Advertisement
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:29 am
by 104 Banbury Road » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:34 am
by Excidium Planetis » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:06 am
104 Banbury Road wrote:Maybe a system where the delegate gets an additional vote for every WA in their region who has voted for a given resolution? e.g. for the current SC resolution this would drop 10KI's delegate's votes down from a potential ~400 votes based on endorsement count down to 160 votes (currently), and the North Pacific's votes down to ~460 (again, current voting rates in TNP).
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Kaboomlandia » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:01 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:104 Banbury Road wrote:Maybe a system where the delegate gets an additional vote for every WA in their region who has voted for a given resolution? e.g. for the current SC resolution this would drop 10KI's delegate's votes down from a potential ~400 votes based on endorsement count down to 160 votes (currently), and the North Pacific's votes down to ~460 (again, current voting rates in TNP).
This is the most creative idea I've heard all thread.
by Libertarain Republicans » Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:41 pm
104 Banbury Road wrote:Whilst I'm not sure the current system needs to change, I don't find any of the alternatives particularly compelling. Why pick one function over the other? If you want to change the system, why not break the direct link between delegate votes and endorsements, instead of rescaling it?
Maybe a system where the delegate gets an additional vote for every WA in their region who has voted for a given resolution? e.g. for the current SC resolution this would drop 10KI's delegate's votes down from a potential ~400 votes based on endorsement count down to 160 votes (currently), and the North Pacific's votes down to ~460 (again, current voting rates in TNP).
Making delegates votes proportional to the region's WA votes might cause delegates to drum up more support in regions for WA/SC votes out of self interest to increase their voting weight.
You could also make the delegates more accountable to the nations in their region - e.g. instead of an additional delegate vote for each nation voting, maybe the delegate gets additional votes only from those nations who have chosen the same option. Or in the extreme case the delegate only gets the additional votes of the majority of their region if they chose to vote with the majority, so that if the delegate opposes the majority of their region they only have a single vote. This could encourage more regional campaigning for resolutions, rather than just targeting the powerful delegates.....
by Kaboomlandia » Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:43 pm
Libertarain Republicans wrote:104 Banbury Road wrote:Whilst I'm not sure the current system needs to change, I don't find any of the alternatives particularly compelling. Why pick one function over the other? If you want to change the system, why not break the direct link between delegate votes and endorsements, instead of rescaling it?
Maybe a system where the delegate gets an additional vote for every WA in their region who has voted for a given resolution? e.g. for the current SC resolution this would drop 10KI's delegate's votes down from a potential ~400 votes based on endorsement count down to 160 votes (currently), and the North Pacific's votes down to ~460 (again, current voting rates in TNP).
Making delegates votes proportional to the region's WA votes might cause delegates to drum up more support in regions for WA/SC votes out of self interest to increase their voting weight.
You could also make the delegates more accountable to the nations in their region - e.g. instead of an additional delegate vote for each nation voting, maybe the delegate gets additional votes only from those nations who have chosen the same option. Or in the extreme case the delegate only gets the additional votes of the majority of their region if they chose to vote with the majority, so that if the delegate opposes the majority of their region they only have a single vote. This could encourage more regional campaigning for resolutions, rather than just targeting the powerful delegates.....
That truly is an amazing idea, although I am confused by the second paragraph. Can you explain it a little bit?
by Guy » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:24 pm
104 Banbury Road wrote:Whilst I'm not sure the current system needs to change, I don't find any of the alternatives particularly compelling. Why pick one function over the other? If you want to change the system, why not break the direct link between delegate votes and endorsements, instead of rescaling it?
Maybe a system where the delegate gets an additional vote for every WA in their region who has voted for a given resolution? e.g. for the current SC resolution this would drop 10KI's delegate's votes down from a potential ~400 votes based on endorsement count down to 160 votes (currently), and the North Pacific's votes down to ~460 (again, current voting rates in TNP).
Making delegates votes proportional to the region's WA votes might cause delegates to drum up more support in regions for WA/SC votes out of self interest to increase their voting weight.
You could also make the delegates more accountable to the nations in their region - e.g. instead of an additional delegate vote for each nation voting, maybe the delegate gets additional votes only from those nations who have chosen the same option. Or in the extreme case the delegate only gets the additional votes of the majority of their region if they chose to vote with the majority, so that if the delegate opposes the majority of their region they only have a single vote. This could encourage more regional campaigning for resolutions, rather than just targeting the powerful delegates.....
[violet] wrote:Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.
by Excidium Planetis » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:26 pm
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Excidium Planetis » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:30 pm
Guy wrote:Yeah, I think this could only work if the Del only gets added votes for those who vote the same way as they do (or abstain, if that is implemented).
Otherwise, if my Del has voted For, and I am opposed, by voting Against I've added a vote to each side.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Snefaldia » Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:47 pm
by Guy » Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:13 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:Guy wrote:Yeah, I think this could only work if the Del only gets added votes for those who vote the same way as they do (or abstain, if that is implemented).
Otherwise, if my Del has voted For, and I am opposed, by voting Against I've added a vote to each side.
But under the current system, if your Delegate votes For, you have to vote against just to add a vote to the other side. Already under the current system your delegate is voting against you, potentially.
I can see the merit of your idea, however.
[violet] wrote:Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.
by Excidium Planetis » Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:21 am
Guy wrote:Yes, but people are unlikely to unendo their Delegate because they do not agree with them on a specific WA proposal.
However, if voting in the WA has zero net effect, then you're just not likely to vote when you disagree.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Aclion » Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:46 pm
104 Banbury Road wrote:Whilst I'm not sure the current system needs to change, I don't find any of the alternatives particularly compelling. Why pick one function over the other? If you want to change the system, why not break the direct link between delegate votes and endorsements, instead of rescaling it?
Maybe a system where the delegate gets an additional vote for every WA in their region who has voted for a given resolution? e.g. for the current SC resolution this would drop 10KI's delegate's votes down from a potential ~400 votes based on endorsement count down to 160 votes (currently), and the North Pacific's votes down to ~460 (again, current voting rates in TNP).
Making delegates votes proportional to the region's WA votes might cause delegates to drum up more support in regions for WA/SC votes out of self interest to increase their voting weight.
You could also make the delegates more accountable to the nations in their region - e.g. instead of an additional delegate vote for each nation voting, maybe the delegate gets additional votes only from those nations who have chosen the same option. Or in the extreme case the delegate only gets the additional votes of the majority of their region if they chose to vote with the majority, so that if the delegate opposes the majority of their region they only have a single vote. This could encourage more regional campaigning for resolutions, rather than just targeting the powerful delegates.....
by Maljaratas » Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:39 pm
by Candlewhisper Archive » Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:16 am
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:42 am
by Guy » Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:50 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:Guy wrote:Yes, but people are unlikely to unendo their Delegate because they do not agree with them on a specific WA proposal.
However, if voting in the WA has zero net effect, then you're just not likely to vote when you disagree.
That's the greatness of it. If delegates see their vote count drop drastically, it might be because nobody is voting because they disagree with the delegate. It might inspire change.
Under the current system, delegates don't usually see a huge drop in voting power because people, as you you said, are unlikely to unendorse a delegate. They don't have the same incentive to change.
[violet] wrote:Never underestimate the ability of admin to do nothing.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:54 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:02 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:That's the greatness of it. If delegates see their vote count drop drastically, it might be because nobody is voting because they disagree with the delegate. It might inspire change.
by Snefaldia » Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:30 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Proxy voting
Voter information
As EP notes, such a system basically eliminates stacking, if it is calculated on the fly and not done based on past voting trends (i.e. not based on the regional turnout from the last voting cycle). This causes the same problems I spoke of earlier, to a greater degree, because there would then be no checks rather than weak checks against it.
The stacks which are prevalent in the WA serve as more than a mechanic to display power. They also serve as a way to convey information. The lemming effect happens because most voters are apathetic about their votes (or, simply follow how their delegate voted). The existence of the stack allows for people to basically rely on the evaluation of the larger regions vis-à-vis some policy. Because large regions are less likely to be rabidly NatSov, this means that actual interesting policies can be passed. Otherwise, votes are basically decided by an electorate which tends strongly towards NatSov roots and won’t pass anything which doesn’t abide by those radical NatSov principles.
Furthermore, this also runs into the issues I noted about the reduced ability to campaign. This is because strong delegates allow for low numbers of telegrams to get large numbers of votes. It is not possible to send telegrams, have them read, and then shift opinions in such a magnitude that they can affect voting if stacks do not exist. This means that authors are then unable to effectively campaign for their proposals. The alternative is to have authors campaign to delegates which then get their constituents to vote in such a fashion.
Most regional governments are not willing to spam their members of voting information. In Europe, I send a regional telegram maybe once every two or three months about important things which I think are actually really important. If I picked up the pace of telegram sending, people would start blocking them. If a region's voice in the WA is dependant on spamming their own region, those members would block those telegrams. This means that regional governance and participation in Europe's democracy trades off with our voice in the World Assembly.
by Bears Armed » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:01 am
Maljaratas wrote:Not to be cliche, but that is the best idea for changing the system I've seen in this entire thread. I fully support the idea (though an Abstain button makes it better )
by Excidium Planetis » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am
Guy wrote:Under the proposed system, the Delegate would gain a vote regardless of how the residents vote.
What I'm proposing is that the Delegate only gains a vote (or two) for every resident that votes the same way as the Delegate.
104 Banbury Road wrote:You could also make the delegates more accountable to the nations in their region - e.g. instead of an additional delegate vote for each nation voting, maybe the delegate gets additional votes only from those nations who have chosen the same option.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Proxy voting
Such a system means that people aren't represented at all. For most people in the World Assembly, their representation comes from their proxy vote. This is because most individual voters don't vote at all.
Just using the numbers from Europe, as delegate, I have 290 endorsements. However, only 180 players actually vote in any decision. Around 85% of European WA residents (I will be using our term: 'electors') endorse the delegate.
While there is a chance that the voting proportion of those who endorse the delegate is different from those who did not endorse the delegate, we don't keep such information. I don't think anyone does. I am going to assume that the voting proportion is the same between the two groups, because this has accorded with my own observations in the region and the fact there aren't good reasons why that proportion would be radically different between the two groups (something like activity would only indicate a small difference between the two groups).
Of the 180 electors of who voted, the number of people who didn't vote is the difference between that and the number of electors. This is around 150. The number of proxy votes in Europe is therefore around 128. Those 39 per cent of people in Europe are only represented by their delegate.
Voter information
As EP notes, such a system basically eliminates stacking, if it is calculated on the fly and not done based on past voting trends (i.e. not based on the regional turnout from the last voting cycle). This causes the same problems I spoke of earlier, to a greater degree, because there would then be no checks rather than weak checks against it.
The stacks which are prevalent in the WA serve as more than a mechanic to display power. They also serve as a way to convey information. The lemming effect happens because most voters are apathetic about their votes (or, simply follow how their delegate voted). The existence of the stack allows for people to basically rely on the evaluation of the larger regions vis-à-vis some policy.
Because large regions are less likely to be rabidly NatSov, this means that actual interesting policies can be passed. Otherwise, votes are basically decided by an electorate which tends strongly towards NatSov roots and won’t pass anything which doesn’t abide by those radical NatSov principles.
Furthermore, this also runs into the issues I noted about the reduced ability to campaign. This is because strong delegates allow for low numbers of telegrams to get large numbers of votes.
The alternative is to have authors campaign to delegates which then get their constituents to vote in such a fashion.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Aclion » Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:20 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:This simply isn't the case though. Most people aren't so well versed in the voting system that they would do this.
by Snefaldia » Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:55 pm
by Nilla Wayfarers » Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:15 pm
The Greatest GA Resolution Author Ever wrote:Due to more of the Econmy using computers instead of Paper The Manufactoring for paper prducts shpuld decrease because were wasting rescources on paper ad more paper is being thrown in the trash
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Kolm
Advertisement