These maps rearrange the catchment areas within the US states, with the obvious exception of Wisconsin itself.
The idea is to divide the states as evenly as possible among each of the eight provinces with respect to number of states --
not population thereof. I have done some bare-bones math on that (see the second post) if people want to see how it shakes out, but population itself is not the goal. Since there are 49 states plus DC to divide out, that's still 50, which divided by eight is six with a remainder of two. In other words, two provinces will each receive seven states, with the others each receiving six. Where possible, I have attempted to consider both geographical and cultural reasons for putting each catchment area where it is. That being said, since the only real "provincial cultures" are the Cjovanì and the Reviensadeirs -- and the latter aren't really geography-centric -- a lot of the "cultural" considerations are of an extra-Talossan nature.
- Cézembre, which currently has no states, receives the six New England states, due in part both to their proximity to Quebec (the main francophone region of North America) and also because they are the closest states to the island of Cézembre itself.
- Atatürk, which currently contains five of the six New England states (Maine being unassigned), is instead reassigned to the area around (and including) the District of Columbia. Atatürk contains Talossa's capital, so it made sense to me to have it contain our Big Neighbor's capital as well. (Having grown up in Virginia, I am aware Kentucky is not super close to DC, but it works out here that the borders are rather clean if we make it the sixth state in KA.)
- Maritiimi-Maxhestic receives no new states, but is reduced to the Southeast.
- Benito, which currently only has the Cjovanì homeland of Ohio, receives several states with higher Italian ancestry (which are luckily contiguous with Ohio itself). Alternatively, if the Belacostă name is approved, BE would have a large amount of beautiful coast along the Great Lakes.
- Fiovă, which currently has no states, receives six states that lie along the Mississippi River (as fiovă means river).
- Vuode loses most of its current territory to Benito and Fiovă, but keeps the recently-transferred Minnesota and gains several other "heartland" states (which feels appropriate to a province named for a bed. Beds, heartlands...coziness and safety seem to permeate the idea.)
- Maricopa, having lost Arkansas and Louisiana to Fiovă, gains Hawaii and Nevada from Florencia.
- Along with M-M, Florencia is the other province to only lose territory without making gains, but because of this they are also one of the two provinces to receive an extra state.
Furthermore, the catchment assignments of US territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) are unaffected by these changes, in part because their current provinces (M-M and FL) are losing territory as opposed to gaining.
Please keep in mind a few things:
- This only affects new citizens; any current citizens keep their provincial assignments unless they request to be moved to their new province as per Org.IX.8 and Lex.E.7.3.3. Furthermore, under Lex.E.7.3.1, it would appear that any citizens who do not request to be reassigned immediately retain the right to do so at any point in the future.
- This map provides a springboard for us to reconsider the alignment of Canadian provinces, Mexican states, and Wisconsin counties (I have a few maps on this last idea which I can post later).
- This map is only a preliminary draft; a conversation-starter, if you will.
The third map attachment is one that rewards M-M a seventh state instead of Maricopa, since M-M is the other territory to only lose states (Florencia and M-M surrender territory, so it seems fair they get the extra states). This one definitely creates some clean borders, especially out west. It also seemed fair that since Vuode was losing both New York and Illinois (home to the largest and third-largest cities in the country, respectively), they get the heavily-populated Texas as compensation (Maricopa is keeping the most populous state, it seems odd they should get the second-most as well.)
Some things these maps were
not explicitly designed with in mind were mergers. In some cases, (for example, a VD/M-M merger, or FL/MA) they work quite well, and in other cases (BE with anyone)...less so.
MATHPOSTING
----------------------------------------------------------
Like I said above, initially I had not done any math while making these maps, but my curiosity got the better of me and I decided to see how they shake out in terms of "numerical fairness". I looked at a few criteria: the difference in each province's population (as of the 2020 US Census) from the average provincial population, and the "relative average difference" of each province (the province's difference from the average expressed as a fraction of that average).
For comparison's sake I've also done the math on the current catchment areas. Note that the absence of an assignment for Maine means the current average provincial population is lower than either proposed realignment.
The second table highlights the lowest value in its row in green (or in the case of the "Minimum" rows, the highest value). It's clear from this comparison that the latter realignment map not only generates borders that are fairly clean from an aesthetic standpoint, it also generates provinces that are much more tightly-grouped in terms of population than the current set.
In the distant past, there was some system that included methodology for me as a Colorado USA native to be assigned to Cézembre. I support mixing within each province a variety of people and perspectives such as with this proposal.
I think S:reu Puntmasleu mentioned implementing -- or I guess re-implementing! -- a system that allowed people to change their provincial assignments once every so often. Especially coupled with a shakeup of catchment areas (and I would recommend we look at all of them, not just the US-state-level areas), it could lead to a better variety within the various provinces.
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 24, 2024, 05:49:33 PMI think S:reu Puntmasleu mentioned implementing -- or I guess re-implementing! -- a system that allowed people to change their provincial assignments once every so often.
No, no, NO. That just opens the door to gerrymandering Senäts seats with such a low population. The only stable form of provincial assignment is geographic, given that we need periodic shake-ups of the map to balance immigration flows.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 24, 2024, 05:51:41 PMQuote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 24, 2024, 05:49:33 PMI think S:reu Puntmasleu mentioned implementing -- or I guess re-implementing! -- a system that allowed people to change their provincial assignments once every so often.
No, no, NO. That just opens the door to gerrymandering Senäts seats with such a low population. The only stable form of provincial assignment is geographic, given that we need periodic shake-ups of the map to balance immigration flows.
I prefer geographic myself, but if the "cooldown" period is sufficiently long -- or if there is no Senäts to worry about in the first place -- I can foresee an acceptable solution.
(None of this accounts for the facts that we need fewer provinces anyway)
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 24, 2024, 06:03:16 PMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 24, 2024, 05:51:41 PMQuote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 24, 2024, 05:49:33 PMI think S:reu Puntmasleu mentioned implementing -- or I guess re-implementing! -- a system that allowed people to change their provincial assignments once every so often.
No, no, NO. That just opens the door to gerrymandering Senäts seats with such a low population. The only stable form of provincial assignment is geographic, given that we need periodic shake-ups of the map to balance immigration flows.
I prefer geographic myself, but if the "cooldown" period is sufficiently long -- or if there is no Senäts to worry about in the first place -- I can foresee an acceptable solution.
(None of this accounts for the facts that we need fewer provinces anyway)
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 24, 2024, 05:49:33 PMI think S:reu Puntmasleu mentioned implementing -- or I guess re-implementing! -- a system that allowed people to change their provincial assignments once every so often. Especially coupled with a shakeup of catchment areas (and I would recommend we look at all of them, not just the US-state-level areas), it could lead to a better variety within the various provinces.
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 24, 2024, 06:03:16 PMor if there is no Senäts to worry about in the first place
I definitely support a unicameral Ziu. As an American, I've never been persuaded by the "cooling saucer" idea of upper legislative bodies. Charles Sumner and all...
My biggest argument for an unicameral Cosă is that a bicameral system requires too many people to sit in it; too many people who would rather not be politicians are pressed into service by their parties.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 25, 2024, 02:22:16 AMMy biggest argument for an unicameral Cosă is that a bicameral system requires too many people to sit in it; too many people who would rather not be politicians are pressed into service by their parties.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 24, 2024, 09:11:15 PMI definitely support a unicameral Ziu. As an American, I've never been persuaded by the "cooling saucer" idea of upper legislative bodies. Charles Sumner and all...
Both valid reasons! I tend to lean towards the latter myself; while I'm a big fan of federalism, (1) I tend to prefer senates that are representative of the federal subunits (think how the US Senate used to be elected by state legislatures, or how the Bundesrat currently is), and (2) I think Talossa is simply too small to justify bicameralism.
However, to avoid derailing the thread too much -- what are people's thoughts on the maps presented?
What would the population distribution be if we used the US Census regions? (note: I left Wisconsin as-is)
Quote from: Zilect Uómbat Firă on April 26, 2024, 02:48:19 PMWhat would the population distribution be if we used the US Census regions? (note: I left Wisconsin as-is)
As it turns out, not quite so even.
I suppose my main thought is why do we need provinces to have an equal number of states as catchment area? Catchment areas don't have an equal number of Brazilian provinces or Swiss cantons, so why do they need an equal share of the US?
For example, Cézembre, which is famously Talossa's european province, has a lot of catchment area in Europe. I don't think we really need additional catchment area in America. On the other hand, Vuode is already the province with the fewest citizens. If we give away some of the most populous states in its catchment area to another province which also has a lot of catchment area elsewhere (Benito) we might as well disband it now.
Perhaps what we need is for the Chancery every couple of years to check out the flow of new citizens, seeing where it's imbalanced towards or away from various provinces, and make a formal recommendation to the Ziu for re-catchment-ing?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 28, 2024, 02:10:28 AMPerhaps what we need is for the Chancery every couple of years to check out the flow of new citizens, seeing where it's imbalanced towards or away from various provinces, and make a formal recommendation to the Ziu for re-catchment-ing?
When I drafted the previous catchment reform last year there was a proposal to make catchment area review a regularly scheduled (every five years) process conducted by the Ministry of Immigration. For reasons that are still unclear to me this proposal was opposed. But I still think the process would be better handled by the Ministry working in consultation with the Chancery.
Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 27, 2024, 06:55:48 PMI suppose my main thought is why do we need provinces to have an equal number of states as catchment area? Catchment areas don't have an equal number of Brazilian provinces or Swiss cantons, so why do they need an equal share of the US?
Well, given that the US is already subdivided amongst provinces -- and given the apparently large segment of the population which has naturalized from the US -- it would be odd to suddenly put the entirety of that country into one province's catchment, no? "Everyone from the US immigrates to Vuode" would be a policy that would throw things out of whack significantly more quickly than "everyone from Slovakia immigrates to Cézembre". An equal number of states was simply the initial goal; if you'd rather it be purely population-based that's fine too.
QuoteFor example, Cézembre, which is famously Talossa's european province, has a lot of catchment area in Europe. I don't think we really need additional catchment area in America. On the other hand, Vuode is already the province with the fewest citizens. If we give away some of the most populous states in its catchment area to another province which also has a lot of catchment area elsewhere (Benito) we might as well disband it now.
The intent was to also rebalance catchment areas elsewhere, which would likely result (
should result) in VD's catchment area gaining nations (and thus potential immigrants). This is just step one of that process.
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 28, 2024, 02:38:19 PMThe intent was to also rebalance catchment areas elsewhere, which would likely result (should result) in VD's catchment area gaining nations (and thus potential immigrants). This is just step one of that process.
Ok, but why?
I understand catchment areas need to be balanced on a global scale. I don't understand why they would need to be balanced for any one specific country, as long as there is still balance overall. If anything I think the differing catchment areas is part of what makes provinces have their own unique identity. Giving all provinces an equal share of us catchment area would just make provinces more the same.
In the case of Cézembre, it being the only European province is a big part of our history. It makes sense to combine that with a relatively large European catchment area even if that means not having much catchment area elsewhere.
Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 28, 2024, 05:00:07 PMOk, but why?
I understand catchment areas need to be balanced on a global scale. I don't understand why they would need to be balanced for any one specific country, as long as there is still balance overall. If anything I think the differing catchment areas is part of what makes provinces have their own unique identity. Giving all provinces an equal share of us catchment area would just make provinces more the same.
In the case of Cézembre, it being the only European province is a big part of our history. It makes sense to combine that with a relatively large European catchment area even if that means not having much catchment area elsewhere.
At most, there would appear to be three provinces that have "their own unique identity":
- Benito has the Cjovani, though obviously not all Benitians are Cjovani (I can't claim to be, for example).
- Fiova has the reviensadeirs.
- Cézembre is, as you say, "the European province".
Of these, only Cézembre's identity would appear to be based on geography. So if it makes sense to you to remove Cézembre from the US-specific catchment map, we can look at doing so. I've attached a sample of what that could look like below. (In the tables to compare different options, it's "Realignment D".)
To the more general point of "why try to balance catchment areas in general", as already covered above, catchment areas generally need refreshing from time to time to rebalance things and try to get new blood in to provinces that need it.
Maybe there should be a redistricting commission created to look into how to best redraw the catchment areas
Quote from: Zilect Uómbat Firă on April 30, 2024, 04:59:46 PMMaybe there should be a redistricting commission created to look into how to best redraw the catchment areas
I'm not opposed to this idea in principle, but I think it's best we also don't overcomplicate the process or add
too much red tape to it.