NationStates Jolt Archive

Lately all we have been getting seems to be the Bill of Rights as proposals. Like freedom to assemble and try criminals fairly. Whatever happened to letting governments govern on their own however they want, and the UN letting almost any nation join? Pretty soon there will be a law enacted saying citizens should be allowed to vote (I put I could pass such an act too)!

One of the funner aspects of Nationstates is that you get to be a dictator that cuts off citizens fingers for fun, but you can only be that if you aren't a part of the UN 'cause that is cruel and unusual punishment.

I know a lot of people will be like "Well then just shut up and stop being in the UN", well I'm sorry if this game is five times more fun when you can try to be delegate in your region, and all that other crap.

Oh well, I know this newest resolution will pass, and I guess there is a bit of bias towards democracy anyways what with the majority of people here from America and the UK. There's no stopping it.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/wtf7an.jpg

I guess there is a bit of bias towards democracy anyways what with the majority of people here from America and the UK. There's no stopping it.

Well I wouldn't say that exactly...
Just because we are from UK and USA doesn't necessarily mean we agree with the politics of democracy!!!

A proposal that reaches the UN floor is a resolution ... your complaint is not with the UN Delegate approved proposals, but the resolution *categories*. Try actually reading the text of the resolutions, as they increase political freedoms, but do not actually force governments to be complete democracies.

The best thing I can perhaps offer as an example is to look at the United Kingdom. It *still* is a constitutional monarchy, though it could be considered "democratic" in nature the head of state is still not elected.

As a player you have the ability to always roleplay around UN resolutions, to kind of ingore them, or even roll with the punches. In the case of the two most recent resolutions, if you would look at what some more experienced players have been doing you'll notice that instead of whining about the category they actually have turned this into a chance to roleplay and talk about how their interpetation of the text of the resolutions has changed life in their nations.

NationStates can be an interesting way to explore ideas and trade-offs ... be it the daily issues or the larger player created UN resolutions. Do-Nothing-Whining is certainly *one* way to react to the thought experiments NationStates throws at us, but take it from somebody who has been around for some time ... you'll get more out of the game if you pretend you are an ambassador and interact with other nations while telling them how the *text* of a resolution is likely to change your imaginary world. This will force you to really look around the things in RL that inspire you and bring in the good, bad, or both that you want to including in "Kyle Rex".



In other words have fun ... don't let the categories of resolutions get your shorts bunched up.

IC:
The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia has just informed the UN that Excruciatia will no longer participate in its corrupt, hollow debates.

To continue in trying to sort out the regional problems elsewhere BPL has just annexed a smaller peaceful neighbouring nation, executed the Anti-Revolutionary faction who were corrupting the nation, installed a Government loyal to DRE and renamed the nation "The Protectorate of Excruci-rUiNation".

Excruci-rUiNation has now applied for UN membership in place of DRE, and any problems arising from the people of Excruci-rUiNation due to UN resolutions shall responded to swiftly by the DRE Policarmy.

BPL - DRE


OOC:
"Create a Utopian paradise for society's less fortunate or a totalitarian corporate police state. Care for your people or deliberately oppress them."

Unless of course you join the UN ;)

Pete

I agree with the OP. The UN should stick with international matters and let its members decide their own internal laws. Unfortunately, the UN is controlled by meddlers who want every government to conform to their ideals. Well, Sirat is, and will remain a dictatorship regardless of what the UN, or all those rioting people on our streets say.

As for those people who ask why non-democratic nations join the UN, it is often neccesary for regional politics, And in older regions where the original founder is no longer active, the region would collapse without a strong nation with UN connections.

However, I also agree with the representitive from Mikitivity. Tyrannical as the UN is, the only real option is to find ways to incorporate the UN laws into our own governing strategy, as we do with the laws/issues that we pass for our country, many of which have unintended consequences. At least until the UN goes too far and we resign in disgust.

I agree with the OP. The UN should stick with international matters and let its members decide their own internal laws. Unfortunately, the UN is controlled by meddlers who want every government to conform to their ideals. Well, Sirat is, and will remain a dictatorship regardless of what the UN, or all those rioting people on our streets say.

As for those people who ask why non-democratic nations join the UN, it is often neccesary for regional politics, And in older regions where the original founder is no longer active, the region would collapse without a strong nation with UN connections.

However, I also agree with the representitive from Mikitivity. Tyrannical as the UN is, the only real option is to find ways to incorporate the UN laws into our own governing strategy, as we do with the laws/issues that we pass for our country, many of which have unintended consequences. At least until the UN goes too far and we resign in disgust.
Goodness me! I was until now completely unaware that a cabal of meddlesome individuals were pulling our strings. Would you be so kind as to name and shame these nefarious ne'er-do-wells?

Benedictions,

I can guarentee that there exists a block of nations for every category that absolutely hates that category. Furtherment of Democracy is no exception to this general rule. Never the less I do feel that the OP has gone a bit overboard with the argument that all we are getting lately are Bill of Rights as proposals. It is just random luck and manure that a few FoD proposals got onto the queue and a few non FoD proposals failed to get on the queue. The queue is funny that way.

Now Tzorsland is far from a democracy. (I haven't thrown out elections alltogether yet but I used to be Authoritarian on the political freedom category side until the latest UN resolutions hit.) The recent hit on my political freedom to moderate has annoyed me to no end, but then again a lot of things that the UN does annoys me to no end. I joined the UN in part because I wanted the UN messing with my ideal plans.

So back to my basic semi NS view on life.
It is international in scope? (Does it have any international asepct?)
Is it a fundamental human right that needs to be held by all the members?
Is it something that a small part of the world (as UN resolutions cannot apply to non UN members) can implement?

Teehee, couldn't resist!

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3161/unboltonzx7.jpg

Anyhoo, I'd quite like it if the UN was biased to democracy as the majority of nations in the UN must be democracies for these allegedly arm twisting resolutions (which imo they aren't)to pass with such significant numbers. Freedom of Assembly was in excess of 2/3rds in support for example but the UN isn't biased towards democracy in my view. Its simply ensuring the maximum *political* freedom for the citizens of member nation's whose leaders volunteered to join.

I'm biased towards the most economically beneficial result when choosing solutions to national issues so the resolutions which further political rights ensure my people's freedom remains high.:)

"Democracy is when 51% of the people get together and shoot the other 49%" :sniper: :D

So where did I first hear that quote? An Australian......POLITICIAN! HAHAHA

"Liberty is a well armed 49%"... hugs for whoever tells me what wonderfully famous political figure I adapted that from.;)

As for those people who ask why non-democratic nations join the UN, it is often neccesary for regional politics

Sucks be to them. You still chose to join.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

"Liberty is a well armed 49%"... hugs for whoever tells me what wonderfully famous political figure I adapted that from.;)

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb"
-Benjamin Franklin

Boo- and -yah, my friend.

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
---James Bovard

If you are "forced" to join for regional political reasons, you can always leave or create a puppet to deal with the UN. I'm of the mindset that the valid reason to be in the UN is because you want to ... afterall, you can always "jump" any time a resolution rolls around for a vote just to avoid the impacts: In today, gone tomorrow, in again the next day.

Mikitivity, "UN jumping" can cause problems in a very tightly held region. So yeah puppets it is....At least until the dictatorial nations get to the 51% level then watch the fur & feathers fly in UN ;)

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb"
-Benjamin Franklin

Boo- and -yah, my friend.

Congratulations but I said "hugs", I don't know you well enough to reward you with "Boo-and-yah". ;)

*gives the huggles promised*

Question, How much % of the vote needs to be for, for the resolution to go through?

Question, How much % of the vote needs to be for, for the resolution to go through?

51%

A simple majority.

Apologies to my colleague, but it's actually 50% plus one vote of all votes cast.

The simplest of majorities, in fact. Though it's never been quite that close.

Lately all we have been getting seems to be the Bill of Rights as proposals. Like freedom to assemble and try criminals fairly. Whatever happened to letting governments govern on their own however they want, and the UN letting almost any nation join? Pretty soon there will be a law enacted saying citizens should be allowed to vote (I put I could pass such an act too)!

One of the funner aspects of Nationstates is that you get to be a dictator that cuts off citizens fingers for fun, but you can only be that if you aren't a part of the UN 'cause that is cruel and unusual punishment.

I know a lot of people will be like "Well then just shut up and stop being in the UN", well I'm sorry if this game is five times more fun when you can try to be delegate in your region, and all that other crap.

Oh well, I know this newest resolution will pass, and I guess there is a bit of bias towards democracy anyways what with the majority of people here from America and the UK. There's no stopping it.
then stay out of the UN.

51%

A simple majority.
Apologies to my colleague, but it's actually 50% plus one vote of all votes cast.
Ah ha, finally proof that moderators are fallible! (Well, unless HotRodia was rounding up.)

The simplest of majorities, in fact. Though it's never been quite that close.
The closest we've had is 50.3% for resolution #59, 'The 40 Hour Workweek'.

Apologies to my colleague, but it's actually 50% plus one vote of all votes cast.

The simplest of majorities, in fact. Though it's never been quite that close.

And as a practical matter, probably never will be unless we do some careful last-minute vote-rigging.

Ah ha, finally proof that moderators are fallible! (Well, unless HotRodia was rounding up.)

I was, actually. I tend to use the straightforward simple answer for newbie questions, instead of going into detail. Hell, I could have pointed out that in truth, all that's needed is 50%, because as Hack has mentioned if we get a tie vote the resolution actually passes. But why bother? It's not like it's going to happen.

The closest we've had is 50.3% for resolution #59, 'The 40 Hour Workweek'.

Oh dear, I’m quite surprised that there weren’t any demands for a change to a 66.66% majority after such an example of how the tinniest number of member nations in a huge group can pass a resolution, or perhaps there was?:confused:

*sigh* But then I’m guessing the majority of resolution get at least 66.66% anyway so it would be a large amount of work to stop the smallest of problems. I just have to learn to stop favouring over-complicated electoral systems such as AMS or AV+ and accept that systems such as FPTP/Relative majority exist.:rolleyes:

Oooo, and on another note: Could somebody answer as to whether the varying amount of votes given to delegates was derived from the idea of the Electoral College no doubt used by some nations? Or is it actually considered an NS Electoral College?

Oh dear, I’m quite surprised that there weren’t any demands for a change to a 66.66% majority after such an example of how the tinniest number of member nations in a huge group can pass a resolution, or perhaps there was?:confused:
This comes up very often. Every time the moderators say a no, and a few of us point out that it doesn't make sense for a resolution supported by the majority not to be passes because it doesn't reach two thirds (and what's so special about two thrids? - if a resolution just secures two thrids, will people then start arguing for three quarters?).

Oh dear, I’m quite surprised that there weren’t any demands for a change to a 66.66% majority after such an example of how the tinniest number of member nations in a huge group can pass a resolution, or perhaps there was?:confused:Oh yes, people do request that change from time to time in the Tech forum, usually after a resolution passes that they don't like, and every time that request is made it gets shot down.

*sigh* But then I’m guessing the majority of resolution get at least 66.66% anyway so it would be a large amount of work to stop the smallest of problems.Actually if you want to know exactly what percentage of votes were cast FOR a resolution you can check the UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) over at NSWiki.

This comes up very often. Every time the moderators say a no, and a few of us point out that it doesn't make sense for a resolution supported by the majority not to be passes because it doesn't reach two thirds.

(OOC: With respect, that would suggest that the United States Senate and the European Union Council of Ministers, which were created by great political minds and in the case of the latter a collection of bureaucrats with extensive knowledge do things “just because”. As opposed to a very small, elite group of people who post on the UN forum frequently here who are against.)

Firstly, your quote would suggest that this democratic body has an oligarchical element to it? Have the member nations of the UN ever actually been given a publicised, open debate on the matter where they have the right to vote? (I'm aware that due to game mechanics it can't be a resolution vote.)

Or has it only ever been debated by the small group of nations who post here frequently? Who, while held in great esteem for their efforts, must see that it isn't their sole right to decide the mechanisms of the UN but the overall majority’s?

A small explanation of why it is used: (EDIT: please do PM should you have a questions derived from this because I'm aware I've potentially just trigerred a debate I didn't intend to.)

The primary reason that the super majority is utilised is to ensure that any document passed meets with a qualified approval (hence the alternative name of QMV).

Should one utilise the first past the post system or simple majority you are potentially handing political “fate” to a handful of nations. For example a UN delegate that doesn’t use democracy within her region votes against the resolution to take it over the majority threshold could hypothetically be the sole reason a resolution passes couldn’t she?

If that delegate is then removed from their position it’s too late, there would have to be a needless process to undo the mistake. In qualified systems this can't possibly happen, the resolution would have failed due to the non-support for the resolution.

Moreover, it is created to ensure that there is the minimum minority possible thus reducing the potential resistance to implementation. It brings political stability/harmony.

For example, when the Ithanian Senate addresses constitutional matters it utilises 2/3rds because the amendments have very wide-range implications thus it is important to ensure that is isn’t what 50%+1 desire so there is as little conflict as possible with almost identically the same number against.

Finally, assuming that “it will never happen” could be seen as not good enough. A global body which has the ability to overrule national level government shouldn’t be based solely on convention or assumption in the oppositions. The requirements must be codified with mechanisms for when they hypothetically fail.


(One should make it clear that this isn’t a demand for 2/3 majority to be implemented but rather that there *are* reasons why it is utilised and what effect it would have on this body.)

usually after a resolution passes that they don't like.

Hence why 66.66% is utilised; the aim is to minimise the amount of disgruntled people and considering that modern societies tend to have respect for minorities isn't it important to ensure that the number of people undermined is as little as possible. Or do we advocate just disregarding them and turn into tyranny by majority (simple majorty of course and only with respect to the UN, I understand that many member nations are in fact total tyrannies)?

Actually if you want to know exactly what percentage of votes were cast FOR a resolution you can check the UN Timeline over at NSWiki.

Why thank you very much, I was in the process of that when you posted it but via the passed resolutions sticky. The resource you provided is far more efficient and informative.:)

Once again I must stress that I’m simply debating and trying to give insight into what the opposite view point is. While even to me it seems I’m arguing for implementation I’m simply stressing the overall changes that would occur if it was applied and addressing how small groups shouldn’t have total control.:)

This comes up very often. Every time the moderators say a no, and a few of us point out that it doesn't make sense for a resolution supported by the majority not to be passes because it doesn't reach two thirds (and what's so special about two thrids? - if a resolution just secures two thrids, will people then start arguing for three quarters?).

That is exactly what will happening, if a standard supermajority it required, it will not only simply push those opposed to whining for a higher standard, but it will *also* discourage activity in draft proposal processes.

Next week I hope to install Illustrator CS on my work computer (my poor home PC can't run it, thus it can't import MS Excel objects), but I've been analyzing the voting trend differences between nations based on their *age* (game age, not player age), and there is a strong correlation that newbies are more likely to vote no. My theory is that established nations understand that a simply majority wins and end up participating in the draft proposal stage ... and as such they are essentially getting legislation that they are happier with. I also think that in most cases experienced (older nations) players understand the limitations of the game and are thus less likely to nitpick. They certainly don't demand amendements once a resolution has hit the floor.

Finally, resolutions that barely reach a simple majority are vunerable not only during the vote (making things interesting) but tend to be more vunerable to repeal efforts.

That is exactly what will happening, if a standard supermajority it required, it will not only simply push those opposed to whining for a higher standard, but it will *also* discourage activity in draft proposal processes.

With respect, this is an assumption and there is no evidence with which this can be proved until such events occurred as a direct result of the super majority being applied.

Surely it is the democratic right of UN members to "whine" about any system put in place so that this body remains tailored to the wishes of the people and flaws are brought to the foreground?

I would also suggest that the reduction in involvement would be counteracted by the fact only finely combed legislation which is designed to appeal to all will get passed. Wouldn't there be greater incentive to only post repeatedly re-drafted resolutions thus reducing the number of clear flaws?

Isn't is possible that a super majority would act as a very effective "filter" due to the knowledge that ambiguous documents like have passed under simple majority will not please the numbers necessary to be implemented? Resolutions would serve the people rather than the creator of it whilst under simple majority they might believe its easier to get their wishes applied thus put less effort in.

Next week I hope to install Illustrator CS on my work computer (my poor home PC can't run it, thus it can't import MS Excel objects), but I've been analyzing the voting trend differences between nations based on their *age* (game age, not player age), and there is a strong correlation that newbies are more likely to vote no. My theory is that established nations understand that a simply majority wins and end up participating in the draft proposal stage ... and as such they are essentially getting legislation that they are happier with. I also think that in most cases experienced (older nations) players understand the limitations of the game and are thus less likely to nitpick. They certainly don't demand amendements once a resolution has hit the floor.

Again, whilst I have the greatest respect for you and your countless contributions to the UN I've read over the months and years it must be said that I do believe that one half of that quote suggested mild arrogance by seemingly automatically linking experience with age.

Then the other half seemed to *encourage* "making peace with the system" which means that Government stagnates and members always defer to the status quo.

Of course, I will freely acknowledge what you say an admit my error should you provide the evidence when you're able to analyse the data.

Finally, resolutions that barely reach a simple majority are vunerable not only during the vote (making things interesting) but tend to be more vunerable to repeal efforts.

OOC: I completely agree with that, it does make things more entertaining and "punch and judy" in nature but strictly within the ideas of good NS governance I disagree as you're about to see. (and yes I am doing this to be awkward, just pretend to take me seriously!):p

IC: Surely the point of the UN is not to provide "entertainment" for the international community but to ensure effective world order? To pass resolutions by barely any majority and then suffer the repeal process causes great upheaval politically and needlessly wastes vital UN resources with something that would have potentially been avoided under a super majority system.

I believed the aim of the UN was not to justify its existence or oil its own mechanisms with the churning out of half-supported legislation but instead to provide firm foundations from which a solid global perspective could be taken?

Goodness me! I was until now completely unaware that a cabal of meddlesome individuals were pulling our strings. Would you be so kind as to name and shame these nefarious ne'er-do-wells?

I'm actually waiting on a response to that myself.

WHY WE NEED A 66% MAJORITY

We need a 66% majority for many reasons. The first reason I state is that because of time, more noobs will come that there will be experienced people (with the interent or the site. I do not refer to myself as a noob as I try to figure out the "standards" before posting.) Eventually, those noobs will come and take over.

Second, many of these descisions seem to be so far internal that they effect the kind of govt. you can have. Why can't I have my friends cut off other people's hands or take w/o permission w/o it breaking the law. Well, they can, but for how long before the UN makes a Proposal saying that nobody is 'above' the law. Well than, at the moment that is made, I will be forced to have my chief officer pick a crew to SHOOT ME on contact! I shall be dead, and my govt. will turn to anarchy! If a proposal like that passes by 60% of the people, it's because those 60% want to oppress the other 40% who think to be above the 'law'. Injustice. 2/3rds though, and you have a clear reason as to why it should pass. 66%, and you got 1000s more people agreeing saying that this should be passed. Otherwise, you have a bunch of people whining that it passed and they have to change there entire nation.

---------------------------------

I also think that resolutions should not be allowed to impede in the way a govt. is run. For example, these would be illeagle: Dictators Begone; Democracy--I don't think so!; and No Govt.! Only Anarchy!; which are extreme, and kind of mess with game mechanics. Well, many resolutions already passed do this in a subtle way.

If a proposal like that passes by 60% of the people, it's because those 60% want to oppress the other 40% who think to be above the 'law'. Injustice. 2/3rds though, and you have a clear reason as to why it should pass. 66%, and you got 1000s more people agreeing saying that this should be passed.
So why 66%? Why not 58%, or 82%?

If a proposal like that passes by 60% of the people, it's because those 60% want to oppress the other 40% who think to be above the 'law'. Injustice. 2/3rds though, and you have a clear reason as to why it should pass.

No. If 60% of people pass a Resolution, it's because 60% of the people want the Resolution to work. There's nothing to do with oppression here.

(OOC: With respect, that would suggest that the United States Senate and the European Union Council of Ministers, which were created by great political minds and in the case of the latter a collection of bureaucrats with extensive knowledge do things “just because”. As opposed to a very small, elite group of people who post on the UN forum frequently here who are against.)Are you saying that those groups don't on occasion pass laws that the people they represent disagree with?

Firstly, your quote would suggest that this democratic body has an oligarchical element to it? Have the member nations of the UN ever actually been given a publicised, open debate on the matter where they have the right to vote? (I'm aware that due to game mechanics it can't be a resolution vote.)Since the game's ADMINS (i.e. the people who'd have to implement the change) have said that they won't change it, no.

Or has it only ever been debated by the small group of nations who post here frequently? Who, while held in great esteem for their efforts, must see that it isn't their sole right to decide the mechanisms of the UN but the overall majority’s?What debate? Whenever it's suggested the admin always say no.

Hence why 66.66% is utilised; the aim is to minimise the amount of disgruntled people and considering that modern societies tend to have respect for minorities isn't it important to ensure that the number of people undermined is as little as possible. Or do we advocate just disregarding them and turn into tyranny by majority (simple majorty of course and only with respect to the UN, I understand that many member nations are in fact total tyrannies)?And yet, under a supermajority system you can very well have a resolution fail with a 66.65% majority and end up with a majority of disgruntled people.

Why thank you very much, I was in the process of that when you posted it but via the passed resolutions sticky. The resource you provided is far more efficient and informative.:)Yeah, why do the calculations yourself when someone else has already done them;)

Once again I must stress that I’m simply debating and trying to give insight into what the opposite view point is. While even to me it seems I’m arguing for implementation I’m simply stressing the overall changes that would occur if it was applied and addressing how small groups shouldn’t have total control.:)
Bear in mind that a small group of people: Max Barry, the mods and the admins, do in fact have total control of the entire site.

i really think you should need at least 70% of the full support for the resolution to pass, i mean 50.1% for a resolution to pass is slack, i mean a huge amount of players voted no to it and i think thats a strong enough amount of people for the resolution to not go through.

So why 66%? Why not 58%, or 82%?

Well, I can't answer that, but I can safely say why we can't use 69% ... this is a family game. ;)

Are you saying that those groups don't on occasion pass laws that the people they represent disagree with?

I didn't mention passing laws the people don't agree with, I mentioned how I believed it arrogant to assume that a few members here are more intelligent than the individuals who instigated QMV.

Since the game's ADMINS (i.e. the people who'd have to implement the change) have said that they won't change it, no.

In such a case I will be bringing this up vehemently in NS2 whenever it is created assuming that there'll be a monthly fee.

I concede that at the moment it would be difficult for them becuase they aren't paid for their services but once... how do the children on the streets of Ithania put it? "We own their ass"? :D

Then at that point I am a customer, the customer is always right and I am paying for their serves so if the majority of other customers decide they want it via vote they must put the required work in to make it reality. :p

Bear in mind that a small group of people: Max Barry, the mods and the admins, do in fact have total control of the entire site.

I was IC then, they didn't exist! :D

And yet, under a supermajority system you can very well have a resolution fail with a 66.65% majority and end up with a majority of disgruntled people.

That would be an idication of a failure of support, not a victory for negative forces against it. The legislation could be re-drafted and re-submitted so that it does meet with the supermajority's approval.

It is better that legislation doesn't get passed and is then potentially re-submitted after re-drafting than legislation gets passed which would be positive to 50%+1 but make the lives of an equally large number of people negative.

At least in the first case the status quo is maintained to act as a foundation on which to build for other, similar legislation. (and no I don't mean repeatedly submit until you get the result you want. I mean change it to suit the populace for a future vote.)

So why 66%? Why not 58%, or 82%?

I admit that I didn't understand the "clear reason" for it either but its mainly because its easier to calculate how one should assign votes.

I'll actually find the history of the supermajority so I understand the reasoning behind it and TG them to you if you so wish?

However, I must also ask... why 50%+1?

Again, whilst I have the greatest respect for you and your countless contributions to the UN I've read over the months and years it must be said that I do believe that one half of that quote suggested mild arrogance by seemingly automatically linking experience with age.

Then the other half seemed to *encourage* "making peace with the system" which means that Government stagnates and members always defer to the status quo.

Of course, I will freely acknowledge what you say an admit my error should you provide the evidence when you're able to analyse the data.


I've analyzed the data for one resolution, and if you have MS Excel, telegram me an address to send you a 21 kb file and you'll be able to see it. In a few weeks I'll have a new PC and will upload Illustrator CS and then present my data in a clean form (I prefer clean and neat looking presentations of data) on NSWiki.

But here are the numbers (visually you can imagine the pie-charts that I've already constructed in Excel) from my Freedom of Assembly resolution:

In favour:
11 Delegates: 1 0-3 months old, 4 3-12 months old, 3 12-24 months old, 3 24+ months old
28 Members: 11 0-3 months old, 7 3-12 months old, 5 12-24 months old, 5 24+ months old
6 Non-members: 2 0-3 months old, 1 3-12 months old, 0 12-24 months old, 3 24+ months old

Against:
9 Delegates: 3 0-3 months old, 2 3-12 months old, 3 12-24 months old, 1 24+ months old
21 Members: 18 0-3 months old, 2 3-12 months old, 1 12-24 months old, 0 24+ months old
1 Non-member: 1 0-3 months old

As you can see, the majority of the no votes came from newbies. I've not run the numbers in a formal analysis on my previous resolutions, but I plan to ... and my hypothesis (based on observation of years of voting and poll watching here) is that newbies stastically are more likely to vote against resolutions *and* express their votes in the forums.

In the case of my older resolutions, I locked the polls, so the data is still there ... and in addition to getting an age distribution (which is going to be skewed towards the 12-24 month old bin due to the fact that few 2002 nations existed in 2005 -- don't worry, I'd adjust the data to the date of the poll, though the skew will still exist -- I'm a RL engineer, and deal with data like these everyday ... OK take away "nation age" and replace it with something like "rainfall" or "salinity" but timeseries data is always timestamped, so I've seen this happen before), I will also look at another hypothesis ... "Younger nations are more likely to quit the game". This last point is important. When you combine the FACT that newbies are more likely to vote no and that younger nations are more likely to leave, we essentially would be creating a system that would be a sort of "absentee landlords" if we moved to a supermajority approval requirement.

In real parliamentry proceedure in order to *repeal* or undo a vote, you automatically must move to a 2/3 vote ... and yet I seriously doubt all but a few of those advocating for a supermajority would do so if the moderators said, "OK, we're tired of your bitching, so we'll adopt a real-world voting system where *REPEALS* require 2/3 votes to pass ... if that works, then 2 years down the road, we may relook at the threshold for resolutions and repeals alike." The reason this isn't going to happen is that repeals actually have tighter votes than resolutions.

I can also show you numbers that UN forum polls are much more favorable (and accurate) for repeals than resolutions ... which supports the conclusion that the nations that tend to swing by this forum are those that tend to have some objections to something in the body of resolutions. It also means that just because people complain here, it does not mean that the larger bloc of UN players are upset. They could be, but at least as far as comparisons between this forum's opinions on resolutions and the overall population, this group is more conservative (anti-resolutions, pro-repeals). The mods are very well aware of this.

I could go on, but there is plenty of data lying around to support many of my theories of what is going on. I'm certainly not the only player to have recently looked into this. Love and esterel has, when he analyzed UN Delegate vs. UN Member influence. Gruen and Powerhungry Chipmunks know a great deal more than they ever publically admitted to ... which makes sense given that in a game with 10,000s of UN members, their 2 UN members share over 10% of the adopted resolutions ... egads, they might be closer to 1/5 of the soon to be 180 mark here shortly.

Before he quit the game, PC wrote a great article on Global Disarmament resolutions ... at some point I should find the file he sent me, clean it up, and post it.

Michael

In such a case I will be bringing this up vehemently in NS2 whenever it is created assuming that there'll be a monthly fee. OOC: And personally I hope that they stick with a standard majority.

I concede that at the moment it would be difficult for them becuase they aren't paid for their services but once... how do the children on the streets of Ithania put it? "We own their ass"? :D

Then at that point I am a customer, the customer is always right and I am paying for their serves so if the majority of other customers decide they want it via vote they must put the required work in to make it reality. :p And considering that I've never seen more than a handful of people who wanted this change made I doubt that there will be a majority of people in NS2 who will want it made there.



I was IC then, they didn't exist! :DIC: You dare blaspheme and say that the great creator Max Barry doesn't exist! :eek: For shame!

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

That would be an idication of a failure of support, not a victory for negative forces against it.And yet, should that happen I gurantee that people will be wanting to go back to a simple majority.

The legislation could be re-drafted and re-submitted so that it does meet with the supermajority's approval.

It is better that legislation doesn't get passed and is then potentially re-submitted after re-drafting than legislation gets passed which would be positive to 50%+1 but make the lives of an equally large number of people negative.

At least in the first case the status quo is maintained to act as a foundation on which to build for other, similar legislation. (and no I don't mean repeatedly submit until you get the result you want. I mean change it to suit the populace for a future vote.)And yet, the same thing can happen with a simple majority too.

However, I must also ask... why 50%+1?
Because that's what a majority is.

IC: You dare blaspheme and say that the great creator Max Barry doesn't exist! :eek: For shame!



OOC: I foresee a great new religion coming... Barryism.

Max's blessings be unto yet, O nations united, for you are the children of Barry. Barry bless you, and into the heavens shall he carry you. For he is the Great creator, from him all issues flow. The many mods bow before him, in awe of his glory. He shall smite the fluffy, and the rule-breaker, and cast them into the pits of NSgeneral, for he is the lord.

Amen.


...

good lord, I need to sleep.

OOC: I foresee a great new religion coming... Barryism.

Max's blessings be unto yet, O nations united, for you are the children of Barry. Barry bless you, and into the heavens shall he carry you. For he is the Great creator, from him all issues flow. The many mods bow before him, in awe of his glory. He shall smite the fluffy, and the rule-breaker, and cast them into the pits of NSgeneral, for he is the lord.

Amen.


...

good lord, I need to sleep.
Actually it already exists here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=Reformed%20Church%20of%20Maxbarry).

Actually it already exists here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=Reformed%20Church%20of%20Maxbarry).

OOC: Psh. They aren't true believers in Max. Heretics, I daresay. The Holy Maxian Catholic Church will deal with them!

OOC: Psh. They aren't true believers in Max. Heretics, I daresay. The Holy Maxian Catholic Church will deal with them!

OOC: No one expects the Maxian Inquisition!

Because that's what a majority is.

But why is a majority defined as that, I didn't simply say "because that's a supermajority" to the 66.66% questions. A QM is defined as that just as majority is defined as 50%+1, both are just words which aren't arguments in themselves.

I wanted a rational as to why that specific number need to pass it when it is just one more than the opposition. Why not 51% just to make sure there were no errors?

Hang on... I'm just being pedantic aren't I? Ignore that.:rolleyes:

As for this great and omnipotent being known as "Barry"... what evidence do we have of his existence except for a few artists impressions (which show him in a very good light we must say), scattered "witnesses" who speak of his great genius, and a book which while providing a plausible explanation of our creation is disputed by science! :D

But why is a majority defined as that, I didn't simply say "because that's a supermajority" to the 66.66% questions. A QM is defined as that just as majority is defined as 50%+1, both are just words which aren't arguments in themselves.No, it's a definition. If that's not good enough for you, take it up with Webster.

Main Entry: ma·jor·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'jor-&-tE, -'jär-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 obsolete : the quality or state of being greater
2 a : the age at which full civil rights are accorded b : the status of one who has attained this age
3 a : a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total

Hmm, what else would you like to make people become. Personally, I think full democracy has to be tempered by forced service-- some positions should be filled first by qualification, then the qualified people should be chosen by lot. The original democracy Athens had forced service and conscription things which are missing from modern democracies. Democracy is not about freedom, it is about the will of the people.

Hmm, what else would you like to make people become. Personally, I think full democracy has to be tempered by forced service-- some positions should be filled first by qualification, then the qualified people should be chosen by lot. The original democracy Athens had forced service and conscription things which are missing from modern democracies. Democracy is not about freedom, it is about the will of the people.
This seems to be straying rather off topic. For debates about democracy in general, the General forum is the place to go.

Hmm, what else would you like to make people become.

IC:
Oppressed! Persecuted! Powerless! Crushed! Vanquished! Destroyed! Exterminated! Annihilated! :mp5: :mp5:


OOC:
And their little dogs too... ;) ;)

I wanted a rational as to why that specific number need to pass it when it is just one more than the opposition. Why not 51% just to make sure there were no errors?


The justifications for majority and supermajority thresholds are very likely discussed in Robert's Rules of Order, which are the most complete form of Parliamentry Proceedure. The rules date back to the 19th century.

That said, the real reason a majority rests at 50%+1 vote: 50% is easy to calculate ... a 19th century farmer could do it. 50% + 1 vote is decisive ... and a 19th century farmer would still know enough math to figure it out. 51% is actually a bit harder to calculate and once you get the fraction above 50% you (as Hack put it) have Webster's "majority" or in other words: you have the most.

The supermajority is admittedly harder to calculate and actually can vary from body to body. The 2/3 ratio is easier to calculate than most numbers again, and dates back to the US Constitution ... so what was that then 1787 or so? Constitutional supermajority votes were required to override Presidential decisions and amend the US Constitution. Mind you the reason a supermajority was choosen instead of a simply majority is Congress already was designed to have legislative powers, but a US Constitutational amendement overrides the US Supreme Court, thus the supermajority is use for one body (Congress) to overpower existing decisions or power from the two other branches of government.

Earlier I suggested if people are hot about changing the threshold (which I am not), the preceedent across the world would be to actually apply a 2/3 threshold for repeals ... but everybody is looking at the wrong thing here. You want to make it harder for things to reach the UN floor, chase after the 6% approval requirement for proposals. *That* number was decided upon for reasons I don't know, but it works well enough to screen out most of the proposals that make it into the Silly Proposals thread and to ensure that most resolutions that recieve 120-140 endorsements pass.

I think what people fail to recognize is that ONCE a proposal has 120 endorsements, that it already is very popular. This isn't to say that all 120 of those Delegates will vote in favour. I had a number of Delegates (whom I won't name) whom placed my proposal on the UN Floor because as *players* they liked it -- but as nations they voted against it. Their reason: the 6% level is hard to achieve.

Ultimately I really encourage *all* players that complain about voting thresholds to actually draft a proposal (not a repeal though) and see it from start to finish. I can't think of anybody who has gone through that process whom hasn't changed their tune to become a supporter of the present system. The admins and mods are doing a great job.

Constitutional supermajority votes were required to override Presidential decisions and amend the US Constitution.Just to be pendantic... the method of amendment that involves calling a new convention, requires 3/4ths of the legislatures to approve the proposed changes.

You want to make it harder for things to reach the UN floor, chase after the 6% approval requirement for proposals. *That* number was decided upon for reasons I don't knowI believe it was originally 10% (a nice, round number) but was lowered to 6% as it was nearly impossible to hit 10% at the time.

"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?" --Lazarus Long

Rule by the Law. If you don't like the Rule...Change the Law.

The fact the UN itself is democratic means there is a certain inevitability of that migrating downwards to national levels.

The fact the UN itself is democratic means there is a certain inevitability of that migrating downwards to national levels.

OOC:
To quote Daffy "Not for this little black duck!" :D

"Liberty is a well armed 49%"... hugs for whoever tells me what wonderfully famous political figure I adapted that from.;)

John Lennon: "Happiness is a warm gun." :p

The fact the UN itself is democratic means there is a certain inevitability of that migrating downwards to national levels.

I&OOC:
Democracy is rule by the LCD, for the LCD. In this age of technological spontaneity, the very real prospect of an actual participatory democracy (as opposed to the representative democracy so prevalanet throughout the world) means that the general buffoon, idiot, & cogitational moron can override common sense & biology by sheer numerical ignorance. Put simply, had this method been enacted throughout history we would still be dealing with the Ptolemaic view of the universe & a flat earth. The UN (both versions) needs to understand that there is no one right way to live, that a different method of governing does not mean a "wrong" one or one that is detrimental.

IC:
To that end, the Federation of Shikishima shall not petition for membership in the United Nations until such time as that august body recognizes its place & purpose: to allow for cooperation and mediation between nations, and not to legislate that which each sovereign state has the basic ecologically-founded right to govern itself and its citizens as it and they see fit to do without interference.

OOC:
Too bad it can't be set so that treaties and compacts affect only those who sign for them, thus allowing a level of personal decision in how one participates in the organization. Me personally, I'm fairly laissez-faire on how others run their little corners of the world.