NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: Please don't merge this thread with the thread on the matter now under consideration; it is really a sidebar to that debate, and although it references some of the issues involved (and makes no claim to doing so in unbiased fashion), it is really a commentary on the state of this body, and begs for consideration on its own, separate from the issues discussed there.

As of 7/21/2005, at 3:50 PM GMT

On the current resolution:

Votes For: 5,509
Votes Against: 3,552
In the forum where this matter is being debated:
Views: 1,652
As of 3:50 PM GMT, 9,061 Members had cast their votes in this matter; yet the forum where this Resolution is being debated has been visited only 1,652 times.

Worse, the “visit” counter is little better than a turnstile. The same nations, returning to the debate after an absence, still trip the “visit” counter. That's made worse by the fact that you must leave the floor to submit a statement in writing, and then again to correct any errors in the translation and publication of that statement in the Record - or even to peruse past statements made in the Record.

Thus, the number of Members actually following the current debate is nowhere near 1,652; it is probably less than 100, and possibly less than 50.

If you don't believe us, look around at these chambers!

<The Ambassador from Allemande waves her arms at the empty seats in disgust.>

For the most part, we are arguing here among ourselves; a few nations - Allemande, Forgottenlands, Reformentia, and Roathin in this debate - remain here participating in the debate, while others drop in and - occasionally - rise to make a comment.

As often as not these comments are utter non sequitirs, showing us how much the world is really listening to what we say.

If as few as 1% of the Members - and maybe even fewer than that - actually bother to come here and witness the debate, then what are people using as the basis for making up their minds?

Why, their first impressions after a quick read, maybe. In this debate, that would mean that they would either have to grasp instantly the significance of the words “contagious”, “isolation”, “military relationship”, and “negligible (less that 0.5%)”, or else the vote cast could by no means be said to be informed.

Some don't get that far: the title (“Biological Weapons Ban” ) is enough to make them click “Vote For” or “Vote Against”. If they fail to consider the possibility that the proposed “ban” is partial (in casting either vote, for there are cases both of nations voting for this Resolution because they think it bans all bioweapons, as well as cases of nations voting against it because they think it will force them to give up their anthrax, brucellosis, and tularaemia stocks), then whatever vote they cast must also be considered a vote cast in ignorance.

Uninformed voters' foolish choices are part and parcel of every election, but nowhere else in the world does the level of ignorance rise to the point where 99% of the voters cast their votes without real knowledge of the issues involved.

And thus are the fates of trillions decided.

Somehow, in some way, we must find a way to produce a more informed global electorate.

Very well stated, while I have not been very vocal about this issue, I have paid attention to the debate, but it is highly unlikely many others have.

As of 3:50 PM GMT, 9,061 Members had cast their votes in this matter; yet the forum where this Resolution is being debated has been visited only 1,652 times.

As is the case with every single resolution that goes to vote. The last several:

Civilian Rights Post War:

Votes For: 10,532
Votes Against: 4,068

Total votes: 14,600
Debate thread views: 2,699

Repeal National Systems Of Tax:

Votes For: 10,510
Votes Against: 3,024

Total votes: 13,534
Debate thread views: 946

United Nations Security Act:

Votes For: 9,667
Votes Against: 6,886

Total votes: 16,553
Debate thread views: 3,599

And you are assuming that because they do not read the debate, they do not carefully peruse the text of the resolution. We concede that this is more than likely the case in a significant portion of the voting population... as with every resolution... but short of making participating in the debates a mandatory requirement for casting a vote there is little that can be done about the situation.

The irony is that you choose this resolution in particular to launch your complaint. A resolution that has been debated in these forums over the course of the last MONTH in 3 or 4 threads additional to the one cited... thus making it probably one of the most extensively debated resolutions in the recent history of this body.

Timing is something, but doesn't reduce the validity.

I had noticed this, and it coming to me to question, why am I even in the UN?

Allemande, we share your dismay over this situation. It's a sad state of affairs. And we also agree with Reformentia that there's probably little that can be done about it. But allow us to shine a small ray of sunshine on this bleak situation....

Our region, City Ankh Morpork, has a regional forum where proposals at vote are posted and UN members are asked to state their preferences for the regional vote. The majority view is binding on the regional delegate. In the case of the resolution you used as an example, we had some lively debate and even a national position changed as a result. I don't know how many regions have such forums, but I suspect quite a few may. So perhaps there are a few less uninformed votes than we suspect.

I'm surprised that more nations have not taken exception to article 5. I oppose it not only within the context of this proposal, but on the grounds that it sets a dangerous precedent which will undoubtedly find its way into future proposals.
As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions.
Apparently not. With the passage of this proposal, the UN will have the ability to regulate the interactions of UN and non-UN nations and their defence policies.

There are many avenues of participation - from observance and participation on the floor of the UN - but also observance and participation (including active and boisterous debate) within local and regional governments.

I, for one, as a delegate, provide ongoing and detailed information on these discussions with the nations of my region (both UN and non-UN) – and determine an appropriate course of action.

Do not discount those discussions – as I believe them to be as important (if not more) than this very forum.

A good delegate remain mindful that all politics are local.

W.

I'm surprised that more nations have not taken exception to article 5. I oppose it not only within the context of this proposal, but on the grounds that it sets a dangerous precedent which will undoubtedly find its way into future proposals.

It is not setting any precedent.

With the passage of this proposal, the UN will have the ability to regulate the interactions of UN and non-UN nations and their defence policies.

As has always been the case.

You have a deal between a UN nation and a non UN nation for the UN nation to manufacture and supply the non UN nation with, say, chemical weapons. The UN passes a resolution prohibiting the production or possession of chemical weapons.

Deal's over. The non UN member has to find a new supplier, and they have thus been effected by the resolution. The only direct effect was on UN members but it is impossible to avoid collateral effects in a world where non UN members interact with UN members and must deal with the manner in which UN regulations alter the allowable behavior of those nations.

This resolution changed nothing in that respect. It is purely concerned with establishing permissible actions on the part of UN members. That non UN members have to deal with the result when interacting with UN members is business as usual.

And Mutual Defense Pacts?

But, seriously though -

What is the benefit for being in the UN?

People just like to read the resolution at vote. If they like it they vote for it. I on the other hand read the objections in the forum, and if possible, ask the people of my region what they think of it.

It is not setting any precedent.
It is.
As has always been the case.

You have a deal between a UN nation and a non UN nation for the UN nation to manufacture and supply the non UN nation with, say, chemical weapons. The UN passes a resolution prohibiting the production or possession of chemical weapons.

Deal's over. The non UN member has to find a new supplier, and they have thus been effected by the resolution. The only direct effect was on UN members but it is impossible to avoid collateral effects in a world where non UN members interact with UN members and must deal with the manner in which UN regulations alter the allowable behavior of those nations.

This resolution changed nothing in that respect. It is purely concerned with establishing permissible actions on the part of UN members. That non UN members have to deal with the result when interacting with UN members is business as usual.
Not what I was getting at and you know it. You're talking about trade, I'm talking about defensive alliances. The UN has never before interfered in those.
And Mutual Defense Pacts?

But, seriously though -

What is the benefit for being in the UN?
So that people who know whats best for you can decide who you form alliances with, of course. [/sarcasm]

It is.

Not what I was getting at and you know it.

I know no such thing.

You're talking about trade, I'm talking about defensive alliances.

You are talking about cooperative agreements between UN and non UN nations being rendered null and void by a UN resolution and thus having an effect on the non UN nation.

What the nature of that agreement is does not in any way alter the principle involved.

The irony is that you choose this resolution in particular to launch your complaint. A resolution that has been debated in these forums over the course of the last MONTH in 3 or 4 threads additional to the one cited... thus making it probably one of the most extensively debated resolutions in the recent history of this body.OOC: Yes, that is ironic. It may not be altogether coincidental, though - but maybe not for the reasons you imagine.

Since one debate thread on the Resolution at vote is enough, let me simply say that the other three resolutions that you cite, while important, don't have nearly the ramifications this one does.
National Systems of Tax was a repeal, and as such the debate on that measure could be arguably thought of as merely a continuation of the earlier debate over its passage (which didn't take place that long ago, BTW). Moreover, repealing the NST didn't do anything so much as open the door to other legislation; it was, after all, one of the first (if not the first NatSov bills introduced).


Civilian Rights Post War didn't have many controversial features, and was fairly obvious on its face. The biggest debates were over whether it was right to permit female soldiers to strip-search male civilians, whether the immunity children enjoyed from search was an unreasonable imposition on occupiers, and whether the bill permitted the arrest of civilian war criminals from among the defeated nation's populace.


The United Nations Security Act was also fairly straightforward, except for the question of what was meant by the phrase “weapons necessary for (a nation's) defence”. It should also be noted that there was extensive off-site discussion of the measure, at least by its proponents.
It should also be noted that, unlike other measures (like this one or the forthcoming bill on water quality), the issues involved were not technical ones.As is the case with every single resolution that goes to vote.Certainly, and the timing of my post (remember, I'm speaking OOC now) was not meant to imply otherwise. I am concerned that the current matter is especially problematic, in so far as the possibilities for gross misunderstanding of what the measure actually does are greater than with any recent vote (or at least any vote in my memory, which only goes back to January or so). Someone will probably remind me, of course, of another measure of equal or greater potential for misunderstanding (Murphy's Law and all that), and I'll probably have to agree with them - but then I'll point out that my being here six months or so undoubtedly also has a thing or two to do with it.And you are assuming that because they do not read the debate, they do not carefully peruse the text of the resolution.Perhaps that is an assumption, rather than a conclusion. But how often in these debates to people appear and post utter non sequitirs? People argue that National Sovereignty measures like the UNSA or NST impede their National Sovereignty, cry out against nuclear weapons in a chemical weapons debate, or chemical weapons in a bioweapons debate. That suggests - even if it doesn't prove - that people aren't paying attention. Carefully perusing the text of each Resolution they may be, but if so, then reading comprehension is a greater problem worldwide than even the worst cynics among us imagine it to be.We concede that this is more than likely the case in a significant portion of the voting population... as with every resolution...Yes, my point exactly. And in some cases, perhaps through no fault on the part of the author, the situation is worse than others. When we get into technical matters, we are likely to run into trouble as people come across words whose meanings aren't obvious (or ones that are, but maybe mean something different in that context). In Real Life™, I'm not an epidemiologist (just a network administrator with a A.B in Economics, married to a professor who also holds a degree (Ph.D) in Economics [her speciality is Labour Relations and Technology Adoption, mine was in Developmental Economics]), and so the distinction between “contagious” and “infectious” had to be pointed out to me. I'm sure the same thing will happen when we get into Free Trade (more my speciality) and start to talk about “structural” impediments to trade (as in “structural subsidy”). Will everyone understand the difference between a “actual subsidy” and a “structural subsidy”? I doubt it...... but short of making participating in the debates a mandatory requirement for casting a vote there is little that can be done about the situation.I'm not sure that I agree.

The ideal solution would be advertisement. Yes, we all hate political ads, but absent political advertisement, all that remains is word of mouth. I can't send a flier (TG) to every United Nations Member with my objections to the current proposal any more than you can send one out in support, so the only way to reach the masses is to mobilise public support in hopes that people will talk to people who will talk to people who will talk, etc.

And unfortunately that means getting them excited enough to start talking.

With advertisement, I could be a lot more dispassionate. Yes, in Real Life™ ads tend to be scurrilous - but that's because free speech rules permit it. We don't have free speech here on Jolt; if ads existed and could be moderated, then they could be kept short and informative without the usual rabble-rousing that (sadly) is the mothers' milk of political mobilisation.

I'm prompted to think of ads because we have them in the WestPac forum. Now, how many people see them there, I have no idea. But it did get me thinking.

So while I don't hold out too much hope of a solution, I'm not ready to say there isn't one.

I'm surprised that more nations have not taken exception to article 5. I oppose it not only within the context of this proposal, but on the grounds that it sets a dangerous precedent which will undoubtedly find its way into future proposals.

Apparently not. With the passage of this proposal, the UN will have the ability to regulate the interactions of UN and non-UN nations and their defence policies.Can we take any arguments about the proposal itself back to the floor and post them there? I'd like to keep this to musings/whinings about the sad state of voter knowledge in the NSUN (or disagreements, if there are any).

Thanks a million, and yes, I agree with you on Article 5, but we'll say more about it there...

There are many avenues of participation - from observance and participation on the floor of the UN - but also observance and participation (including active and boisterous debate) within local and regional governments.

I, for one, as a delegate, provide ongoing and detailed information on these discussions with the nations of my region (both UN and non-UN) – and determine an appropriate course of action.

Do not discount those discussions – as I believe them to be as important (if not more) than this very forum.

A good delegate remain mindful that all politics are local.

W.I certainly applaud this, and hope that more of it goes on than I fear is the case. In the ideological regions, perhaps - but there's another issue: which regions are those? Is there a directory? Texan Hotrodders obviously knew of a few regions that would support his UNSA, but I can't say which ones (other than Gatesville) would support my Common Market resolution (or, conversely, where I should go to diffuse opposition, like some of the Fair Trade or Communist regions).

All politics is local (that's the original quote, BTW - Americans, what can you do about them...), but mobilisation is always the key to political success at all levels.

And Mutual Defense Pacts?

But, seriously though -

What is the benefit for being in the UN?That is precisely why I want to pass Common Market legislation and a United Nations Collective Security protocol. People join the U.N. thinking that it will make them safer, when the opposite may well be true; nor does being in the NSUN make you richer (although I'd like to change that).

Others might say that it's the warm and fuzzy feeling of being on the “right” or “moral” side of things - whatever than may be. Allemande originally joined the U.N. in order to move more to the political centre, since the game engine made us too capitalist for my liking early on (I was trying to make Allemande a centrist state); I will take Allemande out of the NSUN and replace it with another nation on the day that I perceive it to be no longer possible to have it be a modern, Euro-Atlantic industrial democracy and still be a part of this body.

But I agree that there need to be more incentives for membership, because right now (unless you're a Regional Delegate and we can't all be those) there are simply not enough of them.

I am my regions delegate, and I still don't really see the point...

Especially since I can no longer have alliances with people who have biological (Or some biological) weaponry.

First - I should note that I have not yet read the last few posts - but I'd like to bring forth an idea that I had been theorizing since my campaign against UNSA. It would be difficult to implement, is a game-code change, and pretty much.....I have a real hard tim seeing this work correctly.

Obviously, little can be done about pushing people to come here. Further, many just plain don't care. Let's look at simple stats - those resolutions listed all had less than 17k voters. Population of the UN was between 35-38k during that time. That's ignoring delegate votes (which have a significant effect on the number of votes) and already we have less than a 50% turnout rate. There isn't a resolution in recent months that has passed with a true majority. UN apathy is just plain SICK

Anyways, my idea:

Upon a proposal reaching queue, an opponent writes a piece of similar length that addresses major concerns. Certainly they will not have picked it apart like is currently being done with 113 and has (over the last few weeks) been done with 110, but it gives the opposition of a resolution a chance to have their voice heard by the general populace - rather than just those that come to the forums or are given the data through relay by their representatives here.

Regardless, the number of views barely comes to the number of delegates at BEST on any debate - so there is undoubtedly an apathy. Unless we have a lot of representatives that report to several regions (I indirectly do......an ally founder reads my reports), you are not truly seeing these forums be fairly represented.

I am my regions delegate, and I still don't really see the point...

Especially since I can no longer have alliances with people who have biological (Or some biological) weaponry.

Each must validate their own reason. TH says his is responsibility. Mine is....well....I'm not actually in the UN (my puppet is....). I just happened to be interested in UN politics enough to come her as the representative of my region and debate them - both for the region, and for myself (though since the region hasn't really defined themselves sufficiently, I can only support the Bio-weapons ban on their behalf right now.... or any issue directly brought up)

Anyways, my idea:

Upon a proposal reaching queue, an opponent writes a piece of similar length that addresses major concerns. Certainly they will not have picked it apart like is currently being done with 113 and has (over the last few weeks) been done with 110, but it gives the opposition of a resolution a chance to have their voice heard by the general populace - rather than just those that come to the forums or are given the data through relay by their representatives here.

Your idea's a very interesting one. There are probably 2,346,908 reasons why it couldn't/shouldn't be done, but it seems to me that it's well worth some serious consideration.

Now for my own off-the-wall idea....

How about a game-code change requiring a quorum? Say, 50% of the current eligible votes (nations + regions). No resolution could pass unless 50% of the eligible votes have been cast, and, of course, a majority of those would be needed. It would probably be good to include a mechanism for a nation/region to abstain, but the abstention would count as a vote cast.

This would make it much harder to pass resolutions, of course. (IMHO, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.) But it might also encourage people with strong feelings one way or another about a resolution to get out and do some lobbying to drag in voters. And perhaps some of the folks dragged in might decide to get interested in future proceedings.

I'm sure there are 2,346,908 reasons for not doing this, too, but I figured it might spur some thought.

I have an idea. How about a short questionnaire at the end of every resolution that adresses the most pertinent and important points? Each delegate would have to check answers before going on to vote. It would ask for comments or yes/no answers for each point. At the very least, it would make sure the delegate voting knows more than the title.
Also, to address another issue put forth the honorable delegate from Allemande, A telegram could be sent every time a proposal is put forth, hopefully increasing voter turnout, and filling all these empty seats.
I don't mind the quorum idea either.

While you have an interesting point, the impact is diluted by two things. Firstly, as Reformentia stated, that those who do not take the time to participate or view the U.N. debate do not necessarily take careful consideration of the matters at hand. I myself have been in absentia for quite some time from the forums, but have still carefully considered and placed my 3 votes into each resolution nonetheless. A debate is not always necessary to clarify a position or resolution, and indeed sometimes will have absolutely no effect on either sides opinion of a resolution. Debate is optional for the resolution, it doesn't constitute the failure of democracy that not all members take part. Indeed, I shudder to think of the roaring cacaphony that would result from every member taking part...

Secondly, you forget that many of the people who DO view the forums are responsible for far more than their own countries vote. The number of voters in the U.N. population is actually a lot less than the usual fifteen thousand votes cast, and the population of the forums often represent a powerful chunk of the voting bloc. For that matter, the influential and dedicated are far more common in the forums, I.E. those who will spend many hours telegramming the less interested masses with a quick rundown of either side. The forum is a place for those with time and a sincere interest in this game, and as a result they can with effort match a far greater number of votes than you indicate.

You seem to think you KNOW certain facts about the number of informed voters currently participating in the U.N., but the numbers you present are not evidence enough to support your emphatic disgust. The accusation that a majority of U.N. members vote blindly at the drop of a catchphrase is an overly used and fairly unlikely idea which I fight to dismiss. I rather like to think that they vote with their eyes wide open, having taken in the resolution at hand and its impacts on their delegates with utmost care and consideration. That their votes still disagree strongly with my own views should only be chalked up to the fact that they are raging morons who outnumber me.

That their votes still disagree strongly with my own views should only be chalked up to the fact that they are raging morons who outnumber me.ROTFL!

I actually have thought about the fact that Delegates get multiple votes. OTOH, many regions have their Delegate vote according to the will of a majority of their Members, so it's questionable how much impact the greater interest and attention to detail Delegates display really makes a huge difference.

I would be more inclined to give the Silent Majority the benefit of the doubt if it weren't for the frequency with which people post information that suggests that they have not, in fact, read the Resolution at vote. That is demoralizing.

The accusation that a majority of U.N. members vote blindly at the drop of a catchphrase is an overly used and fairly unlikely idea which I fight to dismiss.


Come now, let us be realistic. The vast majority of Nationstates users are between the ages of 14 and 20, and I would be willing to bet money that most of them do not carefully consider the effects of a resolution before voting on it (or considering the effects of signing their vote away to another).

Some examples of 'bad' resolutions:
-Citizen Rule Required: What, you run an autocratic nation or a democracy? Too bad.
-Ban Single Hulled Tankers: Why exactly does this affect "all businesses"?
-Mandatory Recycling: Your starving third world nation doesn't have the resources or technology to recycle everything? Too bad, so sad.
-Hydrogen Powered Vehicles: See above =p
-Fair Trial: Not only is it badly spelled, vague, and misworded, it is actually invalid, as the NS UN has no "founding principles", no one having passed a resolution saying what they are.
-The Universal Bill of Human Rights: See my objections to Citizen Rule Required. Also, how exactly is Article 9 supposed to be enforced? Who's law? What laws?

Actually, at this juncture I'd just like to insert a blanket objection to pretty much all proposals that fit the following categories: "Environmental", affects "All Businesses", and has a strength of "Strong". These are generally the worst offenders. There are a few good ones, but the vast majority are idiotic concepts that are a huge money sink for even rich and powerful nations.

-End Barbaric Punishments violates UN Taxation Ban.
-Definition of a Fair Trial is contradictory: it calls for a "speedy and efficient" trial, and at the same time adds many clauses guranteed to prevent exactly this-- a fair trial takes time.
-UN Space Consortium: Not only does the UN's authority not extend off planet , but back when this was passed, several nations were arrogant enough to inform a number of other non-UN lunar nations that they must vacate the Moon or else.
-Public Domain removes the rights of shareware authors to their software, utterly ruining the "try before you buy" model.
-Law of the Sea provision 3d allows unscruptulous non-UN nations to construct any facility they may wish inside the territorial waters of a UN nation-- and the UN nation has no choice but to let them.
-Rights of Minorities and Women: This states a number of things that are simply false, especially Article II. On top of that, it purports to regulate behaviour between citizens in their own homes.
-Support Hemp Production: I know I already voiced my objection to Environmental+All Business resolutions, but this one is especially idiotic, as it does the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do, choking a nation's economy instead of boosting a particular industry.
-Right to Learn About Evolution: Hey guys, let's screw over theocracies!
-Protection of Dolphins: Another particularly dumb Environment resolution. "Hurr! Protecting dolphins somehow affects industries not even remotely related with the sea!"


I submit to you that the vast majority of UN voters are poorly educated, underinformed people who do, in fact, vote blindly at the drop of a catchphrase. Furthermore, I submit to you that the vast majority of voters do, in fact, just read a resolution's title before voting.

I'm sure there are hundreds of responsible voters who read every resolution and vote appropriately. However, the facts do not lie-- I need only point to those resolutions above to prove that the accusation you deny is in fact, true.

Well, to be fair to some of us, when I started playing the bill at vote was Nuclear Armaments...

To be fair, all businesses isn't because it regulates all businesses, its when the other three (?) categories don't make sense (Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining, Woodchipping).

I'm not getting into a legal debate about the issues you bring up (this is hardly the place - and some of your comments are just plain personal positions), but I acknowlege your point - while it is debatable whether it's just a catch phrase or a quick skim with a "looks good" at them, a lot of resolutions get through that aren't well analyzed by the voting populace. It wasn't until we were halfway through the vote before we found half the problems with bio-weapons ban (quite frankly, I say screw it - there are a few mistakes in it, but it's taken WAAAAAAY too long to pass anyways).

*chuckles* I wonder how a resolution would do that goes like this:

Title: Vote for this resolution
Description: (enter in some BS filler) If you read this, vote against this resolution (more BS filler).
----------------------------------------

The problem I have with political campaigning:
1) HOLY CRAP it takes forever. I REALLY don't have that kind of time for it. I can't tell you how many hours I spent campaigning on UNSA - but it would have to be over 20 hours. I don't have that kind of time normally. I'm sure most people don't.
2) You're telling people what to believe, not necessarily going "this is one side and their main points, this is the other side and their main points"

[OOC]

A few points, some reiterations:

1) Number of votes cast considerably exceeds number of voters - I have 41 to hand out, for example.
2) An abstention is in itself a political statement - it looks like my region will abstain on the current resolution.
3) The UN forum is not the only venue for debate - regional message boards, offsite forums, even telegrams all play their part.
4) Some players will cast a vote based on their own knowledge without seeing the need to consult others or read their views.
5) Many players are members of the UN for purely in-game reasons (defenders, invaders, etc) and have no interest in the its activities.
6) For some people, the UN forum is a place to debate in a certain fashion without having to deal with all of the crap in, say, General. Ultimately, whether or not a resolution succeeds is irrelevant. The debate is all.
7) The Glorious Failure of Democracy is nothing new.

All of the above notwithstanding, I like what you've done with this; it's certainly more entertaining than the usual grumble.

[OOC]

I think your points are all well taken, Ecopeia. My comments:

1) Number of votes cast considerably exceeds number of voters - I have 41 to hand out, for example.

I wonder if anyone knows how many potential votes there are: nations + regional "bundles"? That might shed a whole new light on this discussion.

2) An abstention is in itself a political statement - it looks like my region will abstain on the current resolution.

Agree absolutely. That was why I suggested changing the vote options to yes/no/abstain.

3) The UN forum is not the only venue for debate - regional message boards, offsite forums, even telegrams all play their part.
4) Some players will cast a vote based on their own knowledge without seeing the need to consult others or read their views.

True -- and unfortunate. In reading the debates on proposals, I've often been alerted to issues I didn't recognize -- even when I thought I had enough knowledge of the subject to make a decision. And there have been other times when I knew enough about the major issue involved, but was blissfully ignorant of other aspects or effects of the proposal.

5) Many players are members of the UN for purely in-game reasons (defenders, invaders, etc) and have no interest in the its activities.
6) For some people, the UN forum is a place to debate in a certain fashion without having to deal with all of the crap in, say, General. Ultimately, whether or not a resolution succeeds is irrelevant. The debate is all.
7) The Glorious Failure of Democracy is nothing new.

Proof? Check the dismal turnouts in off-year elections in the US.

While it is interesting to see the UN forum participation rate, there are three assumptions that you are making if you want to represent the ratio of votes cast for thread views:

1) You are discounting the fact that UN resolution discussions occur on regional boards and off-site forums. I know that the feeders and several other regions at least post the resolutions there and hold votes to give their delegates an idea of their will.

2) Delegate endorsements end up increasing the number of votes cast *beyond* the number of players. If we were to assume that UN delegates have 20% of the endorsements of their region, then the total number of votes cast is inflated by 20%. I've tried to think of ways to get a better guess on that number, but as of yet I've not seen a good way other than generating a script to count regional UN members and UN Delegate endorsements in a large number of regions. <--- HINT: if somebody can script, I'd love to record the participation rate for UN resolution debates (it is a fair and interesting question).

3) You also are forgetting that some players work through telegrams and don't access Jolt nor their regional pages. Any UN Delegate can probably confirm that they get a fair number of telegrams seeking endorsements, and those in larger regions have talked many times about telegrams with instructions on how to vote.

Finally, democracy is still at work, what is not happening is that nations aren't sending ambassadors to view the resolution debate.

To be honest, I end up missing anywhere from 90 to 10% of the debate on a given resolution (the exception being resolutions from the IDU, which I've made it a policy to read every post). It just depends on my personal level of comfort and interest with an idea. I certainly allow the opinions of my regional allies determine my vote in issues where I'm neutral. That is why we are in a region together! :) We know enough about our "nations" to trust our opinions.

I wonder if anyone knows how many potential votes there are: nations + regional "bundles"? That might shed a whole new light on this discussion.Easy enough to find out. Take a screen shot of the delegate votes right before voting ends and start subtracting...

---

Also, keep in mind the low turnout isn't just apathy or abstenation. People who play the invading/defending game need to be in the UN for their operations. They (generally) aren't interested in the UN and wouldn't be members if they could do their actions outside of the UN.

Greetings.

We of Roathin have a few observations to make. We accept that we are as yet inexperienced in the ways of the NSUN despite our long reign as helmsman of the Grand Duchy for several millennia, and are willing to endure fair criticism.

1. Perhaps the only solutions are mechanistic ones, which require the Grey Lords of the NS universe to modify the rules governing the NSUN.

2. That said, what mechanisms would work? Rewards have been proposed for both membership and participation; playing with the proportionality of representation has also been suggested.

2.1 We suggest that, instead of maintaining the proposal queue as the current unwieldy serpent it is, that each proposal be reduced to its first 250 words (or fewer, as in a newsfeed) and a link, and TGed to ALL NSUN delegates. They can then post this abstract, should they wish, on their own region messageboards.

2.2 We further suggest that for delegates or members who have a strong voting and participation record in the process, small rewards such as further custom(ization) powers be bestowed upon them. We are unsure as to how a useful record can be differentiated from a useless one, but this is life.

3. We contend that one possible way to ensure the slower but more complete passage of a resolution (somewhat akin to the ingestion of bulk or kaolin to retard the progress of a diarrhoeic episode) would be to force the passage to stop at several stations.

4. Moderators might intervene at any stage, delegates might intervene at some stages, and all members would be entitled to participate at two stages. These stage are:

4.1 The title of proposal is presented. Moderators may delete proposals for having silly titles. Moderators might also open the vote to delegates only, who might throw the proposal out simply because the title looks too silly. Yes, we are aware that silly titles occasionally disguise gold. But not often.

4.2 The main headings of the argument (a proposal or repeal) are TGed at this point to all delegates (if they want the office, they should do the work). Should the headings seem to be incompatible with the title, the entire proposal can be rejected by a vote of a fifth of the eligible delegates or a moderator.

4.3 This summary argument is posted. It is now subject to a simple members' vote. First to reach 5000 votes (Yea, Nay or Abstain - if that should become an option) will respectively open the full proposal to the floor, deny the full proposal, or push the full proposal to the end of the queue and keep it there until five more proposals have entered the queue.

4.4 The full document is now read. A link to it is TGed to all delegates (again, let them do some work). Should the full document display clauses which are not implicitly or explicitly related to the main argument, or which are incompatible with the title or the summary, the entire proposal can be rejected by a vote of a third of the eligible delegates or a moderator.

4.5 The full document is posted. It is now subject to a simple members' vote. First to reach 10000 votes automatically wins (see options in 4.3). However, a sudden death rule can be in effect: should two options (out of Yea, Nay and Abstain) have reached 2000 votes each, the first to achieve a 2:1 superiority wins (i.e. 4000 beats 2000 immediately, but not 1999!). If neither rule forces a win, then majority wins at the close of voting.

Yes, it may seem as if we of Roathin are attempting to perpetrate some vastly inimical scheme to strip our colleagues in this august assembly of their last shreds of sanity. We are not. We are merely fantasizing as to how the NSUN might run if we were indeed the Grey Lords in their high castle (or star destroyer, or...)

Agreeing with the appearance that there is a great deal of apathy in the UN, I assure you that there is lively discussion off-site regarding the UN bills. Our region is new, but we are interested (and possess the time) to peruse and argue about various UN resolutions, including the previous ones. Like you said, some truly vague and/or plain silly resolutions have been passed previously. I would be happy to support the repeal of quite a few of these (and pass upgraded versions of many). However, please don't take it that there are THAT many people not paying attention to the issues involved. Given that our region is so small, we always reach consensus and vote as a block (as soon as the two other members gain UN membership).

Lastly (such as in the case of the Biological Weapons Ban), sure it is not perfect, but our members are willing to to pass this resolution as a superior alternative to NOT having any resolutions regarding the control and/or use of biological weapons.

Prime Minister Timothy McKenzie
Constitutional Monarchy of Bunny Pancake
UN Delegate of the White Dwarf Dominion