Cabinet vote for Change in the Constitution - Governors and Provinces

[Shaitan]

This proposed change will allow the geographic based provinces and also clears up who the governor is during expansion between election years. It also deals with tile use across provincial borders.

This Cabinet Poll will remain active until midnight GMT on Thursday, April 25. All Cabinet Members should vote YES, NO or ABSTAIN. In the event of a tie the President will cast the tie breaking vote.

Special thanks to Donsig for his original proposal write up.

Original:
Section H:Gouvernor's:

Point 1: A gouvernor control's and decide's over 5 city's.

Point 2: The Domestic leader is also the gouvernor over the first 5 city's. (the core city's)


Proposed Change:

Section H: Governors and Provinces

Point 1: A governor controls the production (building queues) of the cities within a province. A governor's production decision can be overturned by a cabinet vote.

Point 2: Provincial borders are geography based and will be approved by a cabinet vote. A Province may contain any number of cities. As new territory is explored, additional provinces will be defined. Provincial borders should be defined well ahead of territorial expansion.

Point 3: The Domestic leader is the governor of the capitol province. The citizens elect governors for other provinces. Gubernatorial elections are held for all provinces that contain at least 1 city.

Point 4: The Domestic leader is the defacto governor for provinces acquired between election years. A special election will be held for a new governor when a newly acquired province has 3 or more cities.

Point 5: The Governor controls tile use within his/her province when those tiles lie within a city radius. If Province A wishes to use tiles from Province B that are within the city radius of a Province B city, Governor A must get permission from Governor B. If no city in Province B could use the tiles, Governor A would not need Governor B's permission to use them.

 

[Shaitan]

YES

 

[eyrei]

Yes. Does this amendment intend to imply that a province can have more than 5 cities? If so, I support it even more, and think you should state it clearly to avoid confusion later.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by eyrei
Yes. Does this amendment intend to imply that a province can have more than 5 cities? If so, I support it even more, and think you should state it clearly to avoid confusion later.

It sure does. I have added "A Province may contain any number of cities" to Point 2.

 

[Cyc]

I pretty much like the proposal and would vote yes, but I need
clarification between the last line in point #3 and the last line in point #4. Do they cover the same thing? Do they point in different directions? Which one has priority?

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Cyc
I pretty much like the proposal and would vote yes, but I need
clarification between the last line in point #3 and the last line in point #4. Do they cover the same thing? Do they point in different directions? Which one has priority?

Point 3 is regular elections, point 4 is for expansion between regular elections. The Domestic leader is the defacto governor for newly acquired provinces until those provinces hit 3 cities. At that point a special election is held for a genuine governor. Any province with at least 1 city is part of the regular (30 day) elections.

Added "newly acquired" to Point 4 for clarity.

 

[Cyc]

Thank you Shaitan. I vote yes.

 

[Charis]

This proposal seems to clarify and expand the role of the governors, and help better understand a province.

The only problem seems to be...

What is a province?

Is it an area 'about right for 5 cities' that will start out with one, may end up with less than five, or may end up with more.
One of two things will happen: they will all be around size 5 or as we expand they will end up being huge regions of hopelessly corrupt cities.

It would help to clarify how large a province is and how it will be decided.

Overall on this proposal, it's a move toward greater involvement of people as governors, but... I just think it's going to be unwieldy. If we end up with 80ish cities, or around 15 provinces, then every turn we'll need each of them to post a queue, and perhaps cabinet votes needing to change these if something is not in the greater interest of Phoenatica. Proposals like these mirror the game concept I dubbed 'Republic' where authority is decentralized to a high degree.

If this proposal does get adopted, there's one issue that concerns me: finance. Once you get past the province surrounding the capital, you're left with majorly corrupt cities that can't pay for themselves (more upkeed and maintenance costs than they generate). If 'Federal funding' must be used to even sustain the cities, they shouldn't be calling for expensive new city improvements. That is, a province either pays for itself or lets the Fed decide what will be built.

My vote? No.
I would rather not see this game switch to a Republic. If the amendment is passed, I'm fine with it and will support it , but just (imo) not the best direction for us to take.

General Charis

 

[eyrei]

But Charis, this is called the democracy game.

Anyway, I do not think that having 80 cities would be a very good idea either. The format of this game lends itself better to one of the non-military forms of victory. Once we have 25-30 cities, we should probably stop expanding, for the very reason that it becomes unwieldy.

Interesting point about the funding. This would probably require another amendment, but I suggest that any city that cannot actually pay for the upkeep of a new improvement should have to seek the approval of the domestic advisor. I do not really see this being a problem with the empire the size it is now, but any new or conquered cities to the east may encounter this problem.

We must seek a happy medium between a very centralized government and a very democratic one. Too far towards centralization and the people lose all power, and probably interest. Too far towards democracy, and the game would probably grind to a halt. The game definately moves quickly when all of the decisions are simply made by the ministers, as we saw with the first few turn chats. There were, however, complaints from citizens that too much power was in the hands of the ministers. As we have tried to give more voice to the people, the game has noticeably slowed down. It still moves at a decent pace though, and this leads me to believe we should model the governors power after that of the domestic leader. Basically, the governor makes decisions, and if more than one person publicly disagrees, a poll should be posted. This should not overwhelm the forum with gubernatorial polls, as most of the time cities do not finish improvements at the same time. I suggest we allow Skilord and myself to try it this way for a while and see how it works.

PS. As long as your strategies keep working, Charis, you will probably be allowed by the people to handle the military without much democratic polling. Your department is unique in that way, and mirrors the way militaries work in democracies in real life. The elected officials say where and when to fight, and the military fights however it sees fit. However, should a couple of things go wrong, you may find yourself forced to post polls on military actions. I hope it does not come to that, as that would actually bog the game down pretty badly during war time.

 

[Civanator]

i vote yes

 

[Charis]

Eyrei,

Good points Not much to disagree with.

I think you caught I'm not anti-democracy, but have a little different view from the rest on what it means in this game context. Now since I *wasn't* involved in anyway in the first demo game, if something worked well or worked awful there I'll have to trust those that have been through it.

> Anyway, I do not think that having 80 cities would be a very
> good idea either. The format of this game lends itself better to
> one of the non-military forms of victory. Once we have 25-30
> cities, we should probably stop expanding, for the very reason
> that it becomes unwieldy.

True (but don't tell the other generals!) I was **really** hoping we would have a mini-continent with maybe two other civs that would take over in early age, done by about Gunpowder, and that's it for conquest. Then we end up in a pangaea rumble-of-the-ages!

> We must seek a happy medium between a very centralized
> government and a very democratic one. Too far towards
> centralization and the people lose all power, and probably
> interest. Too far towards democracy, and the game would
> probably grind to a halt.

Right again -- and it's only with reservations I suggest any points perceived as "non-democratic". We don't want to go too far that way. I guess my thinking is coming from the "we elect solid people with similar values to run the governement, and having made those choices, live with them." In no sector of big government do I see polls having *ANY* executive power, rather they indicate the will of the people. Ignore that will, and you get elected out of office.

> PS. As long as your strategies keep working, Charis, you will
> probably be allowed by the people to handle the military
> without much democratic polling. Your department is unique in
> that way, and mirrors the way militaries work in democracies in
> real life. The elected officials say where and when to fight, and
> the military fights however it sees fit. However, should a couple
> of things go wrong, you may find yourself forced to post polls
> on military actions.

Hehe, this thought has crossed my mind. I'll stick with the unique view of "When I see several viable strategies I'll definitely get polls on which way we want to go, and listen to them. I monitor several para-military organization threads. And *what* the military does is in many ways outside our domain. But when it comes to how... don't see polls dictating actions"
Now the President can always take poll output, decide against a Mil Department decision, and override it with cabinet support. Glad you recognize that department needs to act a little differently.

In other words I would do a lousy job at Domestic Leader unless I purposefully "changed my hat" (At work I wear two hats too, as Software Architect, my motto is "tell me what, not how", while as R&D director it's filled with building consensus, eliciting ideas and listening carefully to what all stakeholders think)

Thanks for your efforts here and elsewhere to maintain that 'balance of democracy' -- it will be tough as the game progresses.

General Charis

 

[Shaitan]

This vote is passed with 4 Assenting, 1 Dissenting, 0 Abstaining and 1 Absent.