WA vote list

[The divided]

Could we possibly hide the vote totals from the delegates until voting ends, but still show how the delegates voted during voting?

The reason I'm asking this is because I see a big lemming effect with nations with HUGE endorsement totals voting early, and then everyone follows their lead. This in turn takes away from debate and turns the WA into a "who can vote the fastest game".

I think if we could implement a system like this, we would see a lot more competitive votes and a new-found interest in the debating process of the WA.

[Dogs galore]

this would be a great idea.

[Roten]

It would be a great idea, although I dislike the WA and avoid its tentacles.

[Ardchoille]

Part of what (some of us) see as the joy of the WA is the diplomacy involved: persuading big-bloc voters to cast them the way you want, writing proposals so they include known "trigger" terms, building up influence yourself in the big-bloc regions, intriguing to carry their delegacy, even changing their minds. If voters can't see the votes as they're cast, that takes away some of the political aspects of a political game.

[The divided]

Just for clarification, what I am proposing is that you see how the delegate voted, you just don't see the impact on the vote total until voting ends.

Where I do see drawbacks, in my opinion ultimately the good FAR outweighs the bad.

For example, in the current system, if the vote is down by 500-600 in the final 30-40 mins, you might give up. But, if we implemented a new system such as what I am proposing, there might be a new feeling in the WA that says "its only over when its over", and people would campaign until the last minute.

I know the mods were saying that they wanted to try some new things in the WA, and I believe a system like this should at least be attempted.

[Ardchoille]

Ah, I see. I misunderstood. WA regulars would probably already know how many votes each delegate could swing, but not all WAers are numbers men, so I can see it would increase tension; but I think it would still take away more fun than it would add.

Campaigning to the last minute hasn't been unknown in the WA's earlier incarnations -- I suspect certain former Delegates took quite a deal of pleasure in withholding their vote to the last second. The knowledge that Region X's vote wasn't in yet has inspired some of the international body's (to my mind) more enjoyable moments.

[[violet]]

Hmm, interesting...

[Nordicus]

I think it sounds like a good idea.

[Glen-Rhodes]

As much as I dislike nations like Alsted voting early and creating the lemming effect (which you can see in live action right now!), if you can convince one or two of those nations to vote for your resolution, then it's essentially passed right there. It's like the filibuster. You hate it when it's against you. But when it's on your side...

Also, as Ardchoille mentioned, if you know certain 'triggers', you can sway the lemming effect in your favor. I'm convinced that's how International Competition Law passed. If I had made a free trade, rather than a fair trade appeal, it probably wouldn't have passed at all. Fairness, freedom, fluffy titles --- these are all triggers.

P.S. I'm still waiting for my phrase -- "As goes Alsted, so goes the World Assembly" -- to come into popular usage......

[The WA Lemming Effect]

P.S. I'm still waiting for my phrase -- "As goes Alsted, so goes the World Assembly" -- to come into popular usage......

I like it so much, I made it my motto.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Vote Stacking is a huge problem, and a closed box is quite democratic. That being said, I'm typically nervous as hell when my resolutions get to vote, I'd be an absolute mess if I didn't know what the vote was.

However, it would be an encouragement to join other region's forums, and campaign (or politik) there, maybe even just to gain a better understanding on how some of the big region's are planning to vote for.

As GR puts it, its great when its on your side, its awful when its not. I certainly wasn't complaining when Alsted put his 400 votes for GA#63, and I certainly was grumbling when he didn't for my attempted repeal of SC#3 as vote stacking is pretty much the only way to get something like that passed.

EDIT: GR is also right by saying fluffy titles are one of the best tactics you can use against vote stacking. However, in the Security Council you don't have that choice. "Repeal 'Condemn NAZI EUROPE'" can't be changed to "Spread Flowers and Love, and Give more Freedoms to National Socialists!"

[Unibot]

Okay, I've added the idea to the idea list!


Oh and ...

What if there was resolution category for the SC called "Nullification", for the southerners' out there, which could be passed in preparation for every free trade proposal up-to-vote at the GA voting floor. "Nullify Alsted" would give Alsted one vote, instead of 400, which I expect would be followed by "Nullify Alsted II","Nullify Alsted III","Nullify Alsted X", and "Nullify Alsted XVII"...

I'm joking, sort of...

[Kandarin]

If the problem is just what Alsted is doing, he's not the only major delegate out there (though he is the biggest) and I'm sure you could convince other major delegates to do the same thing and presumably counter him somewhat in doing so. If that flies in the face of your region's democratic process, you could always start your internal voting on resolutions as soon as they reach quorum so that your region's consensus is all ready to go as soon as the resolution hits the floor.*

* EDIT: Actually, I'll have to look into implementing this in some places. Not because I dislike Alsted (I don't - and besides, a lot of the time they'd wind up voting the same side as him anyway) but because his technique makes good sense and could probably be spun in a way that would actually improve voter participation.

[Alsted]

*Note: This post may belong better under "gameplay," but I think all that follows is germane to the above discussion. If not, feel free to move the following to where it may better belong.*

I've been following the discussion surrounding early-vote and favored v. disfavored resolution topics for quite some time. I think it's now reached the point where it's appropriate to give some thoughts (of course, this is all out of character):

*I was raised in a middle-class, decaying steel town. Over the course of my upbringing, I saw many cross-border, multinational "free trade" agreements only pummel my hometown and its employment base. As such, I have a natural bias against such agreements, though I'm not against them out of hand. (For instance, I'd be happy to vote for one if a drafter would have enough good sense to include training provisions for workers with outdated skills to move from an old economy to a new economy. Pardon me if these types of provisions have been included in the past and I've missed them. I'm sorry if I have, though I don't think I've made that mistake.)

*Though I was born in to lower-middle-class family, I eventually became an attorney. As such, I know all too well the limitations of so called tort "reform" legislation. Whether it be addressing employment circumstances or medical malpractice, it's just a bad idea - and this particular issue MIGHT be one that I'm against out of hand. (As for the recent resolution offered by "A Mean Old Man," it just wasn't that good. I know he most worked very hard on it, but there were too many holes - to me the most persuasive of which can be found here: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=1066463#p1066463. That said, like the above, I'd be happy to vote for one if a drafter would have enough good sense to include "outs" for those subjected to extreme negligence/recklessness or those with "exceptional" talents who were deprived of those talents by negligence.)

*Generally, I don't like repeals, and especially "insta-repeals." I'm a pretty analytical and decisive fellow. I make up my mind the first time I vote on an issue. Indeed, I'm probably not going to vote against myself during a repeal - especially one offered, say, three days after an applicable passed resolution. (Of course, the most applicable exception can be found here: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=685783#p685783.)

*I do not understand nor do I think I ever will understand the ageless "defender v. raider" conflict. To be frank: I just don't care.

*Conversely, I am in favor of resolutions that address topics "unaddressable" by one state. These topics include anti-competitive business practices (e.g.: cartels), rights-based topics (e.g.: human trafficking), or historical protection. (I view this latter topic as something that has intrinsic value and should be protected, even if a more market-based society doesn't want to do it.)

*My early-voting behavior came about for two reasons: (1) When I became delegate, I was deluged with telegrams from my regions nations asking why I was waiting to vote on a given issue. As such, I started to vote earlier. (2) I'm not embarrassed to say that this post really got my goat: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=738912#p738912. When I read this post, the first thing that went through my mind was: "After I worked so hard to increase Europe's size and voting power, this fellow still insists that we (I and Europe) are on the outside looking in on all the 'cool role-players' on the forum." At that point, I remembered back to when I first joined the game. I voted however my delegate voted! Then, when I was a young delegate, I voted however most of the other delegates voted! From there on out, I decided to vote early to maximize Europe's influence and, quite frankly, show that this particular poster was wrong.

*Any number of steps can be taken to shrink the influence of early, heavily-endorsed delegate voters. That said, much like any employee performance measurement system and water over a dam, holes will be found and exploited even after these steps are taken. I recognize that and will accept any changes made. That said, its my firm belief that delegates should work toward increasing the influence of their respective regions. Regardless of any changes made in the manner described above in this thread, I will continue to attempt to maximize Europe's influence in the NationStates world.

I hope this statement has been helpful. I'm sure I missed a few points and details, but I also hope those are not going to be the things that will be the focus of the replies to this statement. I love the politics and strategy (not the roleplaying) to this game, and look forward to discussing those matters moving forward.

[A mean old man]

I thank you for posting here, Alsted, and for contacting me, and I am interested in the further conversation with you I will be having later this week. I understand now why you voted against, however still believe, as I have told you and have told many others, that your grievances should have been expressed during the drafting process rather than when it was too late to change anything.

And, regardless, I support the idea of hiding the vote totals. The lemming affect, while you may justify your actions for your positions, Alsted, is still an absolutely ridiculous thing. These lemmings should be encouraged to think for themselves, not look at a number and decide to go with whichever one is highest.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

(For instance, I'd be happy to vote for one if a drafter would have enough good sense to include training provisions for workers with outdated skills to move from an old economy to a new economy. Pardon me if these types of provisions have been included in the past and I've missed them. I'm sorry if I have, though I don't think I've made that mistake.)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you voted against the Trade Enhancement Act, which contained this provision:

8. REQUIRES member governments to establish programs to alleviate the possible impact of this resolution on workers and their families. Examples of the services provided by such programs are job retraining, help with relocation of displaced workers and training or assistance in small business start-ups.

[Fit battion]

I am in support of hiding the totals, all of the reasons for my support have been mentioned earlier.

I'd quite like to see a poll added to this thread just to see what people who haven't posted think. I can see this as a quite down the middle thing and I'd like to be proven wrong.

[The divided]

I am in support of hiding the totals, all of the reasons for my support have been mentioned earlier.

I'd quite like to see a poll added to this thread just to see what people who haven't posted think. I can see this as a quite down the middle thing and I'd like to be proven wrong.

-done!

[A mean old man]

Oh God, no, not a poll. Take a tally of "SUPPORT" and "AGAINST" nations in the first post of the thread, but not a poll. Polls should never be used for serious surveys, since people love to cheat in them.

[Glen-Rhodes]

*I was raised in a middle-class, decaying steel town. Over the course of my upbringing, I saw many cross-border, multinational "free trade" agreements only pummel my hometown and its employment base. As such, I have a natural bias against such agreements, though I'm not against them out of hand. (For instance, I'd be happy to vote for one if a drafter would have enough good sense to include training provisions for workers with outdated skills to move from an old economy to a new economy. Pardon me if these types of provisions have been included in the past and I've missed them. I'm sorry if I have, though I don't think I've made that mistake.)

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that those things are targeted towards you, or that you even are affected by such tactics. I myself argue in favor of fair trade over free trade, in the World Assembly. But, there are examples where a proposal has failed, then one with the same idea passed with different framing. (IE, instead of saying "ensures free trade", you say "ensures fair trade", even though the proposal in actuality does the exact same thing, despite this slight change in wording.)

None of my personal comments are meant to be hostile. You have every right to vote early, vote late, or not vote at all. Understandably, your choices may irritate me or others, because of how influential 356 votes are in swaying the entire vote.

The bottom line is, you're pretty valuable, because you're one of the few high-endorsement delegates to vote early. Most delegates wait until the very last moment, since they bind themselves to regional polling. We, the WA players, simply have to try and get you more involved in debate. That, and try and figure out your specific triggers, viewpoints, tenancies, etc. This post actually revealed some big stuff.

As of now, I'm not really for hiding vote totals. I'm not completely against, either. I still see the value of the lemming effect. Like the Senate with the filibuster, I'm afraid of removing it, because that means it will never swing in my favor. I might actually have to do some work.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

(Of course, the most applicable exception can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=685783#p685783.)

So wait a second... if I got another Repeal SC#3s up to vote, you'd vote against?
Hhhmm.. I might have to try this, just to force you into SC politics...

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

How are NewTexas and other WA gameplayers supposed to calculate the stats on resolution votes if the delegates' vote counts aren't listed?

[Sedgistan]

They could be listed at the end, after the voting was complete.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Yeah, well, has anyone considered that hiding the vote totals might actually depress voter turnout rather than increase it? Many voters are compelled to vote because of the vote totals, either to "lemming" or to try to reverse the current voting trend. Take away the vote totals, remove the "drama" that often goes on during close votes or volatile ones, and some people might not bother voting anymore.

[Naivetry]

Yeah, well, has anyone considered that hiding the vote totals might actually depress voter turnout rather than increase it? Many voters are compelled to vote because of the vote totals, either to "lemming" or to try to reverse the current voting trend. Take away the vote totals, remove the "drama" that often goes on during close votes or volatile ones, and some people might not bother voting anymore.

This is more probable an outcome than any other situation I can think of.

We're essentially considering a change to the game to make it more inaccessible and difficult to use. If this went through, I'm sure it wouldn't be long until new nations were on the forums suggesting the improvement of being able to see delegate votes as they went through, rather than needing to count them up by hand.