NationStates Jolt Archive

There are many things passing in the UN that I'm not happy about. I understand that it is a democracy, but to what extent? Most people don't think before they vote. I often agree with 90% of a bill, but not that last 10%, and that's where the trouble lies.

Is there a method by which we can be sure that people are making intelligent choices? People might just read a few lines and vote. I wouldn't be so upset with our UN if I were convinced that people were making a choice they had thought about, even if it's completely contrary to my own.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to death your right to say it."

I may not agree with what you say (or think, or believe), but I will respect it, if you've given it some serious thought.

One solution, that I'm NOT AT ALL fond of, would be only letting those who have posted in the forums vote.

I know that this is most likely impracticle, but I don't feel that people agree completely with how they're voting. If everyone who voted first saw arguments for and against an issue, they would make a more intelligent choice. I've not voted FOR any issue to date, over minor things which I believe should be changed. If we could simply re-write the bills so that more people agreed with them COMPLETELY, then we would see this fantasy world of ours develop as the members trully think. I think that only then can we start to take this "game" as a serious representation of the future of our nation and our world. I know that not everyone wants to take this nearly as seriously as I do, and I understand that. I just wish they would try to make intelligent choices.

What's the solution?

It's simple: I don't know. If I knew, then I'd propose it.

I know that if some of us work together, we can make this work.

Farewell, and God Bless,
Aeolian

Also, is there a place in which UN members can/do debate the writing of a proposal before it's placed before the rest of us? This would greatly help.

I know that this is most likely impracticle, but I don't feel that people agree completely with how they're voting. If everyone who voted first saw arguments for and against an issue, they would make a more intelligent choice. I've not voted FOR any issue to date, over minor things which I believe should be changed. If we could simply re-write the bills so that more people agreed with them COMPLETELY, then we would see this fantasy world of ours develop as the members trully think. I think that only then can we start to take this "game" as a serious representation of the future of our nation and our world. I know that not everyone wants to take this nearly as seriously as I do, and I understand that. I just wish they would try to make intelligent choices.



Also, is there a place in which UN members can/do debate the writing of a proposal before it's placed before the rest of us? This would greatly help.

To answer your second question, yes: right here.

A number of us post and debate DRAFT proposals before submitting them to the proposal queue. Once a proposal is submitted it can not be changed. Resolutions are proposals that receive 6% of more of the UN Delegate's (basically the leaders of the various regions in the world) endorsements.

If you are working on a proposal a few of us suggest putting "DRAFT proposal" in the topic header. Those of us that care about the quality of the resolutions will make suggestions.


To answer your first question, is that not the basic debate of why a dictatorship or monarchy is at times more advantageous than a true democracy? :D It seems that my own nation is plagued with silly people who sometimes don't have the time to think about everything ... hence the reason why if you check your intelligence on the Cofederation of Mikitivity you'll see that our Political Freedoms rating is only good. At times our Civil Rights rating jumps considerably higher, but that is because the government does protect minority rights, even if that means lessening Political Freedoms.

Plato once argued that democracies were the absolute worst kind of government that any society could install. The people, he said, were too fickle and short-sighted to make intelligent political decisions, and that the ruling class should instead be an elite few, the most intelligent people from across the land. While I agree with Plato, I don't think that kind of rhetoric would do well within this United Nations.

In short, a good idea, but hardly the kind of thing that would make it past the mods. Although, wouldn't it be ironic if the UN sheep passed a resolution that stole their voting power?

Some food for thought.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs