NationStates Jolt Archive

We don't have to be stupid like the real UN or is that part of the game I missed. :? I thought we were trying to do whats best and fair for all the people of the world. Instead look at the last thing the UN passed :x . We should boycott the UN. If not a member we shouldn't have to follow it's rules because we sure aren't getting any benefits. :evil: :twisted:

If you are not a UN member, the UN's resolutions don't affect you one way or another.

The UN has passed resolutions that a majority of UN nations have agreed with. Its that simple.

The UN has passed resolutions that a majority of UN nations have agreed with. Its that simple. I wouldn't state like that, since most of the people who voted for it didn't read and analyze what the proposal would do to there nation. UN doesn't count the percent of UN members that vote for it either, plus the votes are skewed even more by delagates. In fact I would have stated that all resolutions passed by the UN received the most votes.

That's not true. "The United Nations has 29,031 member nations"

"The Rights of Labor Unions" was passed, 10158 votes to 8228"

Not everyone voted. That's 18,386 nations that voted. That short by 10,645 that did not vote. That's over the amount that voted for it. It's over 1/3 of the nations.

In fact, that must mean that the majority of the nations decided that it wasn't worth voting on it.

The UN has passed resolutions that a majority of UN nations have agreed with. Its that simple.

The majority of the UN have their heads shoved so far up their a... Erm.. nevermind.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

That's not true. "The United Nations has 29,031 member nations"

"The Rights of Labor Unions" was passed, 10158 votes to 8228"

Not everyone voted. That's 18,386 nations that voted. That short by 10,645 that did not vote. That's over the amount that voted for it. It's over 1/3 of the nations.

In fact, that must mean that the majority of the nations decided that it wasn't worth voting on it.

It's also worth noting that, of the nations that voted, the last resolution (Rights of Labor Unions) passed by a simple majority of about 55%.

If 55% of the people who voted on the resolution voted FOR it, then what percentage of the remaining nations voted against OR abstained from voting? Roughly 65%. That means that the "simple majority" of UN nations that passed the resolution represented a mere 35% (!!!!) of the total UN membership.

Democratic? Hardly.

Work out the percents for yourselves. You will find that the number that abstained from voting (36%) is greater than the number who passed the resolution.

The UN has passed resolutions that a majority of UN nations have agreed with. Its that simple.

This is Plain wrong!!!! the VAST majority didn't even Vote so how can you say it was a Majority decision?!!!

Currently what you have in the UN is a vocal minority emposing its will upon the Majority.

The Voting rules need to be changed to require at least a simple Majority ( 50% +1) Vote of the ENTIRE UN.

Then nothing would ever pass

Maybe nothing should pass. It's all BS. :x

The UN has passed resolutions that a majority of UN nations have agreed with. Its that simple.

This is Plain wrong!!!! the VAST majority didn't even Vote so how can you say it was a Majority decision?!!!

Currently what you have in the UN is a vocal minority emposing its will upon the Majority.

The Voting rules need to be changed to require at least a simple Majority ( 50% +1) Vote of the ENTIRE UN.

Alright... First I want you to point to a nation which actually has this for their government style...

The 2000 elections in the US, %60 of the voting age citizens voted. Now bush got 48% of that. So i suppose we should just not have a president until we manage to get enough people to agree on an issue.

This raises an important issue: Not everyone is voting. It needs to be realized that voting is extremely important and will make a big difference in the decisions passed by the UN. I propose that we urge our fellow UN nations to vote when they have not voted. Lest an extremely terrible resolution may pass, or a wonderful resolution may be defeated.

Ivon Millente
UN Ambassador of Yshurak

Lol, sounds like our very first nationstates issue. Should we make voting compulsory? Lol.

Unfortunately, that is the nature of democracy. It is the people's choice to vote or not and thus a simple majority would not work, because in general, the decisions have never been cast by a simple majority. If your not going to take the time to vote, then you can just accept what happens to you and don't complain because you did nothing about it.

Voter turnout in the municipal elections of my city was like 20% or something like that. That's pitiful, but the mayor still was a shooin with 95% of that 20% of the population that bothered to vote. But I digress... just showing off Mississauga... lol.

Still, you can't force people to vote and there will be apathetic people out there. There are also inactive people. So, its just something you have to deal with.

Ziliarn, there is a difference between electing someone and passing laws. Also since the voting requirments for laws are different from those used for an election. It takes a majority in both the house and the senate of the US congress to pass a bill, also politicians can require a quorum before an issue is vote. Plus, people can also use filibusters to prevent a bill from being voted on. The UN does not require a majority vote, does require a quorum nor does it allow for filibusters. I don't think it would kill anyone in the UN to require a simple majority vote for proposals to become UN resolutions and I hardly doubt that it will keep anything from being passed since bills make it through congress. In fact this would make things more interesting because then people would have to make well thought proposals, would have to contact other UN members when making proposals and would have to do a better job pursuading people to vote. Heck, this would force people to create pork barrel proposals in order to get people to vote for a proposal.

Many of those nations that didn't vote didn't abstain but are inactive or just don't care about voting. When you abstain you're voting but for neither side, there is a difference. Since there is no way to measure how many of the active UN members voted, unless we make voting compulsory, we need to use the fairest method available and I think what we have now is that.

Jurian States, the problem with your comparison is that members of the senate are doing their jobs. They were elected to consider and pass laws. Furthermore, the laws they pass and decisions they make have an effect on the world. The players of nationstates are by far less interested in coting and have fewer reasons to do so, since the resolutions don't affect them outside of the game, and their effects within the game are not especially strong.

As has been pointed out, many of the nations are inactive so no matter how much campaigning you do, they simply will not vote because the players are not there. To require a simple majority would mean that almost 15000 nations need to approve of a proposal, and currently we have about 18300 voting members (based on the last resolution's total votes). That means that almost 81% of active UN members would need to approve of a proposal for it to be a resolution. Even a strong majority is only 67% of the vote. What you are asking for is just not feasible .

So far, as near as I can tell, the only thing united about the United Nations is most people are united against resolutions that are threats to sovreignty.

1/3 does not a quorum make. Dendrys will rejoin the UN when there is some manner of guarantee that people who want a resolution to pass will have to argue as eloquently, persuasively and conclusively as those of us who oppose it. :roll:


Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

1/3 does not a quorum make. Dendrys will rejoin the UN when there is some manner of guarantee that people who want a resolution to pass will have to argue as eloquently, persuasively and conclusively as those of us who oppose it. :roll:


Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees
You will be missed. The fact is that far to many players just don't care, and there is no way to make them.

The UN has passed resolutions that a majority of UN nations have agreed with. Its that simple.

This is Plain wrong!!!! the VAST majority didn't even Vote so how can you say it was a Majority decision?!!!

Currently what you have in the UN is a vocal minority emposing its will upon the Majority.

The Voting rules need to be changed to require at least a simple Majority ( 50% +1) Vote of the ENTIRE UN.
Why shouldn't those who bother to vote get to make the decisions? Why should abstaining from the polls be rewarded?

All members of the United Nations who were not absent from the UN were aware of the proposal, and the tally of votes. Those that felt strongly against it voted for it, those who felt strongly for it voted for it, and those that didn't vote at all must be assumed to have agreed with whichever side had the most votes, and therefore didn't feel it necessary to add their voice. There is a forth catagory - those who were absent from the UN entirely. They deserve a measure of sympathy; but I suspect procedural quibbles in this case are simply reactionary efforts to overturn a law they opposed, post facte.

If we instituted a requirement that a majority of UN members have to vote on a resolution to make anything valid, it'd be even harder to get resolutions passed. I know those of you who didn't like the "Rights of Labor Unions" would probably call that a good thing, but it would be a stance which will come back to haunt you later.

Enodia-
The problem there would be that in order for that to work, membership of the UN would have to timeout after a period of inactivity. Members failling to vote on, for example, three successive motions, could be removed. Only with that rule in place would this make sense.

Enodia-
The problem there would be that in order for that to work, membership of the UN would have to timeout after a period of inactivity. Members failling to vote on, for example, three successive motions, could be removed. Only with that rule in place would this make sense.

Now there is an idea that makes sense!

Should be the same in real life - you don't vote in three years, you lose your voter registration, and arent counted. Reapply anytime you like and get your voting status back.

So far, as near as I can tell, the only thing united about the United Nations is most people are united against resolutions that are threats to sovreignty.

Oppressed Possums has just provided the key reason for opposition to the last resolution. UN membership should not mean that control of your nation is forfeit to the whims of the rest of the world. The UN should not wield such power over its member nations. Issues regarding a nation's internal affairs should not be controlled by external forces.

I think there should be several "UNs" for different regions. Not so that every region would have its own "UN", but have UN Regions that are independent of regions as we know them, or maybe make a three-level region system [World -> UN Region ->Region] as opposed to the two level system we have now [World->Region].
Each Regional UN would have their own "UN" would work like the UN does now, but only applies in that UN region. The international UN could pass resolutions like it does now, but give the members of the Regional "UNs" the option to vote to void the resolution for that region if they can get, say, 3/5ths to vote to veto. That would put some sort of checks-and-balances system on the UN.
The nations would divide up between conservative and liberal, etc., and keep socialistic nations from forcing capitalist nations to recognize unions and from being forced to accept free-trade agreements, etc.

That's just an idea that came to my mind, so I haven't given it much thought. I suppose you can just kick it around and see what you come up with.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. If you really want it though, you should post it on the NS2 board because NS2 is the only place you'll find such a major change.

No, it's just a crazy idea that came to my head. The basic idea is to have multiple "UNs" so two sides aren't having issues they completely disagree with shoved down their throats all the time.

No, it's just a crazy idea that came to my head. The basic idea is to have multiple "UNs" so two sides aren't having issues they completely disagree with shoved down their throats all the time.

Well that's how it works. This game's very mechanics force right-wing inspired falsehoods down the players' throats all the time because it was designed that way, yet we still play it. Same with the UN. Live with it, stop whining. Or speak to the game designers.

Enodia-
The problem there would be that in order for that to work, membership of the UN would have to timeout after a period of inactivity. Members failling to vote on, for example, three successive motions, could be removed. Only with that rule in place would this make sense.
I like that as an idea (but much less as a proposal, which other people - not you - have tried to turn it into in the past). My guess, though, is that if it ever appears in the game it'd be an NS2 innovation.

Well that's how it works. This game's very mechanics force right-wing inspired falsehoods down the players' throats all the time because it was designed that way
How does it do that, just out of curiosity? Usually when people run the argument that the game pushes a particular political agenda, they argue that it pushes a left-wing agenda so I'm curious how your views differ from the norm.

That's not true. "The United Nations has 29,031 member nations"

"The Rights of Labor Unions" was passed, 10158 votes to 8228"

Not everyone voted. That's 18,386 nations that voted. That short by 10,645 that did not vote. That's over the amount that voted for it. It's over 1/3 of the nations.

In fact, that must mean that the majority of the nations decided that it wasn't worth voting on it.

Is there a pratical way of taking an unbiased sample of UN member nations and asking them why they joined (or remain in) the UN but don't (always) vote? Their answers might help solve this ongoing problem.

We don't have to be stupid like the real UN or is that part of the game I missed. :? I thought we were trying to do whats best and fair for all the people of the world. Instead look at the last thing the UN passed :x . We should boycott the UN. If not a member we shouldn't have to follow it's rules because we sure aren't getting any benefits. :evil: :twisted:

Try again with logic and common sense.

The 2000 elections in the US, %60 of the voting age citizens voted. Now bush got 48% of that. So i suppose we should just not have a president until we manage to get enough people to agree on an issue.

Bushes do not exist in my nation. It's all desert now.