NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, prostitution has been legalised by the UN by 10899 votes to 9310 - a margin of only 1589. Given that there are 36847 member nations and 2449 regional delegates (as I type this), that means that less than a third of member states voted and that the actual vote was carried 29.6% versus 25.3%. (Please note that I've only used the member nations, not the regional delegates for this).

Should 100% of UN member states have the will of 29.6% imposed on them? This doesn't seem particularly democratic to me, and whilst I realise that it will always be difficult to improve the turn-out on elections, perhaps there are some things that could be done?

1. Why not introduce a quorum - if less than 2/3 of the UN vote then the resolution is dismissed. After which it could be picked up again, if it passes the proposal stage.

2. Why not remove nations from the UN if they have a poor voting record. Nothing draconic, but if a nation fails to vote on 5 resolutions in a row (say) then they should be warned, and if they fail to vote on the 6th then they should be expelled from the UN. Perhaps, in order to do this, it would be necessary to introduce an "Abstain" option to the voting.

Anyway, any thoughts?

Kenny of Northern Lulsley

Personally, i'd be happier with a system that allows you to take and repeal passed resolutions by an X% majority... but these sort of ideas belong elsewhere.

Should 100% of UN member states have the will of 29.6% imposed on them?

You're forgetting that they have had nothing imposed on them - they were as free to vote as the rest of us. They chose not to vote, one assumes because they didn't care either way how the vote turned out.

I think what you're saying is, "Why should I, who disagreed with this proposal, have it imposed upon me because two-thirds of delegates didn't vote?" I would answer that you knew the risks when you joined the UN - and a 100% vote wouldn't necessarily give you the result you wanted, either.

SC

Should 100% of UN member states have the will of 29.6% imposed on them?

You're forgetting that they have had nothing imposed on them - they were as free to vote as the rest of us. They chose not to vote, one assumes because they didn't care either way how the vote turned out.

I think what you're saying is, "Why should I, who disagreed with this proposal, have it imposed upon me because two-thirds of delegates didn't vote?" I would answer that you knew the risks when you joined the UN - and a 100% vote wouldn't necessarily give you the result you wanted, either.

SC

I think that there are two seperate points that you make here.

1. You knew the risks when you joined the UN. Well, yes, I did. And I'm not complaining about it, nor am I trying to repeal the prostitution legislation. I happened not to agree with it, it passed. Fair enough - that's democracy for you. I'm not going to throw my teddy out of the pram because of this vote.

2. A 100% vote wouldn't necessarily give the result you wanted either. Well, I don't think the required result was what I'm after. I'm more concerned about apathy. To use your logic of "They chose not to vote, one assumes because they didn't care either way how the vote turned out." implies that if only 1 person could be bothered to vote then she/he would pass policy for the rest of us. My point is that if it's unimportant to nearly 50% of the UN, then should it be law? I don't think your assumption is valid, and I think that that is exactly the issue that needs to be addressed.

Kenny of Northern Lulsley

Should 100% of UN member states have the will of 29.6% imposed on them?

You're forgetting that they have had nothing imposed on them - they were as free to vote as the rest of us. They chose not to vote, one assumes because they didn't care either way how the vote turned out.

I think what you're saying is, "Why should I, who disagreed with this proposal, have it imposed upon me because two-thirds of delegates didn't vote?" I would answer that you knew the risks when you joined the UN - and a 100% vote wouldn't necessarily give you the result you wanted, either.

SC

I think that there are two seperate points that you make here.

1. You knew the risks when you joined the UN. Well, yes, I did. And I'm not complaining about it, nor am I trying to repeal the prostitution legislation. I happened not to agree with it, it passed. Fair enough - that's democracy for you. I'm not going to throw my teddy out of the pram because of this vote.

2. A 100% vote wouldn't necessarily give the result you wanted either. Well, I don't think the required result was what I'm after. I'm more concerned about apathy. To use your logic of "They chose not to vote, one assumes because they didn't care either way how the vote turned out." implies that if only 1 person could be bothered to vote then she/he would pass policy for the rest of us. My point is that if it's unimportant to nearly 50% of the UN, then should it be law? I don't think your assumption is valid, and I think that that is exactly the issue that needs to be addressed.

Kenny of Northern Lulsley

Should 100% of UN member states have the will of 29.6% imposed on them?

You're forgetting that they have had nothing imposed on them - they were as free to vote as the rest of us. They chose not to vote, one assumes because they didn't care either way how the vote turned out.

I think what you're saying is, "Why should I, who disagreed with this proposal, have it imposed upon me because two-thirds of delegates didn't vote?" I would answer that you knew the risks when you joined the UN - and a 100% vote wouldn't necessarily give you the result you wanted, either.

SC

I think that there are two seperate points that you make here.

1. You knew the risks when you joined the UN. Well, yes, I did. And I'm not complaining about it, nor am I trying to repeal the prostitution legislation. I happened not to agree with it, it passed. Fair enough - that's democracy for you. I'm not going to throw my teddy out of the pram because of this vote.

2. A 100% vote wouldn't necessarily give the result you wanted either. Well, I don't think the required result was what I'm after. I'm more concerned about apathy. To use your logic of "They chose not to vote, one assumes because they didn't care either way how the vote turned out." implies that if only 1 person could be bothered to vote then she/he would pass policy for the rest of us. My point is that if it's unimportant to nearly 50% of the UN, then should it be law? I don't think your assumption is valid, and I think that that is exactly the issue that needs to be addressed.

Kenny of Northern Lulsley

29% voter turnout? Sounds like a U.S. election...

I didn't vote on this issue because I completely forgot the deadline! I'm sent an automatic message telling me when the resolution has passed and I'm in compliance. Could "they" also send me a message with the voting deadline also? That might increase voter turnout. I'd be willing to help send out a "don't forget to vote" if someone reminded me first!

Susan
Bodhisattva Babes

29% voter turnout? Sounds like a U.S. election...

I didn't vote on this issue because I completely forgot the deadline! I'm sent an automatic message telling me when the resolution has passed and I'm in compliance. Could "they" also send me a message with the voting deadline also? That might increase voter turnout. I'd be willing to help send out a "don't forget to vote" if someone reminded me first!

Susan
Bodhisattva Babes

I am adamantly opposed to this idea.

Reason 1. An abstention is a vote. You would take that away from me? Who are you to decide how I can vote?

Reason 2. If you don't like the result of the vote, propose a new one. Start a grass roots campaign, get support and over turn it.

Reason 3. I would like to be a contributing member, and would like to take place in discussions and votes. I also have a real life. I take vacations, work a job, go to school, etc. I could easily miss 5 votes; this would not indicate a lack of attention on my part as much as it would a lack of time.

Reason 4. This is how the real world works. It makes the game closer to reality.

I feel that it isn't a democratic move to force members to vote so I wouldn't be very happy with that. On the other hand it seems that the non-voters are not accepting full responsibilities which go with being a UN delegate. Black ball 'em if they don't vote for a certain number of issues each month/quarter/year!!!

I am adamantly opposed to this idea.

Reason 1. An abstention is a vote. You would take that away from me? Who are you to decide how I can vote?

I'm not saying that all voting should be compulsory, I'm just saying that there is a difference between deciding to abstain, and not bothering to vote. Perhaps if there was an option to abstain, then we would see the relative numbers.

Reason 2. If you don't like the result of the vote, propose a new one. Start a grass roots campaign, get support and over turn it.

Agreed. I happen to disagree with the prostitution vote, but I wouldn't use the low turnout as a reason to repeal it. We have to work within the framework as it exisits at the time of the vote.

Reason 3. I would like to be a contributing member, and would like to take place in discussions and votes. I also have a real life. I take vacations, work a job, go to school, etc. I could easily miss 5 votes; this would not indicate a lack of attention on my part as much as it would a lack of time.

Isn't there a setting for vacations? Anyway, "they" would have to ensure that there was a large enough timescale that reasonable abscences (4 weeks, 5 weeks?) would not result in proceedings.

Reason 4. This is how the real world works. It makes the game closer to reality.

This is just wrong! "Excuse me Mr. President - your ambassador forgot to vote at the last Security Council meeting, we're now at war with Canada". :-)

kenny of Northern Lulsley

A quorum is important to every meeting and every organization including vioting. That means if 50%+1 of those U.N. members did not vote then the resolution should not be implemented.

If this is not possible resolutions that are clearly in violation of sovereignty like prositution which is very over the board should not be tackled at the U.N.

Another point when you entered the U.N. beside the fact that you know the risk you should also know your obligation and that is to vote on issues and participate on it. If you do not want to vote and participate on issues then you do not deserve to be in the U.N.!

:D great

An Abstain vote is still a vote, and one we cannot count. we are to assume that all delegates and UN members are present at all votes...

The important thing is that votes which are not in the jurisdiction of the UN should be shouted down BEFORE reaching the voting pedestal. Obviously, in this case, enough people felt that it was worthwhile... interestingly.

(I would politely note that quorum on house vote calls is standard practice in most legislatures. While an abstention is a vote, it is considered necessary to verify that a true plurality at least exists by having 50+% of delegates vote. This is pretty much universal practice now, and I think dates back to Roberts Rules or somesuch. However, it would be not be considered unless taken up directly with the moderators of the UN. They don't take mechanics resolutions into consideration and would likely ban it.

Oh, and to the crass individual noting that this is real life: No, it isn't. I've watched the UN for a while and it doesn't operate like this. This is a republic-style voting assembly, as if we were the member states of a massive nation. Such a thing does not exist in real life, and as I mentioned, our voting practices are not considered standard practice.)

I don't see what's wrong with abstaining. Anyone would think to hear you lot talk that life is black and white - a case of either for or against something and life ain't like that. And I'm talking about RL (real life) here and also JGL :D