NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a big topic and it deserves a thread according to us.

The debate at hand is whether or not we are going to keep the current system of a rotating member and how it is going to evolve.

To quote Fred, from the Commonwealth of Balligomingo :

I'd like to summarize our options :
1) One constant delegate – this would require a method to impeach and replace the delegate should X number of nations desire a change.
2) A rotation schedule – this gives all nations a chance to gain first hand experience in the UN. However, the schedule needs to be documented along with a method to allow new Confederations members to join the schedule.
3) Periodic elections for the delegate – the election period would be a great way to learn what a give potential delegates philosophy is on matters of interest to the other member nations.

Balligomingo and Tropical Montana's positions are for option 3.
Tropical Montana has raised the issue that the current implementation of option 2 is not working because of the lack of documentation and transparency.

Scvecia's position is for option 2.
Scvecia has raised the issue that it is the responsability of all members to insure the smooth working of the system.

Maybe it is worth to note however that Scvecia is the founder of the region if that is relevant.

The position of Psylos is this one :

Either 3 options are acceptable but need to be perfected and adapted to our need. We believe option 2 to be the more suited because of the culture of the confederation and its experience with this system, but that is is time to reform the system and to adapt it.
We suggest :
* Maintaining the rotating delegate but with a highest degree of organisation
* Selecting the members participating in the rotation according to the constitution but also according to the will of the members because it is useless to appoint a nation which is not interested in a delegate position as delegate.
* reducing the delegate periode to 1 week.
* using this thread to keep track of the delegates turns.
* starting over the cycle, Tropical Montana being the first delegate of the nex cycle, Balligomingo being the second.

Please add your thought, position and discuss the issue.

Anyway, if we are going to keep the current system, I suggest we only include the members who are going to express their desire to be included in the cycle here.

Psylos is willing to be included in the cycle of rotating delegates.

I believe I can safely say that Tropical Montana is also willing to be included and I'm not sure about the other members.


Also we can debate here whether or not it is a good idea for the UN membership to be mandatory in the region. We believe it is not because it will impose resolution on nations not willing to be involved in the UN.

On the other hand, after thinking more about it, the problem with this system is that most members do not log often enough to switch their endorsment in time. We suggest we all endorse all members and we appoint a delegate manager whose responsibility will be to follow up the cycle and endorse the right delegate when it is time.

Anyway, here is the cycle of delegates, to be edited as members express their will to be part of the cycle (I just add Tropical Montana as this nation expressed clearly its will on the confederation forum) :

Tropical Montana
Sailaway
Elleuse
Eauz
Middletown
Psylos

On the other hand, after thinking more about it, the problem with this system is that most members do not log often enough to switch their endorsment in time. We suggest we all endorse all members and we appoint a delegate manager whose responsibility will be to follow up the cycle and endorse the right delegate when it is time.

This is a good idea. When I first arrived, I went to all the nations, and those who seemed to share my political views got my endorsement automatically. This endorsement means nothing until the member endorsed becomes regional delegate. I do believe, however, that the member with the most endorsements automatically becomes delegate. So this idea of a delegate manager is an excellent idea. I propose that Svecia (by virtue of being the region's founder) would make a good manager. By having all of us endorse each other, we would have equal numbers of endorsements, and then Svecia's endorsement would rotate to the member whose turn it is to be delegate, thus giving that member one more endorsement than everyone else, and instantly becoming delegate with Svecia's endorsement.

I also support the idea that only those who desire to be included in the rotation be eligible for UN delegation. Makes no sense sending a delegate that doesn't log on but once a week or less, or that has no interest in taking on this responsibility. Nor do I think that UN membership should be mandatory.

I would support Option 2 (rotating delegation) as it seems a fair and evenhanded way to do things. But, as Psylos pointed out, I would like to see it better organized and more transparent.

However, I still would prefer to see Option 3 implemented. My reasons for this is that I feel the delegate has a representational responsibility to the members whose endorsements they hold. By voting for the delegate we feel will best represent our views, we will get more responsible action from our delegate. Case in point: Lindia has been voting on issues without so much as asking anyone how they feel about it, and has gone so far as to dismiss (quite rudely, I might add) anyone else's opinion. This is not fair to those who have endorsed her to represent them in the UN. I withdrew my endorsement of Lindia because of this. I do not want her to get an extra vote on my account, if she isn't taking my opinions INTO account. By electing the delegate, we can be sure that all our voices will be heard when it comes to choosing the way the delegate will vote on our behalf. If my opinion is in the minority, I would not remove my endorsement--as long as the delegate is being responsible to the majority and following their recommendation, my endorsement would stay intact.

Svecia pointed out that electing the delegate would become a popularity contest. Well, if a nation is popular for holding similar views as other nations, and for being concerned about the opinions of other nations, I don't see this as a bad thing. Isn't that what democracy is all about? Why should someone become delegate if no one else agrees with their philosophies? It puts a rogue in office, and the rest of us are held hostage to their policies. This is the problem with taking turns at the delegate position when there is no accountabliity involved.

Perhaps we could combine points of Option 2 and Option 3-- rotate the delegation, but make that delegate subject to the majority of voices. A forum thread can be set up for member nations to voice their stand on the issue at vote. Not speaking up implies abstention, and the delegate should make their vote as to the majority of nations speaking up. That would make the delegate accountable to those they represent. Failing to vote with the majority would be grounds for instant dismissal. This will keep the delegate from going on a power trip contrary to the other members. We will all rest easy knowing that our UN delegate is acting responsibly to its constituents, and we would all get a chance to hold the position if we wanted to. That seems like the fairest option of all.

Balligomingo would like to propose a compromise between option 2 and 3. Option 2 has the advantage that all nations get a chance to experience being a UN delegate. Having that chance makes the Confederation exciting. Option 3 offers a vehicle to learn what a potential delegate's philosophy is. The discussion of various political views should create some interesting threads. However, Svecia is correct in stating that elections can easily become popularity contests.

Note – looks as if Tropical Montana posted this idea ahead of me. For the record below is Balligomingo's position.

So here is what I see as an optional compromise:
1) Document a rotation schedule. As Psylos has started the post needs to be maintained as to exactly who is in the rotation. Nations need to commit to being active in Nation States during their term in office or else pass it on to the next nation if their schedule will not permit active participation. Note – (I think anything less than two weeks doesn't give you much of a chance to experience being a delegate.)
2) Perhaps it is not a requirement to be a UN member to join the region but obviously you have to be a UN member to be a delegate.
3) Thought needs to be given as to how to ensure that a delegate can't suddenly take over the region.
4) To minimize the issue of a delegate not reflecting the views of the region the delegate should be required to post a forum thread to give the members of the Confederation a chance to hear the delegate's views on an issue, both proposals and resolutions, and express their own feelings. (Delegate requirements for each UN resolution - Post a link to the discussion thread in the region; in the thread document the resolution, document the delegate's position, document their reasoning behind the position)
5) The UN states: Regular UN member nations each get one vote. Regional Delegates, however, get an additional vote for every UN member in their region who endorses them. This can makes Delegates from large regions quite powerful. Delegates also have the unique ability to approve proposals, deciding which of them will become resolutions to be voted on by the entire UN, and which are silently dispatched into the night never to be heard from again. A proposal needs 6% of all Delegates to approve it to become a resolution.
6) As Svecia stated: "it is the responsibility of everyone to change there delegate endorsements". Perhaps failure to do so within X number of days moves that Nation to the bottom of the rotation.

Fred
Water Brother &
Minister of International Relations

Tropical Montana agrees with Balligomingo that a 2 week term as delegate is the most reasonable amount of time to be able to fully experience the position, yet not so long that it keeps others from having the same experience in a timely manner.

As far as dropping someone to the bottom of the rotation for failing to endorse, I am not so sure about this. Unless the delegate nation has committed to going with the majority opinion of the UN members, I don't think that endorsement should be required. Besides, this would punish the nation next in line for delegation more than it would the one who has just completed their term (and is already on the bottom of the rotation at that point). I think that being able to withhold one's endorsement is a good leverage point for encouraging the delegate to vote with the majority of member nations, thus eliminating the probability of a rogue nation abusing delegatory power.

It has come to my attention that option 2 is subject to corruption. All it would take is a couple of nations withdrawing their endorsement of the nation whose turn it is to keep them from becoming delegate. Therefore, it seems that the only uncorruptible method would be electing the delegate we want by giving them our endorsement.

In light of this, Tropical Montana wishes to announce that it is campaigning to become the next regional delegate. Our UN delegate, Jorgo Wenslai, has committed to voting in accordance with the majority of opinions voiced on the resolutions up for vote in the UN. He will entertain all discussion of the resolutions in open forums for transparency and accountability. We believe that this will ensure that the member nations are adequately represented in the UN voting. Our own personal politics will only play a part in the decision in the case of a deadlock among those members voicing opinions. Those not participating in the discussion would be assumed to be abstaining.

Also, we would like to assure member nations that we have no intention of holding the office permanently, as we would like to see other nations have the opportunity as well (as long as they agree to go with the majority voice in deciding their vote). We would agree to any term limits posed by the consensus of member nations.

I propose that starting Dec.3, all those wishing to go along with this suggestion add their endorsement of Tropical Montana. (this delay allows for two things: one, to give other nations a chance to campaign for the position, and , two, lets me get back from vacation before my term starts.)

Vote for a Voice in the UN--endorse Tropical Montana on Mon.,Dec. 2nd!!

An endorsement of Tropical Montana is a vote for democracy in UN voting.

Any of the systems seem to be possible for corruption. Basically the reason i joined this Union was i found it when they were first purposing the Constitution. I like the fact that the rotating Delegates where every one would get a turn (that is as long as they we left leaning). We have had some problems and is from what i see mostly from people forgetting to remove endorsements after endorsing another person.

now on a more personal note, I only play this game during the day at work...it takes up about 5 mins to review the proposals then a few more mins checking out what everyone have written in the last 24hours and often i'll check out a few threads on the message boards. so i rarely spend much more the 20mins a week day on this. I do spend more when it is my turn to become delegate just because i believe it is my duty to hold up the ideals of our confederation, and do what i can to spread the word around here. Up till now that has be plenty. I had some fun with the problems we had a little while ago but work does come first and i was unable to complete what i was planning on doing. I was also Planning on skipping my next delegate rotation for the fact i wasn't going to have time this round, but i would be more then happy to take up the torch next one.

order of rotation (last time it was posted, not including new members)
Svecia
Lindia
Udlandover
Middleton
Psylos
Tropical Montana
(then new folks)

I would be more then happy to start that rotation with Psylos on a weekly basis now. That would mean TM you would have it starting on or about Dec 2nd.

If a delegate is supposed to vote based on the pressure of the majority then what is the point of being regional delegate? We might as well have a nation that doesn't do anything but vote for everyone be delegate then. My intention with the rotating delegate was to allow for everyone to have the status of being delegate but also to be able to get those extra votes once in a while.

I saw in other regions how much politiking there was and how disorganized they were with multiple camps forming and bouncing their positions off of each other, sometimes violently. In my opinion, voting causes a lot of grief and forms bad rapport between members. Maybe the rotation isn't necessary anymore though, and having a rotation that votes according to the majority is fine so that everyone still gets the prestige or status of being a delegate. But by having the majority rule, the delegate becomes the region's biatch so to speak. I didn't want anyone to be the ultimate ruler of this region. Liberalism is supposed to support equality for all. By now electing someone to be delegate it makes that nation out to be a god in the region in my opinion.

I would also support Middleton's proposal to begin the rotation with Psylos and then we could also skip my own turn and Lindia's turn when the time comes. I believe two weeks is a little long and one week a little short for delegate term, but something like 10 days becomes a pain to calculate and remember. It also seems that the proposal to have everyone endorse everyone else might work. I don't think there would be any corruption though, at least not with this group at the moment. We've done fine so far and no group or individual has attempted to take over the spot. I don't forsee this being a problem in the future. And if something like that did happen, hopefully there would be enough UN members still left to sway the number of endorsements to someone else. Even if there weren't they would most likely be a way to negotiate.

I personally believe that if one wants to premote me for delegate, then that is fine, but I think a delegate should be someone who is majoritally voted by the UN members. Those who are not members, will not be affected by decisions. But I also believe that the members should have a say into what is going on.

So for those who like my region, support me, but don't support me just because it's my turn to be Delegate...

Thanks

The Commonwealth of Balligomingo wishes to clarify our position. The main consensus reached so far seems to be the preference for a two-week term for the UN Delegate. That being the case the people of Balligomingo would not support an election process for the delegate. It is our option that bi-monthly elections would consume too much of the Confederations resources just to determine who the next delegate is. When we first proposed an election process we had in mind a month long term. After reflecting on the input of the members of the Confederation Balligomingo agrees that a two-week term is preferable.

It is also clear from the debate so far; that the rotation process needs to be well documented. In addition, Balligomingo feels that the UN Delegate office should be required to solicit the views of the Confederation before voting. The delegate should also be required to post their voting intention and the reasoning behind their decision.

Requiring the UN delegate to communicate with the Confederation should greatly reduce any misunderstandings concerning a given vote. Obviously there where still be times when a member will not agree with the delegate's decision. Knowing this in advance would give that nation a chance to remove their endorsement if they felt that strongly against the delegate's choice.

Fred
Water Brother &
Minister of International Relations

Svecia wrote, "I saw in other regions how much politiking there was and how disorganized they were with multiple camps forming and bouncing their positions off of each other, sometimes violently. In my opinion, voting causes a lot of grief and forms bad rapport between members. Maybe the rotation isn't necessary anymore though, and having a rotation that votes according to the majority is fine so that everyone still gets the prestige or status of being a delegate. But by having the majority rule, the delegate becomes the region's biatch so to speak. I didn't want anyone to be the ultimate ruler of this region. Liberalism is supposed to support equality for all. By now electing someone to be delegate it makes that nation out to be a god in the region in my opinion. "

First of all, if voting causes a lot of grief, then why is are we all democratic nations? Voting causes DEMOCRACY. And yes, some will be in the minority and have their toes stepped on some. We will all be on both sides of majority/minority at some point. That's the beauty of democracy.

Secondly, if the delegate is accountable to the member nations, this would NOT make them out to be any kind of god, but rather the spokesperson for the region, which, in my opinion is exactly what they should be.

The benefit of becoming delegate while still obligated to the constituency is, like Svecia mentions, the prestige and status, and also the experience of taking part in the greater politics of the world. So what if the delegate has to be accountable--they still get to participate in the practice of global democracy. That's my goal--to participate fully in local, regional, and world politics. I just want a turn, I don't want to be god and make decisions for everyone, I want to be their representative and voice the majority opinion of the regional members. And not permanently, either. I just want a turn at it.

Endorse Tropical Montana as your Voice in the UN!!!!

It appears that Tropical Montana's campaigning for the UN delegation spot has been even more successful than we anticipated. UN member nations have shown their eager desire to have a UN delegate that will fairly represent their views in voting on the UN resolutions. Our apologies for the sudden preemption of Udlandover's term as delegate, as this was not our intention. Even in our campaigning we spoke of a ten day election period.

I would take this sudden turn of events as an indication that the majority of UN member nations have agreed to allow for the "voting in" of a delegate by means of assigning their endorsement. However, we do not by any means take this as a final decision for the region. Term limits need to be set (two weeks seems reasonable). And perhaps we could come up with some kind of rotation/election compromise in which the next two regions up in the rotation campaign against each other for the spot, with the one not receiving as many votes being included in the following pair of candidates up for delegate. We hereby propose that Udlandover and Psylos be the two upcoming candidates, with voting/endorsement slated for Dec. 8. Then two weeks following that, it would be a choice between whichever of those didn't win the election vs. Balligomingo, the next nation on the rotation.

What do you all think of that system?

just wanted to make my self heard on the forums. :-)

just wanted to make my self heard on the forums. :-)

Posting in order to join thread!

Posting just for the hell of it (bored).

Personally, the system TM proposed sounds way too complicated to me. As of right now, there are only a few UN nations that seem to voice an opinion about anything we do and I think that voting would not help matters at all. I still say we keep the straight rotation without voting. The reason I endorsed you TM was because I thought we had decided to skip Udlandover's and Middleton's terms to get us back on track again and allow other nations to become delegates that haven't already. I haven't completely agreed to a voting system.

I for one like the idea of voting on who gets into office. If we are to just take turns then it would not seem right to me. Someone would get skipped, and then get cranky over it.

The system that TM has praposed I think would work the best.

I have read a number of post here and from other regions and I think this system would work best. It is a DEMOCRACY right? If we just take turns a few things can happen.

1. someone winds up in office a bit longer than agreed apoun by everyone else.
2. someone gets put in while not able to check in with and take care of there duties, There for missing out on what they could of done, and then going back to the bottom of the list.
3. The person that comes to office may not have wanted to be there.
4. The person in office may just do as they please and vote against what eveyone else wants them to vote for.

With TM's way. if a person fails to do there job then it is unlikely that they will get into the office again. Or they may after they reprove themselves to the rest of us.

I could go on and on with pro's and con's for each side but I wont. No system of getting into office is fool proof. Nor will everyone ever be happy. If it was fool proof and everyone was happy that would be great, but it will never work that way.

We understand Svecia's strive to keep appointment to UN delegacy simple, but we must implore that regardless of how we choose the delegate, guidelines must be set that accomadate all interested nations. For instance:
1. I will be unable to post or accept delegacy for about 28days :oops: , in the last weeks of Dec. and the first weeks of Jan. If my appointment comes up, do I just lose it for the next 40 weeks, or am I allowed back at the top of the rotation upon my return? and,
2. As sailaway noted, if we have a nation voting in their own vested interest and against the popular vote of the region, are they ousted?, are they ostrasized?, are they allowed to return to the rotation?
A protocol for course of action will have to be set and of course ammended as problems occur no matter what the method.

Here is the current status of the delegation rotation list as of 12/7/03

Udlandover
Psylos
(Holy Roman Empire -currently ineligible)
Her Sexiness
Sailaway
Elleuse
Balligomingo
Eauz
Spartanland
(Phallustine - currently ineligible)
Svecia
Middleton
Lindia
Tropical Montana - if eligible

I am assuming that we will try to stick to the rotation until a new system is proposed and approved. Just thought it would be useful to document the order in which every UN nation arrived, with those already having served as delegate being dropped to the bottom of the rotation.