The Catchment Area Reform Act

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Please add me as well!

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jul 20, 2015 13:16:30 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

Planning to submit this bill for the Second Clark as it's currently written. Do you want to cosponsor, Sir C. M. Siervicül?

Hmm. Well, I still think there is room for improvement in the proposed catchment areas. In particular something really needs to be done about Atatürk. At one point Glüc suggested possibly shifting some of the eastern portion of the Cézembrian catchment area to Atatürk.

I had been planning on taking another look at this after seeing who struck out from the election, but the Chancery still hasn't released any information on that.

[Lüc da Schir]

Well, there's still time to tweak it.

Another way to fix the Atatürk problem would be moving India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives and Nepal from Fiova to Atatürk. This way Fiova would still have a bunch of traditionally immigrant-rich areas like Brazil, Australasia and Indochina. If we're talking about moving land from Cézembre to Atatürk I'm afraid that there aren't many nations with recent immigrants that could be transferred while still making sense. Perhaps the -stan nations and the Caucasus.

[Lüc da Schir]

Amended to reflect what I said in the previous post.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jul 21, 2015 11:33:13 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

Well, there's still time to tweak it.

Another way to fix the Atatürk problem would be moving India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives and Nepal from Fiova to Atatürk. This way Fiova would still have a bunch of traditionally immigrant-rich areas like Brazil, Australasia and Indochina. If we're talking about moving land from Cézembre to Atatürk I'm afraid that there aren't many nations with recent immigrants that could be transferred while still making sense. Perhaps the -stan nations and the Caucasus.

One challenge we need to face in adjusting the Atatürk catchment area is that most countries that we could conveniently move to Atatürk's area either don't produce immigrants (see my maps in this post) or the immigrants they produce aren't likely to stick around. We've discussed how not all prospectives are equally likely to complete the immigration process and become citizens. What we haven't discussed is the related fact that not all new citizens are equally likely to stay citizens. Immigrants from Asia and Africa in particular are highly likely to become citizens and then never be heard from again until they strike out. Transferring India from Fiova's catchment zone to Atatürk's gives the latter something like 7 additional citizens on paper, but only one of them (BenArd) is remotely active.

I'll post some additional analysis on this point later this evening.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 26, 2015 15:11:03 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Transferring India from Fiova's catchment zone to Atatürk's gives the latter something like 7 additional citizens on paper, but only one of them (BenArd) is remotely active.

Tsk tsk.  Dr. Ravish is from India and is active

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jul 26, 2015 15:18:42 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Tsk tsk.  Dr. Ravisj is from India and is active

Touché. And I certainly hope he remains active. But I hesitate to draw any conclusions about whether a new citizen will be active until at least a few weeks have passed after their grant of citizenship.

[Lüc da Schir]

I think it's in everyone's interest that we delay the Hoppering of the bill until next month, then.

[Breneir Itravilatx]

I have a couple of questions regarding the Catchment Reform Act:

First, does this Act make it so that citizens when they move are reassigned to the province of permanent residency?

Second, do the authors plan to submit the Act for the next Clark?

[Lüc da Schir]

Well, citizens are already reassigned to their province of permanent residency when moving "a) over a distance of more than 1000 kilometres, or b) across national borders" (Lexh E.7.3.2). And yes, I hope that the Act can be Clarked as soon as possible. In my opinion, we have reached the sweet spot, and I don't think that anything but small tweakings is needed.

[Breneir Itravilatx]

Ah, then I will need to be reassigned.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jul 26, 2015 15:11:03 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

One challenge we need to face in adjusting the Atatürk catchment area is that most countries that we could conveniently move to Atatürk's area either don't produce immigrants (see my maps in this post) or the immigrants they produce aren't likely to stick around. We've discussed how not all prospectives are equally likely to complete the immigration process and become citizens. What we haven't discussed is the related fact that not all new citizens are equally likely to stay citizens. Immigrants from Asia and Africa in particular are highly likely to become citizens and then never be heard from again until they strike out.

Here are some stats to illustrate what I was talking about. I looked first at the 178 people who became citizens in the past 6 years, and which provinces they would have been assigned to under this proposal (I assumed there would have been no changes to the assignments of the citizens who live in Wisconsin). Then I looked at how many of those citizens we have retained versus those who have drifted away. To calculate retention, I eliminated those who have renounced, those who have struck out, those who would have struck out but for the lack of strikes being applied in the last couple of elections, and those who have been around for at least two elections but have never voted. This last bit is because the election that a new citizen is most likely to vote in is his first, and if a new citizen fails to vote in the first two elections after immigrating it's almost certain we'll never hear from him again.

Province	Total immigrants	Percent	Retained immigrants	Percent	Retention rate
Atatürk	12	6.74%	6	5.04%	50.00%
Benito	20	11.24%	16	13.45%	80.00%
Cézembre	39	21.91%	24	20.17%	61.54%
Fiova	16	8.99%	11	9.24%	68.75%
Florencia	17	9.55%	14	11.76%	82.35%
Maricopa	23	12.92%	17	14.29%	73.91%
Maritiimi-Maxhestic	28	15.73%	20	16.81%	71.43%
Vuode	23	12.92%	11	9.24%	47.83%
Average	22.25	12.50%	14.875	12.50%	66.85%
Total	178	100%	119	100%	N/A

[Lüc da Schir]

It's really unfortunate that as you say there's no real way to fix Atatürk's problem. I tried to play a bit with the borders but there's no way to add more immigrant-rich territories while still retaining geographical continuity. Perhaps this is already the best deal possible (at least we do have mostly uniform communities now). I'm really starting to wonder whether eight mostly populous provinces are feasible and sustainable. Either we have equally populous provinces or we try to put people from the same geographic area in the same province. I'm quite tempted to say we've got the best possible deal, really. It's unfortunate that Atatürk will have its immigration rate curtailed but at least it will have Turkey and India who are historically prolific countries as far as immigrants are concerned.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Oct 22, 2015 13:20:47 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

It's really unfortunate that as you say there's no real way to fix Atatürk's problem. I tried to play a bit with the borders but there's no way to add more immigrant-rich territories while still retaining geographical continuity.

Cézembre has the largest catchment area in terms of initial immigrants and retained immigrants, and a vast east-west extent. Why not transfer the eastern end of Cézembre's catchment area to Atatürk? That would make sense in terms of geographical continuity, and would also group some Turkic-speaking nations together with Turkey.

Also, what about the fact that Vuode may be on the verge of merging with Maritiimi-Maxhestic? That could throw provincial assignments off if we don't see what happens with that before redrawing the catchment areas. It would make more sense to me if Vuode were to merge with Atatürk, but I guess I'm not a Vuodean or an Atatürker.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Yeah, I would be fine with just moving the former Soviet Union (without the Baltics, because they are EU) to Atatürk. Wouldn't fix the entire problem, but would still be more balanced than the current one. And it makes sense geographically (and for Central Asia culturally as well, not so much for Russia though).

I was also hoping we could wait for MM/Vuode, but that doesn't seem like its going to happen now, so we should probably just go on with it.

Lüc da Schir Sir C. M. Siervicül