[SUGGESTION] Hide voting totals on WA proposals

[Kaboomlandia]

There's been some talk in GP of conspiring to vote against the majority on everything. As well, there's the ever-present problem of "lemmings" who mindlessly vote for the majority on resolutions. To fix this, why don't we, similar to poll results on these forums, hide the voting tally until the person votes? This way, people are voting for their own beliefs, and not just because of the majority.

[Imperializt Russia]

The kind of person who would only vote in majority interest, or be heavily influenced by it, probably wouldn't vote when denied that information.

Granted in NS there are no real consequences of abstention - we don't actually sign away people to die, here - but I don't think that's exactly a better outcome.

[Mousebumples]

This has been suggested before, and while I'd have to search for those old threads to be sure, I swear someone mentioned once that the current WA voting system (i.e. Delegates potentially accumulating an insane number of votes, etc.) was an intentional setup by Max (back in the Olden Days) to mimic the craziness of Jennifer Government.

[Elke and Elba]

This has been suggested before, and while I'd have to search for those old threads to be sure, I swear someone mentioned once that the current WA voting system (i.e. Delegates potentially accumulating an insane number of votes, etc.) was an intentional setup by Max (back in the Olden Days) to mimic the craziness of Jennifer Government.

I always thought it was only the categories that were influenced by Jennifer Government (until that policy seemed to have been quietly dropped).

Also, even in a real-ish kind of context I think the Chambers would let everyone see who is voting what anyway. I think while removing the numbers may make things a bit less lemmingy, it certainly removes an element of suspense and tension in voting - especially close ones like Auralia's last On Abortion repeal attempt or say, the ill-fated WSA thingum.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

If the tallies are visible once you have voted, you could simply vote, View the trend, then change your vote if necessary- unless you lock in votes permanently, which kills off a lot of the political game on the WA.

[Kaboomlandia]

If the tallies are visible once you have voted, you could simply vote, View the trend, then change your vote if necessary- unless you lock in votes permanently, which kills off a lot of the political game on the WA.

I had that flaw in mind. Maybe a cool-down period, where you can't change your vote for ~12 hours?

[Imperializt Russia]

If the tallies are visible once you have voted, you could simply vote, View the trend, then change your vote if necessary- unless you lock in votes permanently, which kills off a lot of the political game on the WA.

I had that flaw in mind. Maybe a cool-down period, where you can't change your vote for ~12 hours?

The vote lasts for four days. You just come back and change it later.
I don't see much point.

[New DeCapito]

What if you have no indication of the tally until the voting ends? Then the people influenced by the majority wouldn't vote (and that's a good thing, when you think about it, as they clearly have no opinion on these things).

[Imperializt Russia]

What if you have no indication of the tally until the voting ends? Then the people influenced by the majority wouldn't vote (and that's a good thing, when you think about it, as they clearly have no opinion on these things).

Voting numbers for the WA are already abysmally pitiful and you want them lower?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

What if you have no indication of the tally until the voting ends? Then the people influenced by the majority wouldn't vote (and that's a good thing, when you think about it, as they clearly have no opinion on these things).

Makes things less fun. No telling who's voting where to target campaigns, no knowing you're right behind and a campaign might change things.

[Hobbesistan]

but how will we votestack without counts?!?!?

[Daynor]

viewtopic.php?p=10156616#p10156616

There's one example of the admin mentioning that it is actually intentional.

Delegate's are actually wielding far less power than they have in the past. I can recall when Alsted used to have an endorsement count in the 800s and liked to vote early. I can also remember when 10kI also had over 1000 endorsements, though they were less likely to vote in the first hours. And I was one of the major organizers of an effort that brought the SC to a standstill, when several big delegates and small ones agreed to vote against any WA resolution that went to vote after Rule IV was unjustly implemented. It is pretty rare to see a stack/stomp like we used to organize these days.

Its all been suggested before: Cap the number of votes a nation can get to prevent the super-delegates, hide the totals, hide the extra votes (let the vote total reflect actual number of players before/against until the end), just take the extra votes away, etc. At the end of the day I come down in agreement with some of the others, I'd rather players that put a whole lot of effort into becoming the delegate of a big region wield a lot of power than no one be able to control the votes at all. The premiere example that comes to mind is when a proposal no one paid any attention to made it to vote (barely) that was a blatant plagiarism of one of my resolutions, I was delegate of TSP at the time and me and a couple other big delegates stomped the crap out of it. The everyday voter would have had no idea it was a plagiarism, because most users haven't been on this site long enough to remember 80% of the old resolutions.