and each representative would effectively represent one of those seats. This would mean that someone could 'represent' part of Seattle etc. If economic issues become the main issues, some people would probably wish to represent rural areas, rust belt cities, Chicago etc and the people and interests you would expect to be found there. Once every few months the whole map undergoes redistricting.

At present people register in states or in states to be in certain regions. It would be better to actually represent what that stands for. Al for example used to represent mining concerns in WV - it's something he knows about and is passionate about.

Therefore regions may not necessarily have to follow state lines as a result.

[afleitch]

Only thing is we have many people registered in a different state from which they live and some that aren't even in the real U.S.

I was considering at one point suggesting that we have the regions, plus an "Overseas Territories" region, but eventually figured we don't have enough foreign posters in Atlasia to warrant it.

I think we do, but I'm not sure how it would fit in. Getting way of topic, I think we should allow registrations in Canada and then establish diplomatic relations between the two countries. But that would make things way more complicated than they need to be.

If Canada, why not the UK and Australia? I agree that that would make things a little too complicated, unless we decided to make a game with different 'nations' and have diplomacy as a strong point. But then that becomes a different game! I'd be happy with it, but I don't know who else would