NationStates

Eh, end of the day, arguments are made. It's up to the administrators what game they choose to present.

I suspect with anything less than overwhelming demand for change, the status quo will win out, just to keep the peace.

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.....

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.

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.

This would be interesting for the GOTV implications that would be required.

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?

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?

I think basically what it is would be in tl;dr form: Delegate endorsements only count if the endorsing nation votes as well.

But with this system, I'd like to see the official addition of an "abstain" button so that a nation that's ambivalent on an issue doesn't disadvantage their delegate by being neutral.

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.....

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.

Maybe you gain two votes for every endorser who votes the same way as you?

Kaboomlandia wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:This is the most creative idea I've heard all thread.

This would be interesting for the GOTV implications that would be required.

I think it would be most interesting as it would virtually eliminate stacking. You can't stack a vote when only 3 players in your region have voted, and by the time dozens of players have voted, your stack won't be effective.

It also caps delegate votes at about 50% of the total vote, since each delegate's vote would never exceed (regional votes) + 1.

The more I consider this system, the better it seems to be. Smaller regions would have an easier time gaining full strength (when you have only 10 WA members, getting them all to vote isn't too hard) but even large GCRs with voter information campaigns (like TNP) would have trouble getting everyone to vote (as evidenced by the current TNP vote compared to the number of WA members in the region). It also gives more credibility to the idea of GAR votes being earned: GCR power could be attributed to how well they mobilized voters.

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.

The salient question is how to code it, though.

I should say I also find this solution attractive, because it rewards positive action to involve region members in the game and in regional government. It will probably alter other things as well, though: delegates can't rely on brute force to get endorsements. Well, they could just boot anyone who doesn't endorse, but that would hurt their total voting power.

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.

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.

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.

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 would be ridiculously fun. I love it.

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 )

I'm sold. That's a great system, if it can be coded.

I've been begging for an Abstain button since I've first known it was an option.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

This simply isn't the case though. Most people aren't so well versed in the voting system that they would do this. Also, consider that (a) not voting and (b) voting against have literally the same net outcome in this proposed system. In fact, the outcomes, with turnout of 1, are exactly the same as the current system. I don't know why people are so willing to support this system when it is basically identical to the current one when it comes to numerical voting power and has other drawbacks on top of that.

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.

Except it doesn't; stacking is a tactic designed to influence the voting trend, not a measure of resolution quality or worth. I also find it hard to believe that any significant number of voters would look at overall region votes and use that as a way to evaluate the quality of a resolution, or even make a decision on policy. Are they looking at the way the vote is going? Sure! But that's still a lemming effect, or near as makes no difference.

Furthermore, the principles behind a resolution shouldn't matter when talking in broad concepts about voting mechanics. It seems partisan to argue that the voting system now is fine because NatSov policies are less likely to be passed. Do you personally not like them? It's fine, but how is that a fair basis from which to discuss any changes?

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.

I'm not seeing any good arguments why stacking is actually a good thing. Powerful regional delegates can influence the way the vote goes independent of their regional votes, and have even in the past stacked against well-written and well-intentioned legislation out of spite. UCRs with active WA communities can and do have a strong voice in the WA, and have: probably the best example of an influential and driven UCR in the WA would be Gatesville.

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 )

I agree.

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.

And as you said, people would just not vote if they disagreed with their delegate, so the delegate would not gain a vote, and would have voting power drop.

Also, the original suggestion did include this idea:

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.

Which I am not opposed to. I'd like to see the system either way.

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.

I don't think most of those people care, or are even aware that they have a proxy vote. I find this argument particularly weak without data.

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.

I highly doubt those 39 percent of people care, or are even truly represented. As you pointed out, large regions tend to be more IntFed while voters tend to be NatSov (I don't necessarily agree) so most of them would actually be misrepresented.

The system that gives delegates votes only for those voters who voted the same way is a system that ensures delegates actually represent their constituents.

I'd also like to add that in a vote based system, even those WA members who don't endorse would be represented as long as they voted.

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.

Either
1) Voters being informed is useless, thus, there is no reason to "convey information" to them via stacking
or
2) Voters should be informed, thus, shouldn't they be given better information than what stacking conveys? At best, the only thing stacking has ever told me is that I should check further into an SC resolution if it is failing by wide margins, to see what the scandal is.

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.

Do you have any proof of this? I know that you planned to run your own version of the WAIF survey since Europe was excluded.

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.

Campaigning is not to pass resolutions, but to get them to vote. Nobody ever campaigned to get a stack. You do off site forum deals and private telegrams to GCR and UCE delegates to get a stack. By the end of the vote, those 2000 delegates you send out a telegram to do have a large number of votes, so the campaign was still effective at influencing a large number of votes with a few telegrams.

The alternative is to have authors campaign to delegates which then get their constituents to vote in such a fashion.

Yes. And as delegate votes are displayed on the voting page, they wouldn't need to spam their region to do this.

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.

Voters might not be, delegates ought to be if they want to have international influence.

Aclion wrote:

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.

Voters might not be, delegates ought to be if they want to have international influence.

It's fair to say most regions aren't interested in gaining international influence; most tiny regions with only a few endorsements play the game solely for the satisfaction of getting their region's votes in, regardless of which way the vote goes.

I have reconstructed the OP to accommodate the widely supported Barbury Road's system.