NON on 53RZ01

[Ian Plätschisch]

Esteemed members of the Ziu,

I am very much in favor of merging provinces. However, we should do so with regard to existing borders so that the result makes sense. There are plenty of options for combining provinces that preserve contiguity, so there is no reason to pick an option that does not.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Where is it written that territorial contiguity is a necessity, or even a good thing?

Is it important enough to you to not allow the people of the Riverside provinces to have their will enacted?

[Ian Plätschisch]

From a derivatist perspective, the purpose of dividing a country into provinces is to provide local government for a certain area. Non-contiguous provinces do not achieve this purpose because they put disparate areas under the same "local" government.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

May 1, 2019 15:30:26 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

From a derivatist perspective, the purpose of dividing a country into provinces is to provide local government for a certain area. Non-contiguous provinces do not achieve this purpose because they put disparate areas under the same "local" government.

From a derivatist perspective, it's nothing that real countries don't do all the time.

If you really have objections to territorial discontinuity, you should be campaigning for Maricopa to join the fusion. They'd be welcome.

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 1, 2019 15:41:07 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

May 1, 2019 15:30:26 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

From a derivatist perspective, the purpose of dividing a country into provinces is to provide local government for a certain area. Non-contiguous provinces do not achieve this purpose because they put disparate areas under the same "local" government.

From a derivatist perspective, it's nothing that real countries don't do all the time.

I'm quite aware of this, although I'm pretty sure that most exclaves occur because of historical circumstances and most countries would prefer not to have them. I will also point out that these are borders between multiple countries and not something that a single country does to itself.

If you really have objections to territorial discontinuity, you should be campaigning for Maricopa to join the fusion. They'd be welcome.

I wouldn't object to this in principle, although I would be concerned that merging three provinces into one might not leave enough population for other mergers (since the best plan in my opinion would be four mergers of two provinces each).

[Munditenens Tresplet]

May 1, 2019 15:41:07 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

If you really have objections to territorial discontinuity, you should be campaigning for Maricopa to join the fusion. They'd be welcome.

As a Maricopan, I would happily consider a canton swap to allow for a continuous province (and plan to discuss this topic in our Cabana this term), but our province is so awesome we wouldn't want to join the fusion.

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 1, 2019 16:01:09 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

May 1, 2019 15:41:07 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

If you really have objections to territorial discontinuity, you should be campaigning for Maricopa to join the fusion. They'd be welcome.

As a Maricopan, I would happily consider a canton swap to allow for a continuous province (and plan to discuss this topic in our Cabana this term), but our province is so awesome we wouldn't want to join the fusion.

There is no canton swap that would make the new province contiguous unless Maricopa and Fiova switched places altogether (which might have been what you meant). I would not have any problem with that, but it is not included in this bill.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

May 1, 2019 16:06:24 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

May 1, 2019 16:01:09 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

As a Maricopan, I would happily consider a canton swap to allow for a continuous province (and plan to discuss this topic in our Cabana this term), but our province is so awesome we wouldn't want to join the fusion.

There is no canton swap that would make the new province contiguous unless Maricopa and Fiova switched places altogether (which might have been what you meant). I would not have any problem with that, but it is not included in this bill.

There may not be specific cantons (and I don't know because I haven't looked into it much yet), but wouldn't it be possible to trade a small upper portion of Fiova in exchange for a small strip of land that connects Fiova and Florencia? It may look like a gerrymandered province, but at least they'd be technically connected. It would leave Maricopa "landlocked" of course, between Fiova and Florencia.

Something like this maybe?

(Red is New Maricopa; ignore the border I forget to remove in between)

And as a disclaimer, I'm not completely advocating either for the idea or the map. I'm just suggesting that it's possible, and that I'm open to starting discussions in Maricopa about the idea.

[Ian Plätschisch]

The issue with that configuration is, when we (hopefully) start the process of merging other provinces, we would find ourselves without a province to merge Maricopa with.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

May 1, 2019 17:35:54 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

The issue with that configuration is, when we (hopefully) start the process of merging other provinces, we would find ourselves without a province to merge Maricopa with.

That's no issue! Like I said before, Maricopa is the best and we stand alone!

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

May 1, 2019 15:48:26 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

most countries would prefer not to have them. I will also point out that these are borders between multiple countries and not something that a single country does to itself.

I just remembered that territorial discontinuity is enshrined in Talossan history. I refer you to pages 95-6 of the 1992 History of the Kingdom of Talossa, which discusses the influence of the unlamented Bantustan of Bophutatswana on Talossan geography.

[Lüc da Schir]

My issue is slightly different, and it was the same opposition I had to the MM-VD fusion: it doesn't take into account the bigger picture. I'm not opposed to provincial mergers, mind you, but I'd greatly prefer to see a general overhaul that brought us down to (say) just four feasible provinces, rather than merging two and leaving the rest up in the air.

That said, I actually sort of like Glüc da Dhi 's proposal in the shoutbox (KA+CZ, VD+BE, MA+MM). You could even move some cantons around to make all provinces contiguous (save for KA+CZ of course). Again though, unless a general provincial reform happens, I'd be reluctant to vote for bills that leave 3/4ths of provinces unreformed, hung out to dry.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

May 2, 2019 4:58:07 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

My issue is slightly different, and it was the same opposition I had to the MM-VD fusion: it doesn't take into account the bigger picture. I'm not opposed to provincial mergers, mind you, but I'd greatly prefer to see a general overhaul that brought us down to (say) just four feasible provinces, rather than merging two and leaving the rest up in the air.

What you seem to be saying is that no province should act until all provinces are ready to act.

This takes the possibility of any initiative out of the hands of the provinces themselves, and makes sure progress will move at the speed of the slowest and most obstructionist.

I am totally agnostic on the idea of a general merger of provinces, btw. I am completely of the opinion that the provinces themselves should choose. There is no reason to force mergers, nor to prevent them.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Looking at the map, we could solve ALL these problems by including Maritiimi-Maxhestic in the fusion.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Connection is overrated, particularly as we do not exercise sovereignty over that land as it is. But even if we did, there is plenty of precedent for discontinuous polities. Virginia's Eastern Shore, Michigan's Upper Peninsula, the initial partition of India and Pakistan [not an amazing example, I know], Rhode Island's Newport County, Alaska... etc. I cannot help but feel that the will of the people of a province is far more important that "geographical realities."

I also am deeply skeptical about a top-down reorganization of the provinces. Put simply, there is too much at stake to trust it to a form of central planning. However, if an active people of a province see a problem and seek a merger, this is a different kettle of fish. It is an actual response to the situation on the ground.