NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't like it. People get intimidated with the votes for and against. Just because there is a majority vote, people will think that their vote will not count. Therefore, to stop intimidating people, and to have a fair vote that all can agree on, I petition for the removal of the poll result as of far.

What poll are you referring to? Can you link to it?

And honestly, if some folks are intimidated by poll numbers, they have issues that can't really be addressed by removing the poll.

Oh gosh, I dread to think what would happen if all UN Resolution votes were made secret ballot… the consequences on results and campaigning would be unimaginable.

Oh gosh, I dread to think what would happen if all UN Resolution votes were made secret ballot… the consequences on results and campaigning would be unimaginable.

OOC: Yeah. Might turn the place into a proper democracy ;)

OOC: Yeah. Might turn the place into a proper democracy ;)

OOC: But I don't think this was ever intended to be a proper democracy. It's a game. Part of the game is being able to sway votes. As I think Ithania was trying to say (in part, at least), in order to do that, one needs to know who's voting how at any given point while a proposal's on the floor.

I don't like it. People get intimidated with the votes for and against. Just because there is a majority vote, people will think that their vote will not count. Therefore, to stop intimidating people, and to have a fair vote that all can agree on, I petition for the removal of the poll result as of far.

What?

He wasn't here for the last vote?

That thing was a roller coaster from the beginning, and people fought long and hard over such a devicive vote.

Then we come to this current bit of fluff, I voted against, but have no serious objections, so personally, I'm not that interested in the debate.

Perhaps he's saying he personally is intimidated?

Technically speaking a "secret ballot" is a ballot where you don't know how an individual voted. Technically we have a semi-secret ballot, the votes of the delegates are known, the votes of the representatives are not. The notion of not displaying the vote while the vote is taking place is, as far as I am aware, not a common feature of any legislatie / deliberative body.

"secret ballot" hidden delegates...t'is a coven, fetch the burning sticks, smoke them out.....

(this week is national witchhunter week in the Bahgumian calendar, a family celebration of groundless accusations, impromptu duckings and merry gatherings around roaring fires......)

"secret ballot" hidden delegates...t'is a coven, fetch the burning sticks, smoke them out.....

(this week is national witchhunter week in the Bahgumian calendar, a family celebration of groundless accusations, impromptu duckings and merry gatherings around roaring fires......)

We know. Why do you think we've closed our borders? The Oldest Coven is on 24-hour alert.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

We know. Why do you think we've closed our borders? The Oldest Coven is on 24-hour alert.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

Maybe I should revive Witchcliff, and the two nations could join forces and go pay the Bahgumians a little visit. Maybe turn them all into field mice, then let the cats loose :p.

As for the secret ballot idea, I can see pros and cons to it, but don't like the idea overall. All the campaigning and TGing delegates trying to get them to change their vote makes things more interesting. I think reso votes would become sterile and boring without all the political intrigue a public vote brings with it.

I understand where this guy/gal is coming from. When I vote, the current vote tally can sometimes influence my final choice a little bit. Especially if I'm 50/50 on the issue. I wouldn't make the vote "secret". I'd let all UN members see the vote, and UN delegates can see the vote AFTER they have made their vote. Sure, and UN delegate could ask a member nation what the current standings are, or vote and then withdraw their vote and change it, but it would at least let honest delegates judge with their intuition on that first vote.

The notion of not displaying the vote while the vote is taking place is, as far as I am aware, not a common feature of any legislatie / deliberative body.

One could equally well say that the notion of displaying the vote whlie the vote is taking place is also not a common feature of any legislative / deliberative body, inasmuch as the matter is seldom given any thought. Both occur. Our Council of Princes is a sufficiently small body that a show of hands is thought sufficient; our votes are in any case only advisory to the High Prince. The Council of Commoners, by contrast, have dragged themselves into the Century of the Mole through the use of an automated secret ballot mechanism for formal votes. We find it quite useful for disrupting the internal power structures of politcal parties.

(OOC: the same applies in RL. I know of councils that use each approach.)

This kind of voting behavior is exactly how Ronald Reagan was elected. The media advertise his "good fortune" and people got intimidated by the report of the media. This is no different, and you're right, I tend to be intimidated toward voting when I see a majority at times. This is why I personally want it removed, but it is for the good of everyone else as well.

OOC: Oh, is that how he got elected? I would have attributed it to Jimmy Carter's spectacular failure in rescuing the hostages, but we're veering off-topic now, aren't we?

I don't like it. People get intimidated with the votes for and against. Just because there is a majority vote, people will think that their vote will not count. Therefore, to stop intimidating people, and to have a fair vote that all can agree on, I petition for the removal of the poll result as of far.

My government supports a "live" display of the vote. For one thing, the system registers a single vote immediately after my nation casts its vote, thus validating the UN accounting system in our mind.

Furthermore, each time we've changed our vote (which is more often than we like to publicly admit to), we've observed that the UN tally changes as well.

Howie T. Katzman

I suspect that many of the folk who play NS are the sort who like to figure out perfectly legal ways to do precisely what the laws seem to forbid -- well, what could you expect, in a game inspired by a bloke from a nation of bush-lawyers?

The visible vote tally helps feed that addiction. Keep it, and keep NS ... er... honest.:rolleyes:

I understand where this guy/gal is coming from. When I vote, the current vote tally can sometimes influence my final choice a little bit. Especially if I'm 50/50 on the issue.


OOC: What a thoughtful way to decide how to vote on a proposal... :rolleyes:

OOC: But I don't think this was ever intended to be a proper democracy. It's a game. Part of the game is being able to sway votes. As I think Ithania was trying to say (in part, at least), in order to do that, one needs to know who's voting how at any given point while a proposal's on the floor.


That’s exactly what I was implying although I didn’t feel like typing out any extensive explanations of the useful nature of the “intimidation” with the majority of votes and I didn’t want to explain the potential for TG campaigns to ensure a widely misunderstood resolution has a better chance of passing (for instance). In most cases this “sheep” effect is quite useful so thank you very much for explaining what I failed to.

For some reason the thread title spelling “presence” “presents” made me lose all enthusiasm.

Although I don’t think I can comprehend how an individual can be “intimated” given that their vote is completely secret unless they decide to inform others of it.

I don't like it. People get intimidated with the votes for and against. Just because there is a majority vote, people will think that their vote will not count. Therefore, to stop intimidating people, and to have a fair vote that all can agree on, I petition for the removal of the poll result as of far.

Now, with all due respect, that is about the most blindly ignorant thing I have ever heard.

Just as an example of how moronic that is, apparantly you didn't watch the progres of the vote on the CRC. That was a hard fought debate that went back and forth, and was called wrong at least once based on the polling data.

The poling data lets you know how hard you need to fight for a victory. :sniper:

One could equally well say that the notion of displaying the vote whlie the vote is taking place is also not a common feature of any legislative / deliberative body, inasmuch as the matter is seldom given any thought.

OOC: I am going to go mostly ooc on this one because I'm going to talk alot about the US house and senate and because that's the way Retired WerePenguins is structured ... well sort of. (For more information consult my wiki, the house actually has four groups of seasonal representatives so at any one time one group is sitting on committees and another group is sitting in the chamber proper.)

Generally speaking, the house votes by "electronic" device. The US house is the best example of a NS vote since it meets both criterias, it is "electronic" meaning the member votes during the voting period at his or her leisure and the member can change the vote before the final time period is up. In some rare cases, vile evil and naughty speakers of the house would delay the final gavel rap for a vote in order to encourage some members to change their votes.

This has nothing (and I do mean nothing) whatsoever to do with multiple regional voting periods which is the problem of US presidental elections. In an election across four (or more if you count Haiwaii) time zones the starting hour for the western zone is four hours into the starting time for the eastern zone. Likewise people in the west can continue to vote four more hours after the polls close in the east and most importantly once they vote they cannot change their minds.

The poling data lets you know how hard you need to fight for a victory. :sniper:


And whom you need to TG to get them to change their votes. ;)

For some reason the thread title spelling “presence” “presents” made me lose all enthusiasm.

Yeah, made me a bit "meh," too.

For some reason the thread title spelling “presence” “presents” made me lose all enthusiasm.

It made me think we were all going to get a free gift after voting. :p

Then it made me think he wanted a third option, YEA, NAY, or PRESENT. (Or in other words Abstain)

Actually even the world "presence" is bothersome. Aren't we all "present" when we vote?

Aren't we all "present" when we vote?


Some moreso than others.

"I submitted a vote to all the citizens of the Commonwealth, and they voted nearly unanimously that they don't give a damn who else votes for what, and thus it is irrelevant to know who voted for what. The only thing that matters is the discussion of an issue, which not enough people engage in anyway. We all know that those delegates who just pop in and say double-u tee eff I hate this proposal et cetera without providing arguments are either completely ignored or made fun of and generally not taken seriously. Do not be intimidated by who votes for what. If you're fifty-fifty or don't care about the current issue, then don't vote. Abstain. Or take the option that could cost you less money. Or something rooted in logic of your own. Even if your logic is flawed. It's up to each individual to vote on their opinion. And don't let other people make up your mind for you."

OOC: And, as Grand High Grammar Nazi, I say, "shame on you!" for spelling the title incorrectly, as pointed out earlier.