(Discussion) The Catchment Area Reform Act

[Lüc da Schir]

I've previously mentioned, inside of this thread, that it is this Government's intention to reform Talossa's catchment areas to achieve:
1 - As equal as possible distribution of new citizens among provinces;
2 - More opportunities for citizens of the same province to meet by having mostly contiguous provinces;
3 - More culturally and historically homogeneous provinces.

I would like this reform to be carried on with inputs from all of the parties and (especially) the various Provincial First Ministers and Senators. We had a lot of informal discussions on this matter in the past, and I think it's time to bring this one step forward, that is, inside the splendid (virtual) rooms of the Hopper.

[Lüc da Schir]

For example, some proposals that might make sense are:

• All Northern European countries (Northern countries, British isles, Germany, France, alpine countries) under Cézembre 
• All Southern European countries (Iberic peninsula, Italy, ex-Yugoslavia, Greece) under Benito
• Alternatively, the whole Europe under a common province.
• All non-Benitian Spanish speaking countries under Maricopa
• All Arab countries under Atatürk
• USA splitted among all provinces, besides Cézembre, following traditional USA census boundaries or similar (New England, Pacific, Mountains, Southeast...)
• Wisconsin entirely Vuodean (except GTA)
• Quebec and rest of Canada under two different provinces

I don't necessarily think that all of these proposals are good, but I do surely think that a closer look to recent (2010-) immigration history could greatly help; this is what the Prime Ministry will be working on from this week onwards. Expect a report to be issued in a couple of weeks.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

One immediate issue I see is that nos. 1 and 3 seem to be at cross-purposes. I mean, we have many more European citizens than Arabic citizens, so any proposal that tries to make immigration to Cezembre and Ataturk come out equal AND culturally homogenous is going to have a tough time, right? Maybe I'm mistaken, but we probably are going to have to prioritize.

For myself, I think roughly equal numbers of immigrants (your #1) is probably the most important priority.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Nov 3, 2014 15:48:18 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

One immediate issue I see is that nos. 1 and 3 seem to be at cross-purposes. I mean, we have many more European citizens than Arabic citizens, so any proposal that tries to make immigration to Cezembre and Ataturk come out equal AND culturally homogenous is going to have a tough time, right? Maybe I'm mistaken, but we probably are going to have to prioritize.

For myself, I think roughly equal numbers of immigrants (your #1) is probably the most important priority.

I'd say #1 and #2 are really close in priority, but #2 is more important. However, these two are easy to combine. #3 I don't see as important at all.

[Óïn Ursüm]

Nov 3, 2014 13:52:44 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

For example, some proposals that might make sense are:

• All Northern European countries (Northern countries, British isles, Germany, France, alpine countries) under Cézembre 
• All Southern European countries (Iberic peninsula, Italy, ex-Yugoslavia, Greece) under Benito
• Alternatively, the whole Europe under a common province.
• All non-Benitian Spanish speaking countries under Maricopa
• All Arab countries under Atatürk
• USA splitted among all provinces, besides Cézembre, following traditional USA census boundaries or similar (New England, Pacific, Mountains, Southeast...)
• Wisconsin entirely Vuodean (except GTA)
• Quebec and rest of Canada under two different provinces

I don't necessarily think that all of these proposals are good, but I do surely think that a closer look to recent (2010-) immigration history could greatly help; this is what the Prime Ministry will be working on from this week onwards. Expect a report to be issued in a couple of weeks.

I assume Turkey goes to Atatürk, despite it not being an Arab country?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

A couple of issues ago, I had an article in Beric'ht Talossan about the evolution of the catchment areas. As an aid to this discussion, here are some maps derived from that article.

First, an animated GIF of the evolution of the North American catchment areas:



Next, an animated GIF of the evolution of the global catchment areas:



(Note that there is one omission and one error in the global map. First, I didn't divide China to show that the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is assigned to Atatürk. Second, the law assigns Brazil to Fiova and "Spanish-speaking Latin America" to Maricopa. I unthinkingly treated these assignments as covering all of South America. However, French Guiana, Guyana, and Suriname are not Spanish-speaking, and are therefore assigned to . . . Cézembre. Also, I didn't include it in the map key on the lower left, but when you see the southern hemisphere turn pink, that's the short-lived catchment area of Pengöpäts.)

Finally, a map of the current division of Wisconsin counties into catchment areas:

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Nov 3, 2014 15:56:15 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

I'd say #1 and #2 are really close in priority, but #2 is more important. However, these two are easy to combine. #3 I don't see as important at all.

I agree about #1 and #2. I see #3 mostly as a tie-breaker. E.g., if you decide you have to divide Europe between two or more catchment areas to satisfy #1, and there are multiple ways you can draw the lines that would be comparably compact and contiguous (satisfying #2), the division that best keeps people speaking the same language or similar languages together should be preferred. Like #2, that would facilitate intra-provincial communication.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Nov 4, 2014 4:58:26 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Nov 3, 2014 15:56:15 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

I'd say #1 and #2 are really close in priority, but #2 is more important. However, these two are easy to combine. #3 I don't see as important at all.

I agree about #1 and #2. I see #3 mostly as a tie-breaker. E.g., if you decide you have to divide Europe between two or more catchment areas to satisfy #1, and there are multiple ways you can draw the lines that would be comparably compact and contiguous (satisfying #2), the division that best keeps people speaking the same language or similar languages together should be preferred. Like #2, that would facilitate intra-provincial communication.

That makes sense.

[Lüc da Schir]

Nov 3, 2014 17:06:12 GMT -6 Óïn Ursüm said:

Nov 3, 2014 13:52:44 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

For example, some proposals that might make sense are:

• All Northern European countries (Northern countries, British isles, Germany, France, alpine countries) under Cézembre 
• All Southern European countries (Iberic peninsula, Italy, ex-Yugoslavia, Greece) under Benito
• Alternatively, the whole Europe under a common province.
• All non-Benitian Spanish speaking countries under Maricopa
• All Arab countries under Atatürk
• USA splitted among all provinces, besides Cézembre, following traditional USA census boundaries or similar (New England, Pacific, Mountains, Southeast...)
• Wisconsin entirely Vuodean (except GTA)
• Quebec and rest of Canada under two different provinces

I don't necessarily think that all of these proposals are good, but I do surely think that a closer look to recent (2010-) immigration history could greatly help; this is what the Prime Ministry will be working on from this week onwards. Expect a report to be issued in a couple of weeks.

I assume Turkey goes to Atatürk, despite it not being an Arab country?

Yes. All of the Arab countries would be included in Atatürk, but Atatürk will not contain only Arab countries.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Nov 3, 2014 13:52:44 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

I don't necessarily think that all of these proposals are good, but I do surely think that a closer look to recent (2010-) immigration history could greatly help

I've done some looking into that myself. Considering the last 150 non-Dandelion immigrants takes us back to December 2009. Out of those 150, by my reckoning we had 73 from the U.S., 47 from Europe (counting all of Russia as Europe), 16 from Asia (including 6 Indians, and counting all of Turkey with its 3 immigrants as Asia), 8 from Latin America (including 1 from Cuba and 2 from Brazil), 3 from Australia, 2 from Canada, and 1 from Africa.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Nov 4, 2014 10:53:10 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Considering the last 150 non-Dandelion immigrants takes us back to December 2009. Out of those 150, by my reckoning we had 73 from the U.S., 47 from Europe (counting all of Russia as Europe), 16 from Asia (including 6 Indians, and counting all of Turkey with its 3 immigrants as Asia), 8 from Latin America (including 1 from Cuba and 2 from Brazil), 3 from Australia, 2 from Canada, and 1 from Africa.

Alright, let's do some rough analysis of these numbers. Assume goals of dividing these 150 immigrants evenly among the 8 provinces, and establishing provincial catchment areas that correspond roughly to continents. This would mean that, starting from a blank slate:

• Canada and the U.S. fill exactly 4 provinces
• Latin America accounts for about another half a province
• Europe covers 2.5 provinces
• Asia and Oceania combined are just right for one more province
• Africa is a rounding error

[Lüc da Schir]

Since I'm really struggling to find anything to put in the report besides the immigration count, I think that we could just go on with the current data we have, for the moment.

Basing on Cresti's calculations, I think that the catchment areas could look something like this:
- Atatürk: US South census region (besides TX and OK)
- Benito: Southern Europe
- Cézembre: Northern Europe
- Fiova: Asia, Oceania, Africa
- Florencia: WA, OR, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE
- Maricopa: Iberic Peninsula, Latin America, AZ, NM, TX
- Maritiimi-Maxhestic: CA, NV, UT, CO, AK, anglophone Canada
- Vuode: US Northeast census region + WI, MI, IL, IN, OH, MN, IA, MO, KS, Quebec

[Owen Edwards]

The reason 3 matters is, I'd say, as an adjunct of 2. Lusophones or Francophones being in the same province, even where they are far apart geographically, helps communication amongst those people groups. Geographical "closeness" matters far more, though, I'd say - barring the specific dynamic of Fiova, I'd like it if Charlie and Eddie (two of my closer Talossan friends and two of the geographically closest, too) were in the same province as me. As it is, we're spread across 3 provinces Organically (4 counting the exception formed by Fiova, which I think most of us consider a good exception).

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Anyway, are we near any consensus to something we can put on the next Clark? I'm afraid it's all much of a muchness to me, as long as something is done.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't think we're anywhere near a bill yet. There's no rush, though.