NationStates

Breezelandia wrote:"Hey guys, let's repeal something we just passed with overwhelming support!"

The World Assembly in a nutshell.

You're preaching to the choir. If it wasn't for the fact resolutions can't alter the fundamental laws of The World Assembly, I would have written one suggesting we ban repeals within three months of a resolution passing, unless it gets support of over 75% of the member states (not just those that vote).

Breezelandia wrote:"Hey guys, let's repeal something we just passed with overwhelming support!"

The World Assembly in a nutshell.

"I'm not sure that those who fundamentally misunderstand the WA process should be allowed to be World Assembly ambassadors." Blackbourne remarks.

Calladan wrote:You're preaching to the choir. If it wasn't for the fact resolutions can't alter the fundamental laws of The World Assembly, I would have written one suggesting we ban repeals within three months of a resolution passing, unless it gets support of over 75% of the member states (not just those that vote).

"I am not sure any WA resolution has received the support of 75% of all member nations. I am also not sure why this arbitrary number was chosen."

Why is it that people do not understand that when the voters at large only hear one side of the story, you can get them to pass anything?

If I had an assembly, where only I could speak, only I could organise a campaign (the majority of resolutions are not opposed with campaign telegrams), only I could invite other speakers, etc. would you be surprised that the assembly was a rubber stamp for my proposals? Let me repeat this — most nations do not read GA debates. Even if they did, they would not receive the same polished and coherent argumentation as adopted by the faction pushing the resolution. And even in regions where a WA ministry or Office exists, that does not lead to significantly higher turnout or conversion (i.e. votes in favour of the position adopted by the government, the significance bar being somewhere around 25pc) rates.

The format of the WA, for most players, is if in a debate, the Affirmative walked up and gave a speech. And then that was the end of the debate. There ought be no wonder why the WA keeps voting things in. Before even considering the size of the 'lemming effect' or that voters don't read — the format of the resolution system as a whole means that things like this and like the World Space Administration are easily passed.

Putting limits on the ability to repeal passed resolutions does nothing to solve the actual structural problem that faces any Opposition. Allowing instant repeals, i.e. giving the Opposition the same structural advantage, is the only way, in the current voting system, to make both sides more fair. This idea of limits is practically indicative of simply not having thought about the actual structure and applying a band-aid solution that addresses none of the root causes. It's like treating a sore throat with morphine.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Allowing instant repeals, i.e. giving the Opposition the same structural advantage, is the only way, in the current voting system, to make both sides fair.

OOC
One could argue that makes the system equal, but not fair. After all, it's just as unfair that the Opposition has virtually no opposition during the repeal. This result in a pendulum effect where a resolution passes with virtually no opposition and then gets repealed with virtually no opposition and so on until one side stops. That's not really fair, it's just equal.

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Allowing instant repeals, i.e. giving the Opposition the same structural advantage, is the only way, in the current voting system, to make both sides fair.

OOC
One could argue that makes the system equal, but not fair. After all, it's just as unfair that the Opposition has virtually no opposition during the repeal. This result in a pendulum effect where a resolution passes with virtually no opposition and then gets repealed with virtually no opposition and so on until one side stops. That's not really fair, it's just equal.

Alright, allowing instant repeals, i.e. giving the Opposition the same structural advantage, is the only way, in the current voting system, to make both sides ... comparatively more fair than the alternative in which the metaphorical pendulum is only allowed to swing in one direction.

Briers nods slowly. "I reckon I would support the decision from Calladan. But, then again, new members are poppin' up all the time. Even iffin we was to wait three months, quite a few new members would have cropped up that same week, and we wouldn't be any better off."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Why is it that people do not understand that when the voters at large only hear one side of the story, you can get them to pass anything?

If I had an assembly, where only I could speak, only I could organise a campaign (the majority of resolutions are not opposed with campaign telegrams), only I could invite other speakers, etc. would you be surprised that the assembly was a rubber stamp for my proposals? Let me repeat this — most nations do not read GA debates. Even if they did, they would not receive the same polished and coherent argumentation as adopted by the faction pushing the resolution. And even in regions where a WA ministry or Office exists, that does not lead to significantly higher turnout or conversion (i.e. votes in favour of the position adopted by the government, the significance bar being somewhere around 25pc) rates.

The format of the WA, for most players, is if in a debate, the Affirmative walked up and gave a speech. And then that was the end of the debate. There ought be no wonder why the WA keeps voting things in. Before even considering the size of the 'lemming effect' or that voters don't read — the format of the resolution system as a whole means that things like this and like the World Space Administration are easily passed.

Putting limits on the ability to repeal passed resolutions does nothing to solve the actual structural problem that faces any Opposition. Allowing instant repeals, i.e. giving the Opposition the same structural advantage, is the only way, in the current voting system, to make both sides more fair. This idea of limits is practically indicative of simply not having thought about the actual structure and applying a band-aid solution that addresses none of the root causes. It's like treating a sore throat with morphine.

So because people are too fracking lazy to investigate what they are being told, we should watch The WA engage in the legislative equivalent of sticking its head up its own ass?

Covenstone wrote:So because people are too fracking lazy to investigate what they are being told, we should watch The WA engage in the legislative equivalent of sticking its head up its own ass?

No, its because the structure in which information is being conveyed requires that this be the only method to increase fairness. Read what I wrote. The WA is not a normal legislative assembly, it ought not be judged on the basis that it constantly makes and unmakes some decision — this is inevitable given the structure of the Assembly. To prove that a restriction on instant repeals is justified, you need to show that doing so would promote fairness between the opposition and affirmative sides. You haven't done that.

Outlined here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=825016

I put my vote in on the FOR side, If a piece of legislation is ineffective at what it was set out to do, why keep it?
Also any excuse to lessen bureaucracy is an excuse i'm willing to take!

I am looking through the general assembly and I can't find how to vote

New Mooland wrote:I am looking through the general assembly and I can't find how to vote

Firstly you have to apply to join. Once you are a member, go the World Assembly page (it should be on the menu on the left) and you will see the proposal currently on the floor (if there is one.) You can then vote on that.

But the key part is being a member. Unless you are a member, you can't vote.

I`m against. No regulation of tobacco. I will resign WA if it passes

NDH Republic wrote:I`m against. No regulation of tobacco. I will resign WA if it passes

I will note that this resolution, the Repeal of the WA Central Medicinal whatever, is no longer at vote.