Proposed change in our provincial procedures (Governors)

Veera Anlai · Nov 14, 2002

I wish to put forth the following as a possible change in our Code of Laws. This issue has to deal with the Election of Governors, and I believe provides a reasonable balance between complexity, necessity, and fairness.

* Any change in our provincial borders that ADDS or REMOVES a Senatorial (Gubernatorial) position must be deferred until the next gubernatorial election.

This will prevent unfairly removing able-bodied governors in the event of the dissolution of a province. In the case of newly made provinces, it guarantees the citizens have the right to vote for their governor.

Discuss!

Chieftess · Nov 14, 2002

I agree. That's why I brought that point up.

GenMarshall · Nov 14, 2002

I would Agree on that

Originaly from Veeraany change in our provincial borders that ADDS or REMOVES a Senatorial (Gubernatorial) position must be deferred until the next gubernatorial election..

Not only it eliminates Able-bodied Govenors it also does not let there Deputies shine and pick up skills from there Govenor. This addition to the Rules for Govenors would be a great improvement to preserve our Govenors and Future Govenors.

disorganizer · Nov 15, 2002

if we change the provincial borders only at the end of the term, this clause would be obsolete.
see other proposal-threads... we should concentrate on one discussion about provincial rules, not on many.

Cyc · Nov 15, 2002

I like the clause that Veera wrote up. You may feel that it's redundant, Dis, but under certain circumstances, it may be necessary to enact/enable new Provincial Boundries before the end of the month. We need to have our borders pre-defined. But we can wait until the end of the term to elect Governors. The Domestic Dept. can handle cities in unofficial Provinces until such time as a Governor can be elected. So it may not be a redundant clause after all. Which means there is nothing wrong with starting this thread.

disorganizer · Nov 15, 2002

cyc: you know the mysteries of burried threads... i just want to streamline the discussion over provincial rules into one thread to have it up in one proposal to prevent conflicting rules...

and btw:
the above proposal does not enable us to define the borders. it will force us to delay the border definition until the end of the term... which is exactly what is discussed in the other thread.

anyways i dont care where to discuss them anyways, i just wanted to state that there was another similar discussion going on.

Shaitan · Nov 15, 2002

I prefer putting more people into office so wouldn't agree with witholding a gubernatorial seat until the next election. I do agree that a border change that removes or reduces the territory controlled by a sitting governor should not be implemented until the next election cycle.

disorganizer · Nov 15, 2002

Another option we could implement:
Let a governor of a newly aquired province be normally elected in mid-term. And dont reeelect it at the following regular election. The worst which can happen is that a governor is in his seat for 2 terms instead of 1, and what will propably happen is that he is in for 1.5 terms.... who cares?

Shaitan · Nov 15, 2002

That would require a lot of work and at least one constitutional change, dis. All offices are filled via elections at the beginning of the month.

Bill_in_PDX · Nov 15, 2002

I would prefer not limit new governor positions to the next election cycle.

I would support changes that require border changes that effect city count in a province (note, I don't say land tiles), should be implimented at day one of the next term.

Veera Anlai · Nov 15, 2002

Well we could have special elections for new governors, rather than waiting for a new term. Either would be fine, although I believe the first option would be more convenient.

Octavian X · Nov 15, 2002

If we had special elections for governors, our entire system of appointement for vacant offices would need to be changed. It wouldn't be fair to have a double standard for Council, Judicial, and Gubenatorial appointments. Besides, all of these positions need to be filled rapidly to ensure the game runs smoothly.

I wouldn't be in favor of this rule change being enforced flat out. Usually, if border changes are proposed, the matter is much more urgent. We could end up with the an overworked domestic department of goveror because of a lack of border change.
I would favor an option of allowing the president to invoke this clause if he feels the the border change isn't urgent.

Veera Anlai · Nov 15, 2002

If we had special elections for governors, our entire system of appointement for vacant offices would need to be changed. It wouldn't be fair to have a double standard for Council, Judicial, and Gubenatorial appointments. Besides, all of these positions need to be filled rapidly to ensure the game runs smoothly.

I disagree Octavian. The governor positions are the only place where new positions can be added and old ones can be removed. That is different from filling positions made vacant by retirements. As such, they fall into a fundamentally different category, which is closer in similarity to positions being filled at the beginning of the game (CoS.G.10.E) rather than refilling vacant ones.

Octavian X · Nov 15, 2002

I must have misunderstood you. However, I still would like newly created provinces to have their governors picked immeadiately to relieve some burden from the domestic department/governors. Remember, we just don't change borders willy-nilly. These changes are made from neccesity.

Also, this would deny some opertunity from rising stars in the democracy game. When I first entered the democracy game, I was appointed governor. Now, I'm VP (better title, less work

).Then again, the province had already been defined. Why, though, should we cut off this opertunity to new players?

Veera Anlai · Nov 15, 2002

I'm of the opinion that it would be more likely for a President to appoint his close friends rather than new players Octavian... Now would your case be the exception, or the rule...? :confused:

Octavian X · Nov 15, 2002

It was my second day after join the democracy game when it was Phoenatica, I believe. In a recent war with Greece, we had gained three cities in a pre-defined province, as well as approved our current rule set. Chieftess, then president, posted a thread asking for nominaitions for Governor of Istar (capital province, removed from domestic dept. control), Public Defender (new posistion), and governor of a new, yet to be named province.

I posted and applied for the gov's job. No one really knew who I was, and I had 70 posts. No one wanted the job, so I got the province and named it Scythia.

As you see, depending on the president, newbies or experienced vets, can get jobs. After my experience, and placed in the position where I had to appoint someone, depending on the position, I would favor giving a newbie a chance.

Cyc · Nov 16, 2002

I still believe that the original clause in the first post is a good one. Octavian weren't you stating how offended by you were and how opposed to you were of the 0/0 council spot vote? It may be a stretch for you now to realize it, but the scenario stated above can be one comparable to that. Haven't I heard a majority of citizens say that we need to close to mega-loopholes in the laws of the Nation? That's one thing this clause does. This is the Vets not wanting change to their stuffy conservative ways when a good back-up plan comes along presented by a newbie. I choke on the scent of poofy wigs being drawn out of dusty draws as you people move to shoot down an excellent plan. If you look at it close enough, you'll see that there is not much of a difference between this proposed clause, which you point at and claim obtrusive and unnecessary, and the proposal you hold high and claim to be the answer. Oh yeah, there is a major difference, Veera hasn't been here as long as you. You know better.

As I stated before this proposed clase would close a back-door loophole that may arrive because of a situation brought on by the current laws or another proposed clause. Let's put it in action.

Shaitan · Nov 16, 2002

On the contrary, Cyc. Veera has very quickly gained my respect as a thoughtful and thought provoking poster.

Regarding newbie appointments: The fellow defending me in my PI is a newbie that I appointed. I have no problem appointing someone who is new. I am more impressed by initiative than the date on someone's Citizen Registry post.

Question: How would a special election be handled? A normal election cycle takes 6 to 8 days, which is a major reason why we don't do them mid term, IMHO.

Cyc · Nov 16, 2002

In a way Shaitan I agree with you. Why waste all that time and effort for special elections. Because, I believe Veera's first clause was shot down so much, she fell back to the idea of special elections (grabbing for straws). The true worth of this clause (and hopefully Veera and I are on the same page as far as intent) is not to get some one into the position quickly, but 1. safegaurd the position for the person that is currently filling it and 2. safegaurding the position until it can be filled legally by end of term elections. It is not a "let's hurry up and get this thing done with" plan. It's a law or standard that would sit on the books until this uncommon situation should arise per chance, where someone bright enough would go looking for a law that covers it. It's not an over-bearing clause where we all say "well, we can't do this, because Veera's clause won't let us". It just sits there (so to speak) until it needs to be put in action as a safety net to catch loop-holers (a new term

). Anyway please don't concentrate on special elections as that was not the original intent.

Shaitan · Nov 16, 2002

I think that there is not as much urgency to fill a created position as a vacated one and I do think it is very important to fill it even when it's created mid term. I wouldn't support a rule that kept the office vacant until the next elections but I'm willing to entertain the idea of special elections for these rare occurences. Since they'd be "special" they don't need to follow the long process of the regular elections. I'm interested in what people can think of to streamline the election process and make a mid-term special election practical.

Proposed change in our provincial procedures (Governors)

Southern Belle

Moderator

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent

Deity

Looking for the door...

Deity

der Besucher

Deity

der Besucher

Grumpy Submariner

Southern Belle

is not a pipe.

Southern Belle

is not a pipe.

Southern Belle

is not a pipe.

Looking for the door...

der Besucher

Looking for the door...

der Besucher

Similar threads