I'm working out the kinks in the politics of my world.
Each city has elected senators. Several cities per province. Each province on my world has a chancellor. I'd like there to be a prime chancellor, in charge of all three provinces on the continent. So:
Three provinces on my continent, each has a ruling chancellor and several cities. Each city has numerous senators.
A prime chancellor (and perhaps governing body) over the entire continent.
Does this structure make sense? Are there any kerfuffles you spot? Like bad terminology. I think chancellor is vague enough to work for a vaguely-defined ruling position of power, on another world. I suspect the senators choose their provincial chancellor.
You can imagine all the people as elves if you like.
Question: Is it feasible that a continent with three provinces, each province with multiple cities, would have:
1. Elected city senators that, as a body, select a
2. provincial chancellor and there is a continental
3. prime chancellor, who has a larger scope of governance?
Edit: More detail: Each city has a senate. The senators are normally elected, but can be appointed, thus room for corruption. The senate writes the laws for their cities. There is no provincial senate.
The provincial chancellor is chosen by the senate bodies.
I researched Chancellor before posting. It has a long history and is used in many ways from the courts to the church to foreign affairs to head of state.
What I am trying to do is
avoid something that people will mock, for example:
"The queen is elected by the parliament."
While those words are to do with governance, many of us would think queen should be somewhat ceremonial and inherited (a bias, but good to be aware of it) and would wonder why the parliament was electing her. Why not have a prime minister to head parliament?
^ That's the sort of thing I'd like to avoid, and I am curious if my structure sets off those sorts of niggles.