CITIZEN DISCUSSION: laws for provincial borders

The recent incidents about the borders showed clearly that we maybe need some laws concerning the provincial borders...

Now my idea about that topic is to implement the following points:

* provincial border proposals must be decided upon before the nominations for the next term starts.
* those decided borders are in effect from day one for the term then.
* provinces with less than 3 cities can be created, but they are to be called "districts" then and under the governing of the domestic department
* if it is decided to define a district out of the capitol or the city with the forbidden palace, then those districs will be governed by the vice president of the nation.
* district leaders are not provincial governors and as such not member of the senate.
* all cities not within borders of a defined province at the beginning of a term and all cities added to the nation which do not sit in a province a governed by the domestic department.

up for discussion.... now!
the result should be a rule-proposal... so i hope judicacy and some veteran constitution changes will help out with the finetuning.

Any province with at least one city gets a governor at each election cycle. Districts would have to be well defined for this ruleset to function.

Alright, below are just a bunch of laws that may or may not work and seem to be related to provinces... Some of them are simply restatements of Dis's laws, while others are just new ones that I've heard in chat, on forums, or just thought were a good idea. I'm sure there are more, but I can't remember them at the moment... Just take a look at the following and see which ones you think have merit.

* A district is simply defined as any province without a governor. Districts shall be directed by the Domestic Department.
I believe this is a good, workable definition of what a district is. Almost all of the following laws hinge on this one.
* District leaders are not considered members of the senate.
If we do institute districts, this clause will be necessary.

* A province *must* have at least three cities within its borders. If an official poll mandates the creation of a province has less than three cities, it shall be declared a district until it had the requisite number of cities.
* If a district grows to contain at least three cities, then it shall become a province after the next gubernatorial election. Nominations and elections for this province will be held at the normal time, and provincial status will be withheld until after the election of a governor.
Both of these laws help to give a more specific and a more useable definition of a district. The numbers can be changed if deemed necessary.

* Provincial borders must be made official by a poll of the citizens of Fanatika before nominations for the next gubernatorial election begin. These borders shall determine the number of governors to be elected.
* Any changes or amendments to provincial borders, as well as the addition of new provinces, shall only take effect after governors have been elected.
I believe these two laws are fair, logical, and will prevent future debates over special elections and presidential nominations.

* The Capital and the Forbidden Palace city shall always be declared special districts, and shall be separate from any other provinces. These districts shall be governed by the Vice President.
This option has the benefit of giving the Vice President something to *do,* but it is inconsistent with the above definition of a district.

* The Capital and the Forbidden Palace city shall always be declared districts, and shall be separate from any other provinces. These districts shall be governed by the Domestic Department.
This option is consistent with the above definition of a district, but seems a bit unnecessary. The only real reason to force the Capital and FP City to be districts would be to give the VP something to do. Alternately, we could just do what we do currently and treat these cities just like any other. Obviously, we can only choose either this option, or the previous option, not both.

* At the beginning of each gubernatorial term, any cities not within a provincial or district border shall be declared "Outlying Territories" and will fall under the jurisdiction of the Domestic Department. This status will remain until they are incorporated into a Province and have a democratically elected governor in the next gubernatorial elections.
I like this idea. Although I believe it is already in our laws *somewhere,* adding a clause like this would help to clarify and cement the Domestic Department's duties.

* Provincial borders may be revised by the citizens at any time in an official poll, however, any new provinces that are created will not officially take effect until after a governor for the new province has been elected in the next gubernatorial election. Any provincial border amendments that do *not* result in the creation of a new province will take effect immediately after the completion of the poll."
This helps to clarify the rights of citizens and stops the confusion of special elections and all.

i like it.
just one point:
what about having ALL districts being governed by the vice-president? with that we could give him a defined amount of work to keep his skills up. this will also give us the possibility to declare the captiol and the FP districts if we like.
all cities not within provincial borders will still be governed by the domestic department.

Didn't we already have laws in place?
Didn't we have a gazillion undecisive polls on provinces already?

ct: we are discussing rulechanges here. or better: additions and clarifications.
so be constructive

Well, I'm trying to understand so I can be constructive.

As much as I've tried to stay away from this debate, I feel compelled to jump in before this run-away locomotive gets completely out of control. This whole provincial border debate has spawned a series of newly proposed laws that are surely intended to make life better for not only the remainder of this game, but also for all future democracy games as well.

At least that's the theory. I am concerned, however, that we are merely rushing towards the cliff with blinders on. In our haste to prevent another governor from being stripped down to a single city (a situation so unlikely that it should not have ever happened), we are rushing into a proposed change that would quite likely disrupt our already proven provincial system.

If we are intent on establishing a District, then we should examine the reason for such a district and modify the laws accordingly. We should strive to make any such revision to the law as minimal and as precise as possible....

Why do we need a district?
The primary reasons that I have seen thus far are: 1) because no self-respecting governor would want to govern a single city province with no potential for additional cities, and 2) to increase the responsibilities of (and respect for) the Vice President or Domestic Deputy position.

Under what circumstances would we consider establishing such a district?
Our provincial borders are designed to be consistent with the natural geographic borders and are typically targeted to support anywhere between five (5) and ten (10) cities. A district would primarily consist of a single city and the immediate squares surrounding that city.

Should we consider a small island or tiny peninsula eligible for "districtship"? I should think that a district would be established for something other than geographical limitations. It seems that the logical reason for establishing a district would be for cities with a special purpose, such as the locations of our Palace and possible Forbidden City.

Should we make districts for these cities mandatory?
This is probably better left to a debate, but my inclination would be no. We should build into the law the flexibility to choose either method (of course, the border polls would essentially decide this as one of the options could include a district for the capitol, much like our recent provincial border poll did).

Barring a differing opinion, it seems that our ammendment can be nothing more than a definition of these districts, where they can be established and who's responsible for governing them. The more precise we get, the better off we will be down the road.

another point for the districts: no province inadequately benefits from low corruption
in the past dg, the province with the fd and the one with the capitol always had an advantage ;-)

but you are right:
the only thing we need to do is implement a POSSIBILITY to use districts under the VP if we want to.

but another aspect is:
we should only allow border changes to be in effect at the beginning of a new term. this will prevent a future mid-term election debatte as no new governors will be there outside a term.

Originally posted by disorganizer
we should only allow border changes to be in effect at the beginning of a new term. this will prevent a future mid-term election debatte as no new governors will be there outside a term.

Click to expand...

I agree. This would be a good way to avoid any potential strife in future border issues.

I suggested way back in the days of Phoenatica that we should let the President fix our provincial borders. We need borders to be set fast and democracy works slowly. Given the recent ridiculousness we've experienced in our attempts to fix borders I will drag this suggestion out and dust it off.

What do you all think of this proposal:

Any newly built or captured cities that are not already in a defined province can be assigned to a province by the DP. The DP would be under the normal geographical limits. This means any new city would have to be adjacent to a defined province in order to be added to it. The DP could also creat a new province for the new city or cities. This would allow us to know which province our cities are in from the moment we have them. The actual border fixing of the provinces would be left to the citizens using our current convoluted system. The citizens could also, of course, reverse or change the DP's decision via the proper method of discussion and polling. Having this as a law may also prompt our citizens to get their act together in defining workable and acceptable provincial borders ahead of time in an effort to pre-emp the DP's rights under this law since theDP would not be able to change borders already defined by the citizens.

We will still have the problem of provinces without governors then.
Why cant all unprovinced cities be governed by domestic department? See them as colonies without official governor.
On the next term-start, they could have provincial status and with that a governor.

Well, if I were able to add new laws by myself, here's what I'd add...

We can create new provinces at any time, but they won't take effect until the next gubernatorial elections. That way, we can avoid the hassle of special elections and arguments over appointments. There's nothing a governor can do that our Domestic Department can't handle for a week or three.

I'd also add a special law defining districts just in the event we ever wish to use them again and not have their legality questioned.

There are arguments for having the VP govern special Capital/FP districts but I think that discussion is beyond my scope. I'll let others debate that and I'll just vote for whomever has the better argument ;-)

So why not allow districts under government of any department which mussed be speciffically polled on when wanted?

If we like to make a district out of the capitol governed by the VP, then we vote on it and can have it. If not then not.

This district law will then give us all possibilities without forcing us to anything.