Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on Yesterday at 05:51:41 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on Yesterday at 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)

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.

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.

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.

With four Senators casting a vote, this bill passes the Senate by a vote of 3-1.

As the bill has passed both houses of the Chancellery, it now goes to the King or Vicere for approval or veto. If neither takes any action on the bill by Calondă Mai, it will become law and the Maestro shall begin preparations for the referendum.

Minor question: the current text of Org.II.2 contains the clause "The Ziu may establish procedures for when the King fails to perform a duty." I do not see any such equivalent text in the proposed re-write. Is there a reason for this?

After consulting the requestor, I submit the following blazon:


- TLF

If the College leadership is open to my jumping the gun* a moment, I have an idea for S:reu da Miéletz. The caveat is that because his favorite color is maroon, it involves sanguine, a tincture which requires special permission to use as per our own Rules of Heraldry.

- TLF

*A Fellow argent salient over a musket proper

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on April 16, 2024, 01:07:05 AM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 15, 2024, 09:14:20 PMFun fact: You have to write something here to be able to post. Did you know that?

I don't know if you've seen but I was featured on Fora Talossa

I did! You did a good job, too.

Could be neat if I had enough to do a Culture page...

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 15, 2024, 09:20:47 PMJust read it.
This was a quite good issue with fair reporting, Mic'haglh, and I am glad LTN is back.

We take great pains to keep our news pieces and opinion pieces separate! You can get both, but not on the same page.

Fun fact: You have to write something here to be able to post. Did you know that?

QuoteWHEREAS the Sovereign Province of Benito has gone by two names throughout its existence; and

WHEREAS the previous name of "Mussolini" had multiple negative connotations and implications, and the name of "Benito" does little to dispel these in the context of its predecessor; and

WHEREAS the Sovereign Province is home to multiple scenic areas along the Manáweg; and

WHEREAS the Sovereign Province is nice enough to be named thrice (but really hopefully no more than that),

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Sovereign Province of Benito is hereby renamed the Free and Sovereign Province of Belacostă (meaning "beautiful riverbank") pending a referendum of the Province's citizenry, and that should this name be approved, all references to "Benito" in current provincial law shall be understood to refer to the same legal entity under its new name.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of this referendum, the Government and Ziu are requested to give effect to this renaming at the federal level at their earliest convenience.

Uréu q'estadra så,
Mic'haglh Autófil MA
Sir Lüc da Schir MA

This bill, having passed the Assembly, now comes before the Senate. Voting will last for one week, until midnight Talossan Daylight Time, Sunday/Monday, April 21/22, 2024.

Alternatively, once all members have voted, or if at least four votes (representing a majority of the Senate) are cast either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, then voting will close at that time as per Article 10 of the Benitian Constitution.

As a Senator under the appointment of the Maestro, I cast my vote për.

Tagging Senators here for notification. @Sir Lüc @Iason Taiwos @Flip Molinar @Istefan Perþonest (Senator Carschaleir does not appear to have a Witt account)

Hearing no objection to this motion since its introduction over two weeks ago, should we regard it as having been given unanimous consent?

With seven votes now cast Për, the bill's passage is guaranteed and voting concludes under Article 10. The bill will be brought before the Benitian Senate.

Well in that case, as Arvitieir Prima I hereby open the voting on The Third Time's The Charm Act in the Assembly of Benito. Voting shall last seven days, closing at noon Talossan Daylight Time on Friday, April 19, 2024.

Alternatively, once all members have voted, or if at least six votes (representing a majority of the Assembly) are cast either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, then voting will close at that time as per Article 10 of the Benitian Constitution.

For my part, while the Arvitieir Prima does not get a vote ex officio, as I also hold one Assembly seat, I cast my vote për.