NationStates Jolt Archive

It is in my experience, that I have yet to see a WA propsal or repeal ever get rejected. Maybe its just me, idk. But whenever I place my vote, it always seems like everyone is voting for it.

Kinda wierd, espically when we are repealing a recently accepted proposal, it usually is repealed. Even though more people voted for the proposal a week before. :confused:

I think it's because of the hard process of getting proposal to become resolutions for votes. Regional Delegates and high end members vote on proposals and are essentially the only ones who get the proposal to be able to be voted on. With there high backing and then later on high number of votes, things generally get passed rather than get rejected.
It is also my opinion that members want to be very active and feel like they have changed something. Governments generally don't run on the platform of keeping the status quo but by change in any way. The people want promises for a better tomorrow even when today might be glorious and tomorrow, by bad decision making, might be horrible.
I however am hesitant to change things that aren't neccessary to change. That's why I voted against this resolution. It leaves unanswered questions and may lead to a worse tomorrow.

You must have missed the Neutrality of Nations repeal last month. It failed rather convincingly. And do we need to bring up the sentients and nomads rights proposals again? http://209.85.48.12/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

Because: Four legs good. Two legs bad.

Let's face it, a lot of folks don't need scheming dictators, greedy multinational corporations and capricious mob bosses to become objectified--with no will of their own. They do that to themselves.

I take it as a testament to bad faith.

Because people are like lemmings, they vote and run all of us over the edge of that cliff.

There's a nice complilation of all the resolutions that hit the WA floor, even the failed ones, here: http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=WA_Timeline

The question is why do people support more restrictions on WA member states?

The question is why do people support more restrictions on WA member states?
Because of government's insatiable appetite to expand. Since the WA has no restrictions on WA government versus national government, it is a testament to the need for federalism, the need for protection against government through the de-cenrtalization of power.

Here I always thought it was because people don't bother to actually read things and click on the yes because they like the title.

I actually read these things, i guess I'm one of the few that does. The couple that I voted on, I have actually been "for" them. I'm sure, sooner or later here, I'll come across a piece that doesn't make sense, or leaves too many loopholes, or I just don't like the idea in general and vote against it.

I actually read these things, i guess I'm one of the few that does. The couple that I voted on, I have actually been "for" them. I'm sure, sooner or later here, I'll come across a piece that doesn't make sense, or leaves too many loopholes, or I just don't like the idea in general and vote against it.


Trust me, young padwan. With some of the jeeters that sometimes infest the festering snakepit...err.... WA General Assembly to pimp badly thought out proposals in a barely literate form, I think thats pretty likely to happen. Unfortunately it will probally happen sooner, rather than later.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Because of government's insatiable appetite to expand. Since the WA has no restrictions on WA government versus national government, it is a testament to the need for federalism, the need for protection against government through the de-cenrtalization of power.

And a federalised W.A. would really be a more democratic w.a. would it honoured Ambassador ? Or would it actually become nothing but an ever more distant and remote anachronism with less and less power to achieve anything practical ?


Yours,

Then why call yourselves "International Federalists"? :p

Then why call yourselves "International Federalists"? :p

O.O.C. Did I put that anywhere ? :eek: Because if I did then I should go and change it, it wouldn't really be accurate ( anymore at least ) :p

You probably didn't. "International Federalist" is what the anti-sovereigntists used to call themselves.

You probably didn't. "International Federalist" is what the anti-sovereigntists used to call themselves.

O.O.C. Yeah I know ;) Well Urgench definitely aren't anti-sovereigntist :D :D:eek:

It looks like the current repeal may fail too.