Suggested Modification of WA Endorsement System

[Frisbeeteria]

Voting improperly is an issue.

Who determines what counts as 'proper'? Lots of regions have a designated nation that monitors the WA queue and makes suggestions. Who are you to say they shouldn't?

The players determine how the game is played. Nilla Wayfarers gets just one vote.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Voting improperly is an issue.

Who determines what counts as 'proper'? Lots of regions have a designated nation that monitors the WA queue and makes suggestions. Who are you to say they shouldn't?

The players determine how the game is played. Nilla Wayfarers gets just one vote.

When a nation's reason for voting is "because the delegate told me to," that's not even voting. That's handing their vote away.

[Frisbeeteria]

When a nation's reason for voting is "because the delegate told me to," that's not even voting. That's handing their vote away.

The same can be said for voting based on the proposal title, or misunderstanding rules, or being an illiterate jackass, or any number of other valid reasons. If anything, a Delegate Recommendation is at least something within the game.

I can assure you that large numbers of RL voters didn't "read the resolution" in the 2016 US elections. They were swayed by ads, by friends, by social media, and tons of other outside sources.

There's no such thing as a permanently informed electorate, and this political simulation game is no exception.

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

As to why this is "alarming" or surprising, I have no idea. TNP has had a strong focus on boosting all kinds of WA activity for years now, which is the reason why we excel in all WA statistics.

Increasing voter turnout is part of this strategy, and the IFV program has proven to be quite effective in achieving that.

Additionally, the IFVs provide our WA nations with analysis to help them make an informed decision (which does not have to be the same as the recommendation, nations are not penalized if they vote the other way). In gameside surveys we have run in the past, WA nations have consistently responded that they find the IFV telegrams helpful and informative, and that want the program to continue.

Hear, hear. I don't see why people are so concerned about regions helping to increase the amount of information which voters receive.

The problem is that nations may be receiving information, but the players behind those nations do not appear to be receiving that information. While I am far from a complete assessment of all the poll responses (which are still coming in, however, the number I am having to reject is becoming much higher as more nations are responding in regards to the Repeal of NAPA currently at vote rather than the resolution I asked about) the data so far has not indicated that TNP residents are more likely to be classed in "informed" categories than "uninformed" caregories. In short, while TNP residents are being telegrammed information, it doesn't appear to be translating to voters who more likely to vote based on the resolution text. In fact, so far it seems to indicate that it makes them more likely to blindly vote with the delegate.

---

Now, to address concerns that I have been getting (and having myself) in regards to how the poll responses are being sorted and how I am making those decisions, I am going to explain what I'm doing right now with the hundreds of telegrams I am getting. Please note that I am not done sorting them yet, I still have about 450 to do and more telegrams come in each hour (although no longer every two minutes like it was yesterday morning).

First things first, the questions that were asked in the telegram:
1) Did you vote on the latest GA resolution at vote, "Protection of Nuclear Armaments" (authored by Nilla Wayfarers)?
2) If you voted, did you vote For or Against?
3) If you voted, can you briefly explain why you voted the way you did?
4) Did you make any comments in the official forum debate thread?

While questions 1 and 2 have straightforward answers that make it easy to class responses, 3 is a bit difficult. I have not yet begun sorting responses based on question 4, but the vast majority of responders answered with a simple No. Some qualified their negative with "but I did read it" or some variation, but these were a small minority. Next time I will ask if they read the forum, to see if I get more positive responses to that.

All nations which claimed they did not vote were classed as Abstainers, regardless of whether or not they actually abstained or simply weren't in the WA at the time. While these responses will not prove terribly helpful, it does give an idea of how many active WA members there are who didn't vote, as opposed to both active and inactive WA members who didn't vote.

Nations which voted For or Against were further separated down into categories based on reason for voting.

Nations which provided no reason, refused to answer question 3, answered question three solely in the negative, or gave a response that I deemed sufficiently lacking as a reason (a potential for personal bias, but as an example "it was the better option" is not deemed a sufficient reason to vote For, and "it was poorly written" is not a reason to vote Against) were all classed as For - No Reason Given or Against - No Reason Given accordingly.

Nations which reported that they could not recall which way they voted, or responses which lacked confidence in the answer to #2 ("For, I think") had their activity feed checked to determine their vote. Nations which failed to remember, or which remembered incorrectly, we're classed as either For - Couldn't Remember or Against - Couldn't Remember. Reasons for voting were ignored, if a voter remembered a reason for voting For and actually voted Against, the reason given obviously didn't factor into their vote. Likewise, voters who couldn't recall which way they had voted were unlikely to have a solid reason for their vote. Some nations, when prompted with follow up questions after failing to remember or remembering incorrectly, explained their reason for voting sufficiently for me to class them in a different category.

Nations which gave short, fairly vague, and meaningless reasons for voting For, which seemed to be based on the title alone (forms of the word "protect" were key in sorting these responses) were classed in the highly subjective category I titled For - "Protection", meant to indicate voters who approved the resolution on Title alone. It's kind of hard to explain what got responses out in this category, but I'll quote some samples:

I voted that way because I skimmed it and felt like it was good idea to protect my right to have nukes I really have no idea what the full document was about

I voted for to protect nations who possess nuclear weapons, and use them correctly

I voted for the aforementioned resolution as I believe protecting each nations rights to keep armaments even of the nuclear variety for the protection of themselves and their allies from foreign threats.

These responses 1) Do not demonstrate an actual understanding of the resolution text 2) Do not indicate any reasons for voting For, other than what can be inferred from the title of the resolution.

Responses which relied on factually incorrect reasons were classed as For - Mistaken Reasons and Against - Mistaken Reasons, respectively. Examples include nations who claimed to have voted For the resolution because it banned nukes (it didn't) and nations who voted against because of a variety of ridiculous and incorrect reasons (one nation voted against because they didn't like nuclear power plants, another voted against because they thought it would allow genocide).

Nations which voted Against for the sole reason of national freedom, or who voted against solely to prevent increasing international regulations, or who remarked that they systematically opposed any and all WA resolutions except Repeals, were all marked down as Against - NatSov. Note that these responses were only those in which Nation was the only reason presented for voting Against.

Nations which voted For the resolution solely to enshrine the right to use nuclear weapons, or because "I like nukes", were similarly marked as For - NatSov.

As a somewhat unexpectedly large group, a great number of nations voted Against for the sole reason that they disliked nuclear weapons, wanted to see them banned, or didn't like that the resolution affirmed the right to own nuclear weapons. All nations which listed this as the sole argument were marked Against - Disarmament. As of this moment 43/199 Against voters sorted out are in this category.

Nations which reported solely voting based on increasing Military and Police budgets, or which had short vague responses about stability, were regarded as voting based on Category alone, and were accordingly classed as For - Stat Effects and Against - Stat Effects depending on whether they liked or disliked the idea of increasing military and police budgets around the world to increase security. Examples:

Because it was an option that would've made the world far more safer and increase stability.

The reason is simple, being i want to increase my defense forces, and no i did not bother debating 'cause i got no time.

I wanted to Boost Police and Military Budgets.

Nation which reported voting solely because, or almost entirely because, the majority of the world voted against, the majority of their region voted a certain way, their delegate voted a certain way, or someone else they knew voted a certain way and/or recommended a vote, were marked as For - Lemming or Against - Lemmimg. Somewhat unsurprisingly, given the vote count, more responses have been classed as Against Lemmings than have been classed as For Lemmings (although I have not looked at the proportions yet). Surprisingly, quite a few people are willing to admit they voted solely for such reasons, some even acknowledging the stupidity of such a reason:

2. I believe I voted For
3. I did so because the majority of my region did

No, I voted for said proposal.
Yes, I typically wait for my WA Delegate to cast a vote and then I look at the voting trend that my region makes and side with them.

Against
Because everyone else did

I follow the will of the Emperor of the New Pacific Order in my voting. He voted against, thus I vote against.

I am sorry if I make wrong decisions, but I vote against beacuse I saw more votes at against that at the other part.

Two people so far used a coin toss to determine their vote. Both responses were marked as For - Lemming. Blindly following a coin is no better than blindly following a person.

A few delegates were bound to vote according to the regional majority, as per regional laws. I felt it was unfair to class them as lemmings, as they aren't really choosing to follow the majority blindly. These were classes as For - Delegate Obligations and Against - Delegate Oblig. One nation polled so far voted For mainly for interregional diplomatic reasons. As they were a Delegate, I recorded them as For - Delegate Obligations.

Lastly, any responses which indicated a knowledge of the resolution text itself as a basis for the vote were marked as For - Textual Reasons and Against - Textual Reasons. Any response which quoted resolution text, which used elements seemingly derived from the text, or which made arguments that could only be made about the resolution text, were recorded as the above categories. Surprisingly, these categories form the plurality of For and Against responses, making up about 25% of both For and Against reasons.
Examples include:

The resolution restricted our country's freedom in terms of utilising nuclear weapons as a defensive measure. Refusing to allow us to import nuclear weaponry to our wide number of puppet states, on the basis of them using their military assets "ambiguously", or rather, to further our influence among other neighbouring NationStates, lead to me deciding to go against the resolution. In other words, it is of no concern for the World Assembly in how we use our weaponry.

I agreed with the intent of the resolution but it was not strong or specific enough to accomplish its stated goals.

Security of nukes and not trading them with warmongers is a good goal imho.

I liked that the resolution required nations to be responsible for their nuclear arms and keep them out of the hands of other nations.

What are your thoughts on the classification of responses?

[The Stalker]

Little surprised this thread is still going.

All I know for sure is, if any change was made to the current system, people would riot. So arguing the fine details seems arduous.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Two people so far used a coin toss to determine their vote. Both responses were marked as For - Lemming. Blindly following a coin is no better than blindly following a person.

This isn't true. Blindly following a person yields a consequence as good as the analysis of the person being followed. Tossing a coin means literally nothing at all, because multiple people doing it would basically just cancel itself out. One must also be considerate of self-selection bias and how that would skew the data. People who don't vote and don't care are also likely to ignore your telegram.

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

This isn't true. Blindly following a person yields a consequence as good as the analysis of the person being followed. Tossing a coin means literally nothing at all, because multiple people doing it would basically just cancel itself out.

Votes cancelling each other out can be considered better in some cases than many people blindly following the wrong person.

As an example, imagine there are two paths, on which leads to a minefield and the other which leads to some place relatively safe. A group of refugees is walking down a road that leads to the fork where the paths diverge. The first two refugees to arrive each go down different paths. Now, if everyone after flipped coins to determine which of the two leaders to follow, roughly half of them would make it to the safe place, and half would end up in a minefield. On the other hand, if all of them decide to blindly follow the one who took the minefield route, only one refugee would make it to the safe place, while the rest ended up in the minefield.

In the above case, one could say that coin tosses were actually better than blindly following a person.

But you can flip it. What if all the followers had followed the leader who went down the safe path? Isn't that a better outcome than the coin toss?

The problem is that blindly following someone can lead to either better or worse outcomes than a coin toss. That's why I say that they are pretty much the same.

One must also be considerate of self-selection bias and how that would skew the data. People who don't vote and don't care are also likely to ignore your telegram.

The problem is that unless someone wants to go through every WA nation who didn't respond (and so far there are about 24000 who didn't) to see if they voted, you can't prove that as the case.

Right now, about a fifth of the responses I have sorted are Abstainers, nations who either state they didn't vote or who said they voted and after I checked (usually if their response indicated uncertainty or seemed mistaken), actually had not voted. A fifth is a lot less than the roughly one third of all WA voters who did not vote on the last resolution, which might indicate that those who voted are more likely to respond to the telegram.

However, it could also just indicate that active players (who may be more likely to respond to a telegram than inactive players) are more likely to vote, not that players who voted are more likely to respond. I can't prove it, but I think this is the case, as nations do not seem to shy away from informing me that they did not vote.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Nice that you're trying to assemble some data. However I think it's worth being aware that your data interpretation has a high degree of subjectivity, as you're categorising responses as to how you interpret what they've written. I suspect the results will tell us more about how you think rather than about the actual population sample. Designing surveys is a complex and difficult thing, however, so points for trying at least. Next time I'd suggest presenting the survey to the forum to discuss first, so you can get some feedback on how to make it as impartial and fair a survey as possible, and to make it as useful as possible in terms of data.

More importantly though, making a point from data is very easy, but there's often assumptions and biases within an argument.

The crux of your argument, to me, seems to be that the electorate is ill informed and irrational, therefore it is better for an enlightened few to hold more proportional power.

Your data demonstrates (to a limited value of statistical quality) that the electorate is ill informed and irrational. What it doesn't do is provide any reason to assert that power should be proportionally given to an enlightened few. It also doesn't cover why you're not asserting that ALL power should belong with a small handful of engaged delegates. It doesn't even provide any evidence that delegates are informed and engaged with WA in proportion to their number of votes.

Ultimately, I'd say that what you're doing here is attacking the idea of democracy, saying that one man one vote creates a tyranny by stupid majority.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I'm not going to argue against that point, I'm just going to observe that behind all the data you've assembled, this is the point you're making. That people are too stupid to govern themselves.

That is what you're saying, right?

[Guy]

Nation which reported voting solely because, or almost entirely because ... the majority of their region voted a certain way, their delegate voted a certain way, or someone else they knew voted a certain way and/or recommended a vote, were marked as For - Lemming or Against - Lemmimg. Somewhat unsurprisingly, given the vote count, more responses have been classed as Against Lemmings than have been classed as For Lemmings (although I have not looked at the proportions yet). Surprisingly, quite a few people are willing to admit they voted solely for such reasons, some even acknowledging the stupidity of such a reason:

2. I believe I voted For
3. I did so because the majority of my region did

No, I voted for said proposal.
Yes, I typically wait for my WA Delegate to cast a vote and then I look at the voting trend that my region makes and side with them.

Against
Because everyone else did

I follow the will of the Emperor of the New Pacific Order in my voting. He voted against, thus I vote against.

I am sorry if I make wrong decisions, but I vote against beacuse I saw more votes at against that at the other part.

Two people so far used a coin toss to determine their vote. Both responses were marked as For - Lemming. Blindly following a coin is no better than blindly following a person.

There is a difference between bloc voting and lemming voting, even if the former is not terribly common.

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

Nice that you're trying to assemble some data. However I think it's worth being aware that your data interpretation has a high degree of subjectivity, as you're categorising responses as to how you interpret what they've written.

I already said that.

I suspect the results will tell us more about how you think rather than about the actual population sample. Designing surveys is a complex and difficult thing, however, so points for trying at least.

The poll was designed to show me how WA voters think. And I think it succeeds at that, as I have access to the raw, unfiltered comments of WA voters. How they think when voting in their own words, basically. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to show hundreds of telegrams to the public. Believe me, if I had an easy way to do that, I would, and let you guys come up with your own interpretations of the responses.

For now, however, I am trying to sort them as best as I can, and you'll just have to approach the results knowing that I very well may have may huge mistakes.

Next time I'd suggest presenting the survey to the forum to discuss first, so you can get some feedback on how to make it as impartial and fair a survey as possible, and to make it as useful as possible in terms of data.

That would be ideal, but I was on limited time. The survey had to go out while the vote was still fresh in everyone's minds. Even then, it was a little too late, as many voters already forgot which way they voted, or got confused about Protection of Nuclear Armaments and the current resolution at vote, Repeal NAPA.

The crux of your argument, to me, seems to be that the electorate is ill informed and irrational, therefore it is better for an enlightened few to hold more proportional power.

That's not my argument.

Your data demonstrates (to a limited value of statistical quality) that the electorate is ill informed and irrational.

It indicates that the majority is ill informed, but not necessarily irrational. However, I already suspected that the majority was ill informed, and was pleasantly surprised at how many actually used the resolution text as a basis for their vote. In other words, to me the responses show that WA voters are more informed than I believed them to be, originally.

What it doesn't do is provide any reason to assert that power should be proportionally given to an enlightened few. It also doesn't cover why you're not asserting that ALL power should belong with a small handful of engaged delegates. It doesn't even provide any evidence that delegates are informed and engaged with WA in proportion to their number of votes.

You're right. It doesn't. So far, while I have yet to sort out nations by Delegacy, Delegates actually appear more likely to vote based on factors such as regional majority or the recommendation of a campaign telegram, than factors such as resolution text or ideological grounds. I think this means that Delegates, while perhaps given access to more information than average voters, are more likely to vote poorly.

Ultimately, I'd say that what you're doing here is attacking the idea of democracy, saying that one man one vote creates a tyranny by stupid majority.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I'm not going to argue against that point, I'm just going to observe that behind all the data you've assembled, this is the point you're making.

I don't see how that could be the point I am making, as you yourself said that the data doesn't support it.

people are too stupid to govern themselves.

That is what you're saying, right?

The data doesn't show that people are stupid. It shows they are ignorant.

There is a difference between bloc voting and lemming voting, even if the former is not terribly common.

Can you explain what you mean by bloc voting? The results I am getting for "bloc voting" are not really relevant.

[Aclion]

And why shouldn't they be ignorant when the vote of a delegate that doesn't even deal with GA matters counts 1000 times more then their own?

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

And why shouldn't they be ignorant when the vote of a delegate that doesn't even deal with GA matters counts 1000 times more then their own?

I don't understand the question, because it relies on a disleading assumption. There is only one player in the game whose vote matters 1000 times more than some other player's. If you mean to ask why players shouldn't be ignorant when one player happens to have over a thousand votes, I say this: Collectively, individual nations have more than 1000 votes. Just the individual nations who regularly vote have over 5 times the power of that one player. The only reason that player has more influence than them is that they are ignorant, and that player has a staff that discusses WA resolutions and send out messages recommending that players vote a certain way.

[Imperium Anglorum]

And why shouldn't they be ignorant when the vote of a delegate that doesn't even deal with GA matters counts 1000 times more then their own?

This is a very good question. In The Myth of the Rational Voter, a book which analyses rational irrationality from a cost-reward perspective, the author describes that there isn't any reason for any voters in a society to be informed. This is because there are so many voters. The chance that anyone's vote actually matters, i.e. is the vote which flips the election, is minute. In the United States, it is somewhere around 1/30 millionth. Even if the payoff of some policy is high, the benefits of being informed do not outweigh the costs to one's worldview or preconceptions.

In NationStates, this is even more the case. Voters have no external motivations to be informed about resolutions. The costs are implicit, mostly in time and other things which most people don't really care about. The fact that we have so few GA regulars also shows how few people actually participate in the World Assembly process. Thus, people vote on the information most readily available to them: how their delegate voted, how the WA as a whole voted, the title, etc. Whether or not the existence of large super-delegates creates disincentives to be involved in voting is basically immaterial compared to the fact there are no incentives to be involved in voting at all.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to show hundreds of telegrams to the public. Believe me, if I had an easy way to do that, I would, and let you guys come up with your own interpretations of the responses. ... For now, however, I am trying to sort them as best as I can, and you'll just have to approach the results knowing that I very well may have may huge mistakes.

It would be best practice to release all the data you've collected. While I sympathise with this issue, it can be solved by copying the HTML for the entire page into a text file, parsing the HTML, finding all "div#tgid*", and then getting the relevant text into something like a CSV.

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

This is a very good question. In The Myth of the Rational Voter, a book which analyses rational irrationality from a cost-reward perspective, the author describes that there isn't any reason for any voters in a society to be informed. This is because there are so many voters. The chance that anyone's vote actually matters, i.e. is the vote which flips the election, is minute. In the United States, it is somewhere around 1/30 millionth.

Flawed reasoning. Let us assume that if you only possess one vote, out of a million, your vote doesn't matter. If your vote doesn't matter, then you can safely abstain from voting without disrupting the election. But, so can the other 999,999 voters, since none of them have any more votes than you do, and therefore none of them have votes that matter. Everyone should be able to abstain from voting if none of their votes matter.

But then we have no one voting. Which changes the outcome of the election completely. Clearly, at least someone had a vote that matters. Which one was it? It could be yours. Or maybe it's mine. Or one of the other 999,998. Potentially, everyone's vote mattered.

How about we look at it from another angle. In any forst past the post election, one outcome wins because it got X more votes than the next alternative. Without those X votes, it would have lost. So X number of people contributed to the victory. Which X number of voters were those? Potentially, anyone who voted for the victorious outcome was one of those X voters. Therefore, any particular voter could have cast a deciding vote.

Even if the payoff of some policy is high, the benefits of being informed do not outweigh the costs to one's worldview or preconceptions.

I would disagree. The costs of electing political parties to Parliament that turn out to be filled with genocidal maniacs far outweigh the costs of doing a little research.

In NationStates, this is even more the case. Voters have no external motivations to be informed about resolutions. The costs are implicit, mostly in time and other things which most people don't really care about. The fact that we have so few GA regulars also shows how few people actually participate in the World Assembly process.

I think the reverse is true. While the outcomes of WA resolutions are nowhere near as critical as real life elections, the costs of getting involved are much lower (NS politics being much less opaque than real life politics, and the effects of resolutions much easier to see than the effects of real life politics). On top of that, the power proportion an informed voter wields is much greater. In real life elections in the US, you are one of millions of voters, and even if you are informed, you don't have much greater power than the average voter. In NS, however, hundreds of votes from super delegates are decided by less than two dozen informed voters on a regional forum. Fewer than twenty WA members write essentially all the GA resolutions. The amount of power that one voter can wield if involved is much greater than most informed voters in real life. Even if every single WA voter became actively involved, diluting power, it still leaves each player with about 1/15,000 of the power in the WA, much greater than the power an average individual has in, say, US elections.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Flawed reasoning. Let us assume that if you only possess one vote, out of a million, your vote doesn't matter. If your vote doesn't matter, then you can safely abstain from voting without disrupting the election. But, so can the other 999,999 voters, since none of them have any more votes than you do, and therefore none of them have votes that matter. Everyone should be able to abstain from voting if none of their votes matter.

The entire response is based off this premise. Each individual has a different level at which that person would or would not vote. However, there is no link between two elements which are assumed above: (1) lack of information leading to abstention or (2) ability of one voter to change voting behaviour by other voters. The issue is not that people decide not to vote, but rather, vote based on mistaken preconceptions. Even if such abstention is widespread, there will always be enough voters to make each individual vote not really matter. In the western world, voter turnout is the lowest it has been in decades. But each vote is still effectively meaningless, because there are still millions of votes.

The amount of power that one voter can wield if involved is much greater than most informed voters in real life. Even if every single WA voter became actively involved, diluting power, it still leaves each player with about 1/15,000 of the power in the WA, much greater than the power an average individual has in, say, US elections.

Which means that the chance such any voter is going to be the tipping point is somewhere around 0.013 per cent. That simply isn't worth the time spent to read the resolution and become informed. Again, as I said in my past post, even if there are fewer incentives not to vote, that does not change the fact that there are no external incentives to vote.

Secondarily, if what you're saying is the case, one would still find an equilibrium where each individual vote doesn't really matter. If it is easier to find information, that doesn't mean that people will actually search for that information. If the proportion of power wielded is greater, then on the margin, people would vote more frequently, meaning that expectations change such that the proportion of power decreases. Thus, the number of people voting will generally reflect intrinsic motivations and not external power-based incentives.

[Snefaldia]

Essentially, it seems the question boils down to "do delegates of large regions deserve to have more votes than regular voters, or a LOT more votes?"

Either way, the delegates of large regions will still have greater impact on the WA vote than any individual voter. If the formula is revised, that impact is just lessened. And, if we accept the argument that GCRs deserve to have an electoral reward for the hard work of cultivating delegates through bureaucratic and cultural blablabla, then there should be no impediment to their using this well-developed culture to push residents to vote the way they want them to.

That seems to be a better way to use the GA system: instead of a single powerful leader voting largely by proxy for everyone else in the region, regional governments have to use more subtle means to get players to vote for proposals they want.

[Libertarain Republicans]

I think everybody has forgotten...we can do a 2 endorsements=1 extra vote system....

[Nilla Wayfarers]

I think everybody has forgotten...we can do a 2 endorsements=1 extra vote system....

Except that doesn't properly address the considerable disparity between extremely large delegates and much smaller delegates.

[Excidium Planetis]

I think everybody has forgotten...we can do a 2 endorsements=1 extra vote system....

Nobody has forgotten. It's literally option three on the poll.

[Abidawe]

The formula you have in place seems beautifully fair but you would have a damn near impossible time implementing it because many (if not most) nations won't agree with it

[Nilla Wayfarers]

The formula you have in place seems beautifully fair but you would have a damn near impossible time implementing it because many (if not most) nations won't agree with it

That doesn't really make sense. Individual voters comprise the overwhelming majority of the WA. Why would they be anything but in favor of a system that supports them?

[Abidawe]

The formula you have in place seems beautifully fair but you would have a damn near impossible time implementing it because many (if not most) nations won't agree with it

That doesn't really make sense. Individual voters comprise the overwhelming majority of the WA. Why would they be anything but in favor of a system that supports them?

Judging by the poll at the top this is not exactly true, some people just don't like change and others enjoy the amount of power their delegates hold (thousands of WA members reside in GCRs, evidenced by their pseudo-omnipotent delegates). If you have a delegate that generally votes with your opinion/the opinion of your regions majority, you'd enjoy them having some clout in WA resolutions.

It's also the power of the GCR Delegates that leads me to believe they wouldn't have much trouble in swaying others to oppose implementing a system that drastically cuts their power.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

That doesn't really make sense. Individual voters comprise the overwhelming majority of the WA. Why would they be anything but in favor of a system that supports them?

Judging by the poll at the top this is not exactly true, some people just don't like change and others enjoy the amount of power their delegates hold (thousands of WA members reside in GCRs, evidenced by their pseudo-omnipotent delegates). If you have a delegate that generally votes with your opinion/the opinion of your regions majority, you'd enjoy them having some clout in WA resolutions.

It's also the power of the GCR Delegates that leads me to believe they wouldn't have much trouble in swaying others to oppose implementing a system that drastically cuts their power.

Can't really go by the poll in this case- pretty sure someone puppet stacked the no change option. There was a simpler poll before where v=1+e^(3/4) was safely winning.

[Wallenburg]

Judging by the poll at the top this is not exactly true, some people just don't like change and others enjoy the amount of power their delegates hold (thousands of WA members reside in GCRs, evidenced by their pseudo-omnipotent delegates). If you have a delegate that generally votes with your opinion/the opinion of your regions majority, you'd enjoy them having some clout in WA resolutions.

It's also the power of the GCR Delegates that leads me to believe they wouldn't have much trouble in swaying others to oppose implementing a system that drastically cuts their power.

Can't really go by the poll in this case- pretty sure someone puppet stacked the no change option. There was a simpler poll before where v=1+e^(3/4) was safely winning.

That, and the forumgoers of Technical are not representative of the NationStates population as a whole.