Should we combine some provinces?

[Octavian X]

We have a bit of a problem on our hands. At the moment, there are three governorships open, one of which has been open all this month.

In the upcoming elections, we'll have a whooping at least 15 provinces that need governors. The question is, do we have enough acitve players to fill those positions?

To reduce this number drastically, I propose we combine a few of the newer provinces into larger ones, and, if need be, some of the older ones as well.

Thoughts?

 

[FortyJ]

Another potential solution would be to elect a fixed number of senators (ie. governors), and allow them to decide amongst themselves which provinces he or she controls. Thus the provinces would remain unchanged, but the governors could govern over numerous provinces.

For example, let's say we elect 5 senators. They would all be responsible for all the provinces, but each would be primarily responsible for 1 or more provinces. To divide the provinces amongst the senators, each could take turns picking provinces according to number of votes received (ie. highest vote getter selects first, then second highest, etc.).

Such a plan will make it easier to fill all positions each month, and would strengthen the power of the senate.

 

[naervod]

I like 40J's plan, although another alternative is to let people hold1 Governorship and 1 Judicial/Executive position, so if I ran for Chief Justice and Montis Abeo Gramen Governorship and won, I would hold both positions.

 

[Noldodan]

I'm having trouble picking between FortyJ's plan and naervod's...

 

[Strider]

I would rather have Octavian's plan... Let's combine some of the province's to reduce it to atleast 10. Maybe we should make a rule on a max number of province's we can have?

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

A max. Remember: DG1 had only 11. Here we have over 15. We should elect senators to run the provinces, not governors.
And perhaps give some actual use to the Senate.....

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
A max. Remember: DG1 had only 11. Here we have over 15. We should elect senators to run the provinces, not governors.
And perhaps give some actual use to the Senate.....

Then we would not have anymore govonors... and without govonors the only part of the senate we would have is the Vice President

 

[Chieftess]

How about this?

A player may run for 2 governorship posistions. But, if they run for 2 governorship posistions, they may not run for a non legislative posistion. If there are an odd number of provinces, the Vice President takes over the odd one.

 

[Octavian X]

It would be difficult to implement any changes to the number of positions a person may hold because any change would require a constitutional amendment. That process takes a while...

We could save ourselves a lot of legal work by simply reducing the number of governors by making larger provinces. I really don't want to see established provinces affected. I was thinking more along the lines of altering those western provinces that are currently governorless.

 

[Paalikles]

Could we not let the Domestic leader control all of the "suffering Fanatikan conquest"-provinces until we have done atta...err..defending
Pro:
Reduces "all" new ungoverned provinces to 1.
Gives more time to perhaps allow for a change in the Books

Con:
Much work for the DL
Pushes this problem into the future

Any thoughts?

 

[Chieftess]

A DL!? WHERE!?

Isn't that what we do already? All governorless provinces are controlled by the Domestic Leader.

 

[Paalikles]

Yes. But it is you who have posted all the 24 different governmental positions....You could have posted less if we continued to have the domestic leader (DL) in control of those provinces.

 

[Shaitan]

Our rules require that we offer every defined province up for a governor position at election time. What we could do is tie each of the decrepit provinces to a neighboring productive one to give new defacto provincial lines and require fewer governors. This is similar to what Octavian is suggesting.

Pros: No rule changes needed.
Cons: Can't see any.