Europe of the Regions — data table

All 191 authored regions (188 congruent-mode base/congruent records plus 3 unified alternatives for Tyrol, the Basque Country, and Ireland). Click a column header to sort; use the filter box to search by name, country, urban core, industry, or identity basis.

Loading…

Extremes

Computed at runtime from the loaded dataset (all 191 regions).

Representation model

Based on the 188 congruent-mode regions (variant role null or "congruent" — the 3 unified alternatives are excluded here to avoid double-counting a region under two representation schemes at once).

Flat model — 2 representatives per region

Every congruent-mode region gets exactly 2 representatives, aggregated by country. Convention for multi-country regions (none currently in the congruent-mode set, but applied generally): representatives split evenly across the region's constituent countries — e.g. 1+1 for a 2-country region.

Bundesrat-weighted comparison

Each region's population is banded per Germany's Bundesrat formula (Art. 51 GG): ≤2M → 3 votes, >2M–6M → 4 votes, >6M–7M → 5 votes, >7M → 6 votes. The same multi-country split convention applies.

Country share comparison

Sorted by flat-model share, largest first. Top bar = flat model, bottom bar = Bundesrat-weighted.

EP delegation model — population balance across representation groupings

Amendment A2.2 (round-3 feedback) set the model: reuse the European Parliament chamber as-is, but send each representation grouping a roughly equal delegation instead of national delegations sized by degressive proportionality — target spread a max factor of 3–7 between the largest and smallest grouping's population, 10 at the outside. Today's EP is looser than that already: Germany's ~96 seats against Malta's 6 is a 16× gap by seat count, and the per-seat population gap runs to roughly 10× (Malta ≈86,000 people/seat vs. Germany ≈860,000). Amendment A3 (round-4 feedback) adds a second grouping layer purpose-built to hit that target, and Amendment A4.1 (round-5 feedback) adds a state-boundary-respecting third: data/grouping_schemes.json (documented in the methodology page) carries the original Affinity (66) scheme plus however many further schemes the current data build defines — every one of them is shown side by side below, generated from the data file rather than a fixed pair. Groupings a scheme marks factor_exempt (sovereign microstates, exclaves, and similar singletons) sit outside that scheme's factor calculation and are listed separately as special status. A scheme may additionally mark a sovereign_floor list (A4.1 — small sovereign states that cannot merge upward without crossing a state border under a no-cross-border-merge rule); those are excluded from the factor too, but labeled distinctly as "sovereign minimum" rather than "special status".

Loading…