NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that in the U.N. you should need more than a simple majority to pass a resolution. The last U.N. vote "Nuclear Non-proliferation Act" passed with less than a 3% margin. Personally i do not believe that less than 52% is not enough voters to tell the other 48% what they need to do. I think that in order to pass a resolution we should need to have at least a 60% majority, allowing for more agreement when a resolution is passed.

Look, it's not gonna be changed. I never knew a simple majority requirement was so offensive to some people. This is just a simple, free online game; if you'd rather be constrained by really dumb voting rules on legislation, I'd suggest running for Senate ... or resigning from the United Nations.

So who are you to say what does or doesnt happen in the U.N.? Your not a moderator, your not a delegate, and your not even a U.N. member. So then what are you and why do you feel you have the right to say something isn't going to happen in the U.N.?

Omigodtheykilledkenny's tone was a bit harsh, but he's effectively correct. Simple majority rules.

So who are you to say what does or doesnt happen in the U.N.? Your not a moderator, your not a delegate, and your not even a U.N. member. So then what are you and why do you feel you have the right to say something isn't going to happen in the U.N.?Maybe because I know it's not gonna happen ... ?

ok now that it is verified by a moderator i can agree but at least you guys could consider it in a future update of the game.

Why? We don't want it. Simple majority is how democracy works. No matter what limit we set it at, there will always be tight votes.

It's democracy as a spectator sport. Finestkind.

Why? We don't want it. Simple majority is how democracy works. No matter what limit we set it at, there will always be tight votes.

It's democracy as a spectator sport. Finestkind.

Indeed. For example:



HotRod: Pass the tequila, Kenny. This UN vote is so close it's making me thirsty.

Kenny: No problem.

HotRod: Oh! The sovereigntists are pulling ahead by a few hundred votes!

Kenny: Sweet! This is almost better than roleplaying insane characters.

HotRod: So true, man. Chips?

Why should we arbitrarily raise the number? What purpose does it serve? If we set it up to 60%, a bunch of people will start complaining about how a majority voted for this resolution or that resolution, but yet it didn't pass because it failed to meet the 60% mark. So really, we could set it at any number from 0 to 100 and we'd still hear complaints.

At least there is some cold hard logic to this one - it meets the term majority quite nicely.

Jeez, didnt expect so much critisism, but i guess i might try to explain myself. I was just figuring that we should raise the necessary majority because that way if a vote passed it would make it much stronger and therefore have much less chance of being repealed. With the last vote that passed by less than 3% i believe there is a very high chance that it will be repealed, Now tell me would you rather deal with the repealing of many controversial votes, or have the resolutions that do pass, pass with a strong majority so that it is unlikely to have the need to repeal it?

Why? We don't want it. Simple majority is how democracy works.Not in america. Over here majority vote does not rule, instead that flawed electoral college rules.

50% plus one is suffiecient as far as I know, and if you don't like, then there is always the repeal process that everyone seems to like. Personally, I think 50% plus one should stay and any resolution that achieves 75% should never be allowed to be repealed. Of course, I don't like repealling resolutions in the first place.

Jeez, didnt expect so much critisism, but i guess i might try to explain myself. I was just figuring that we should raise the necessary majority because that way if a vote passed it would make it much stronger and therefore have much less chance of being repealed. With the last vote that passed by less than 3% i believe there is a very high chance that it will be repealed, Now tell me would you rather deal with the repealing of many controversial votes, or have the resolutions that do pass, pass with a strong majority so that it is unlikely to have the need to repeal it?

Considering the resolution on the top of my "to-repeal" list passed with a wonderful 71% support, I honestly don't care. Every resolution has a chance at being repealed and I'd be more frustrated if we did raise the standard. The problem I have is that the forum debate has almost nothing to do with the chances of a resolution of passing. So if we kick a resolution's ass in the forum debate, there's still a decent chance it'll pass. I think my favorite of all time was Promotion of Solar Panels which charged out with a 75% support. Through the tremendous efforts of Telidia and an extensive forum debate in which just about every regular came out against the resolution, we were able to knock that down to 55%. Should it have passed with the 55%? YES! Absolutely. Yes, it was the most disgraceful resolution to have ever graced the UN books, but it should have passed with that support. Not one regular even commented on that matter. Why? Because we know there are much bigger problems out there

Resolutions that should've passed but failed - I think top of the list is Sapient Rights which got blown out with only 38% support. It still serves as a reminder for us when we're writing - especially when we consider the irony of the entire proposal. Reformentia - who wrote it - said if he had used Intelligent or Sentient instead of sapient, it would've passed. He actually did in his first draft, but we argued sapient because it was a tighter definition.

Representation in Taxation is probably the only NatSov based resolution that I FULLY support. It passed with a 54%. Repeal Chemical weapons - 51%. UNSA which was seen as an extraordinarily important resolution and made Hack's list of favorite resolutions even if it ended up being absolutely useless in the end - 58%. Repeal of the absolutely horrendous Legalize Prostitution - 53%. As you can see, a lot of REALLY good resolutions that should pass would have failed under your system.

Not in america. Over here majority vote does not rule, instead that flawed electoral college rules.
Which would be relevant if the United States was a democracy, but it isn't. It's a republic.de·moc·ra·cy (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy): 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

ma·jor·i·ty (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/majority): 3 a : a number greater than half of a totalIf it's all the same to you, I'd like to stick to the pure meanings.

Now tell me would you rather deal with the repealing of many controversial votes, or have the resolutions that do pass, pass with a strong majority so that it is unlikely to have the need to repeal it?
I'd pick the repeals. Why shouldn't each new 'generation' have a chance to choose their own laws?

Which would be relevant if the United States was a democracy, but it isn't. It's a republic.Hmm. I was gonna say the exact same thing, but thought better of it.

tyranny of the majority!!!!!

(but considering we agree to be UN members, the tyranny is voluntary)

Personally if I were to suggest any changes to SOP, I would consult the "Book of Bob," Aka Roberts Rules of Order Revised. (http://www.rulesonline.com/)

37. Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Any vote taken by an assembly, except those mentioned further on, may be rescinded by a majority vote, provided notice of the motion has been given at the previous meeting or in the call for this meeting; or it may be rescinded without notice by a two-thirds vote, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The notice may be given when another question is pending, but cannot interrupt a member while speaking. To rescind is identical with the motion to amend something previously adopted, by striking out the entire by-law, rule, resolution, section, or paragraph, and is subject to all the limitations as to notice and vote that may be placed by the rules on similar amendments. It is a main motion without any privilege, and therefore can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the assembly. It cannot be made if the question can be reached by calling up the motion to reconsider which has been previously made. It may be made by any member; it is debatable, and yields to all privileged and incidental motions; and all of the subsidiary motions may be applied to it. The motion to rescind can be applied to votes on all main motions, including questions of privilege and orders of the day that have been acted upon, and to votes on an appeal, with the following exceptions: votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo; or where it is in the nature of a contract and the other party is informed of the fact; or, where a resignation has been acted upon, or one has been elected to, or expelled from, membership or office, and was present or has been officially notified. In the case of expulsion, the only way to reverse the action afterwards is to restore the person to membership or office, which requires the same preliminary steps and vote as is required for an election.

Where it is desired not only to rescind the action, but to express very strong disapproval, legislative bodies have, on rare occasions, voted to rescind the objectionable resolution and expunge it from the record, which is done by crossing out the words, or drawing a line around them, and writing across them the words, "Expunged by order of the assembly," etc., giving the date of the order. This statement should be signed by the secretary. The words expunged must not be so blotted as not to be readable, as otherwise it would be impossible to determine whether more was expunged than ordered. Any vote less than a majority of the total membership of an organization is certainly incompetent to expunge from the records a correct statement of what was done and recorded and the record of which was officially approved, even though a quorum is present and the vote to expunge is unanimous.

Even then one can argue for majority repeal under the grounds that the repeal resolution process affords "prior notice." Thus if Bob is happy, I'm happy. :)