NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal is closely related to game mechanics, but also raises an important legislative question. Please advise.

Proposal for Seven-Tenths Democracy

So that a slight majority may not betray the favor of a slight minority, future United Nations resolutions shall require a majority vote of at least seventy percent. In that same interest, the repeal of a resolution shall require a vote of at least fifty percent. Member nations are encouraged to adopt such a democratic model in order to further the protection of minority rights and diversity.

It's very definitely illegal on the basis of game mechanics, in my opinion. Sorry.

ok let me see what you're getting at.

instead of a simple majority, if you had 100 delegates voting on a proposal 70 would have to vote in favour to pass it.

the same 50 delegetes would also need to vote in favour of repeal for it to work.

its an interesting idea and could well improve the quality of proposals, ensure that you had to have cross UN support and mirror the way some RL parliments work.

if it dosen't violate game mechanics i would certainly consider approving it.

But it does. So we can't.

ok let me see what you're getting at.

instead of a simple majority, if you had 100 delegates voting on a proposal 70 would have to vote in favour to pass it.

the same 50 delegetes would also need to vote in favour of repeal for it to work.

its an interesting idea and could well improve the quality of proposals, ensure that you had to have cross UN support and mirror the way some RL parliments work.

if it dosen't violate game mechanics i would certainly consider approving it.

I would argue that the same majority to pass it should be required to repeal it. Plus you can't have 50% to repeal it, because it means 50 could vote for, and 50 against and.... that would just cause chaos.

I would argue that the same majority to pass it should be required to repeal it. Plus you can't have 50% to repeal it, because it means 50 could vote for, and 50 against and.... that would just cause chaos.

Agreed.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Very much illegal.

And a bad idea on top of it all. Even a supermajority is only 67%.

I would argue that the same majority to pass it should be required to repeal it. Plus you can't have 50% to repeal it, because it means 50 could vote for, and 50 against and.... that would just cause chaos.

I perceive more choas in a 51/100 democracy. The vote must only swing by 2% to reverse a resolution. 51% of the people can persecute the other 49%. A legislative model couldn't get any more bi-polar than that.

In a 7/10 democracy, legislation must gain stonger support, so that only 30% of the people may be subject to the controls of others. The 50% repeal provides that 50% of the population may not persecute the other 50%. It also provides a 20% buffer, much more than the 2% previously noted. This provides for a much more stable society.

This could be the best idea in the world: but it's illegal. Base your parliament or regional assembly on its model. But UN voting, for better or for worse, seems destined to stay the same.

In a 7/10 democracy, legislation must gain stonger support, so that only 30% of the people may be subject to the controls of others. The 50% repeal provides that 50% of the population may not persecute the other 50%.
Why would you have lower standards for a repeal?

I perceive more choas in a 51/100 democracy. The vote must only swing by 2% to reverse a resolution. 51% of the people can persecute the other 49%. A legislative model couldn't get any more bi-polar than that.

In a 7/10 democracy, legislation must gain stonger support, so that only 30% of the people may be subject to the controls of others. The 50% repeal provides that 50% of the population may not persecute the other 50%. It also provides a 20% buffer, much more than the 2% previously noted. This provides for a much more stable society.

I think you are missing my key point here.

100 people - 50 vote for the repeal, and 50 vote against.

So who wins? Is it repealed or not?

Why would you have lower standards for a repeal?

A 7/10 democracy provides for much higher standards for repeal. A repeal must gain 20% favor under the 7/10 system, as opposed to 2% under the 51/100 system.

I think you are missing my key point here.
100 people - 50 vote for the repeal, and 50 vote against.
So who wins? Is it repealed or not?

Yes, it is repealed. 50% of the people may not betray the favor of the other 50%.

Yes, it is repealed. 50% of the people may not betray the favor of the other 50%.

But the arguement could, and almost certinaly would, be made that 50% of the people voted in support of the repeal, so why should it be repealed?

You need a clear majority one way or the other to justify passing or repealing a law. 70% to pass it is fine, but if you can not categorically say that more people want it repealing than not, you can not repeal it. It just makes no sense to argue otherwise.

A 7/10 democracy provides for much higher standards for repeal. A repeal must gain 20% favor under the 7/10 system, as opposed to 2% under the 51/100 system.
I think you misunderstod. Why would you have a resolution require 70% approval and a repeal require only 50%?

But the arguement could, and almost certinaly would, be made that 50% of the people voted in support of the repeal, so why should it be repealed?
You need a clear majority one way or the other to justify passing or repealing a law. 70% to pass it is fine, but if you can not categorically say that more people want it repealing than not, you can not repeal it. It just makes no sense to argue otherwise.

The 50% repeal does not provide for majority rule and that's the beauty of it. It provides for the rule of a significant minority. Allow me the utilize an analogy and consider the results under the two systems.

Repeal Slavery:

50 slavemasters against it.
50 slaves for it.

The 50% repeal does not provide for majority rule and that's the beauty of it. It provides for the rule of a significant minority. Allow me the utilize an analogy and consider the results under the two systems.

Repeal Slavery:

50 slavemasters against it.
50 slaves for it.

Yeah - but you could also argue that the significant minority - in this case the slave masters - should have a voice. If both propositions get EXACTLY the same number of votes, how do you decide who is the significant minority and who is the majority?

Further more if you - as you seem to be - are aruging that 51/100 is not a good thing, because it just takes two people to change their mind, then 50/100 just takes one person and so must be even worse.

And why not 49% to repeal it? 40% 30%? If you want the minority to have a voice, why not set it at 34%? That means more than 1/3 voted for the repeal.

I think you misunderstod. Why would you have a resolution require 70% approval and a repeal require only 50%?

It provides for a 20% reversal. If it takes many votes to make it, it will take many reversed votes to break it.

I like the system the way it is to be honest.

There is an alternative way you know. Of course its just as illegal (probably more so actually) and not going to happen as the suggestion in the first post, but I'll explain anyway :).

Why don't we just wipe out all the delegate endorsing and voting stuff and just treat UN proposals like issues. Any UN member with the 2 endorsements can write and submit one, the mods look at them and decide which are good enough to be accepted, we all recieve the same compliance TG we do now informing us when they do. That wipes out all the hoo haa over lemming votes, silly proposals getting passed, tyranny by majority and all the other complaints that crop up here everytime a resolution passes or fails.

Just think about it, no more arguements, no more repeals, just peace and quiet. Of course that will make the UN part of the game as dull as dishwater, but if we're going to trample all over the games mechanics rule, we may as well do it with style :D.

I like the system the way it is to be honest.

There is an alternative way you know. Of course its just as illegal (probably more so actually) and not going to happen as the suggestion in the first post, but I'll explain anyway :).

Why don't we just wipe out all the delegate endorsing and voting stuff and just treat UN proposals like issues. Any UN member with the 2 endorsements can write and submit one, the mods look at them and decide which are good enough to be accepted, we all recieve the same compliance TG we do now informing us when they do. That wipes out all the hoo haa over lemming votes, silly proposals getting passed, tyranny by majority and all the other complaints that crop up here everytime a resolution passes or fails.

Just think about it, no more arguements, no more repeals, just peace and quiet. Of course that will make the UN part of the game as dull as dishwater, but if we're going to trample all over the games mechanics rule, we may as well do it with style :D.


I was thinking that for every proposal that makes it to the floor, eleven member nations are nominated to decide whether it passes or not, and they debate it, vote on it and so forth. That way there would be no delegate voting issues (Except at the approving stage) and there would be more discussion about the role of each nation in votes (say the choice of 11 is a pick out of the hat of the 100 nations who have debated most in this forum, so you can be sure they have a good understanding of things, or at least they participate in the debates)

And yes - this would never work either. But at least there would be a majority, even if it is only 6 to 5 (anyone who doesn't vote counts as against a resolution and against an appeal, so people would actually have to do something to get law passed)

I think having an SC or something would be quite fun. Yes, I know it'll never happen. But we can dream. I'd rather something along those lines than have reform of the number of votes needed.

Yeah - but you could also argue that the significant minority - in this case the slave masters - should have a voice. If both propositions get EXACTLY the same number of votes, how do you decide who is the significant minority and who is the majority?
Further more if you - as you seem to be - are aruging that 51/100 is not a good thing, because it just takes two people to change their mind, then 50/100 just takes one person and so must be even worse.
And why not 49% to repeal it? 40% 30%? If you want the minority to have a voice, why not set it at 34%? That means more than 1/3 voted for the repeal.

A repeal favors removing a resolution by a significant minority. A siginificant minority could well constitute less that 50%, but a buffer must be maintained between what is required to pass and repeal. I think a 20% buffer is good. I could personally go for something more like a 40% buffer: 80% pass, 40% repeal.

I think it would be damned interesting to replay all UN votes to see how things would have played out under the seven-tenths democracy.

I was thinking that for every proposal that makes it to the floor, eleven member nations are nominated to decide whether it passes or not, and they debate it, vote on it and so forth. That way there would be no delegate voting issues (Except at the approving stage) and there would be more discussion about the role of each nation in votes (say the choice of 11 is a pick out of the hat of the 100 nations who have debated most in this forum, so you can be sure they have a good understanding of things, or at least they participate in the debates)

And yes - this would never work either. But at least there would be a majority, even if it is only 6 to 5 (anyone who doesn't vote counts as against a resolution and against an appeal, so people would actually have to do something to get law passed)

That way would just cause more unrest and hostility against the UN in my opinion. It would be seen by the majority of nations, including me, as tyranny by an elitist minority of high profile nations :).

That way would just cause more unrest and hostility against the UN in my opinion. It would be seen by the majority of nations, including me, as tyranny by an elitist minority of high profile nations :).

Agreed. But either way, it'd still be fun.

A repeal favors removing a resolution by a significant minority. A siginificant minority could well constitute less that 50%, but a buffer must be maintained between what is required to pass and repeal. I think a 20% buffer is good. I could personally go for something more like a 40% buffer: 80% pass, 40% repeal.


So if only 4 out of 10 people object to something, while 6 out of 10 support it, you would repeal it?


I think it would be damned interesting to replay all UN votes to see how things would have played out under the seven-tenths democracy.

14 resolutions before 2004 would not have passed (out of 42), including "End Barbaric Punishments" and "Gay Rights"

17 resolutions in 2004 would not have passed (out of 42, again), including "Abortion Rights", "The 40 Hour Work Week" and "Refugee Protection Act", and "repeal the 40 hour work week" would not have been voted on (it failed anyway)

28 resolutions in 2005 would not have passed (out of 45), including "Adoption Rights" , "UNCoSEB" and "Protection of Dolphins", and only 2 (out of 11) repeals would have been necessary and both would have passed

So - there would be 10 less resolutions (repeals that passed, but were not required) and so 59 out of 119 resolutions would not have passed (around 50%), but more in recent times than older times.

Anyone care to comment on these numbers?

That way would just cause more unrest and hostility against the UN in my opinion. It would be seen by the majority of nations, including me, as tyranny by an elitist minority of high profile nations :).

Point exactly. That why we should do it!

No more worrying about the Axis of Idiots!

Agreed. But either way, it'd still be fun.

Especially if you are one of the "high profile nations" :}

Especially if you are one of the "high profile nations" :}

Well, I actually meant it would still be fun to complain about the high profile nations. Non-SC nations in the RL UN love bitching about the power of the SC, for example.

Anyway, not gonna happen. All we can do is concentrate on passing good resolutions in the - however flawed - process that is at our disposal.

Point exactly. That why we should do it!

No more worrying about the Axis of Idiots!

So you consider the majority of UN nations to be "idiots"?

Sorry, but I don't, and would hate to see the UN become an elitist playground with the majority of members excluded from paticipating at all except for submitting proposals, then having to depend on the mood of a very small minority of members to accept it.

At least with my stupid suggestion, which had the mods deciding, there would be a measure of impartiality. If they can be trusted to police the game, then they can be trusted to only choose the best proposals. The problem with a minority of elitist normal players is I don't believe they can be trusted to be impartial and would only pass resolutions that suited them and their agendas, ignoring the impact on the rest of us.

I still believe in democracy within the NSUN, however impartial you believe those making executive decisions are.

Just a suggestion, only half related

Is it possible to add a link on the UN page:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=un

The link will be something similar and better to:

[If you want, you can post, debate and improve your proposition on the UN forum before submitting it]
just next to:
[List Proposals] [Submit a Proposal]

14 resolutions before 2004 would not have passed (out of 42), including "End Barbaric Punishments" and "Gay Rights"
17 resolutions in 2004 would not have passed (out of 42, again), including "Abortion Rights", "The 40 Hour Work Week" and "Refugee Protection Act", and "repeal the 40 hour work week" would not have been voted on (it failed anyway)
28 resolutions in 2005 would not have passed (out of 45), including "Adoption Rights" , "UNCoSEB" and "Protection of Dolphins", and only 2 (out of 11) repeals would have been necessary and both would have passed
So - there would be 10 less resolutions (repeals that passed, but were not required) and so 59 out of 119 resolutions would not have passed (around 50%), but more in recent times than older times.



I'm curious how you came up with those statistics. I've got the numbers, but am having a bit of trouble extracting them from 3400 lines of html. Is there some method of database access or something?

Who needs HTML? It's basic math. Look:

Gay Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

7734 / 12705 = 0.61

0.61 == 61%

61% < 70%

Failure.

QED

Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

12705 / ( 12705 + 7734 ) = 0.62160575
0.62160575 - 1 = -0.37839425

62.2% for
37.8% against

I'd prefer to automate the process, since it would have to be performed 126 times.

Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

12705 / ( 12705 + 7734 ) = 0.62160575
0.62160575 - 1 = -0.37839425

62.2% for
37.8% against

I'd prefer to automate the process, since it would have to be performed 126 times.
Someone already has done it
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline

Someone already has done it
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline

That's where I got it from :}