It would be possible to continue to include regional governance in this proposal, where participants can also contribute to regional legislatures or vote for governors, however I think this will lead to one of two problems:
1) Participants would nominate whether they participate in regional or national governance - however this would likely reduce the number of people actively involved at a national level, may not provide enough members for it to advance at a regional level and most likely will simply lead to a point where neither level can function efficiently, or,
2) Participants could participate in the national legislature (as per my model) and at a regional level. This removes the concerns of a lack-of-activity implosion, but leads to problems relating to members holding dual offices.
I therefore believe that the best way to proceed is to acknowledge the regions (through regional caucusing for Senate votes and Supreme Court Justices, as per one suggestion I received), to restrain the role of the national government (to prevent it assuming regional responsibilities) or to define the rights of the regions (and thus restraining the national government) and to consider the game to be the national component only of a larger system.
What if we, for the most part, keep the regions the same, but Governors and any regional office holder would not be allowed to serve in the upper house.
Based on the party system that would fall into play, would you see either minor parties merging into major parties or major parties splitting into smaller parties, or would there be little effect?
