Suggested Modification of WA Endorsement System

[Imperium Anglorum]

It seems that all the maths and formula-hacking people are doing here doesn't actually do anything other than pretend that nations live in regions which they don't actually live. That doesn't do 'democracy' any good. The Delegate, because most nations in a region don't actually vote, is given an extra vote to cast on those nations' behalf, so 1-endorsement-1-vote makes quite a lot of sense. The only modifier which would benefit that is if a Delegate were given added votes based on a running tally of active WA members in that region.

[Western Evilly]

It seems that all the maths and formula-hacking people are doing here doesn't actually do anything other than pretend that nations live in regions which they don't actually live. That doesn't do 'democracy' any good. The Delegate, because most nations in a region don't actually vote, is given an extra vote to cast on those nations' behalf, so 1-endorsement-1-vote makes quite a lot of sense. The only modifier which would benefit that is if a Delegate were given added votes based on a running tally of active WA members in that region.

Or have votes deducted for each nations that gets off their arse and actually clicks the button?

[Separatist Peoples]

It seems that all the maths and formula-hacking people are doing here doesn't actually do anything other than pretend that nations live in regions which they don't actually live. That doesn't do 'democracy' any good. The Delegate, because most nations in a region don't actually vote, is given an extra vote to cast on those nations' behalf, so 1-endorsement-1-vote makes quite a lot of sense. The only modifier which would benefit that is if a Delegate were given added votes based on a running tally of active WA members in that region.

Its true that not all individuals in a region vote with their delegate, but enough do to give a multiplier effect. I'd be willing to wager that TNP has plenty of votes from residents that probably boost the Delegate. And even if that wasn't the case, there is a huge advantage to votes coming in all at once rather than piecemeal. This would offset both.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Not that into the WA, but lemmee throw out a few ideas.

The current system is, I believe, undesirable because a small group of individuals make all the decisions, with the voice of the masses almost irrelevant.

An inverse-square approach is undesirable, as it encourages regional fragmentation. Big regions are a joy to see, creating interactive and engaged communities. We shouldn't push away from that.

Here's some alternative approaches, with different pros and cons:

Regional Sub-votes

Have each nation's vote count only towards their current region's sub-referendum.
The majority vote for the sub-referendum sets the Region's vote.
The Region's vote is worth X votes on a world level, where X is the number of WA nations in that region.

Upsides:
The decision is made by the masses, but regions still work as a single bloc after the subreferenda.
This encourages debate and interaction on the RMBs.
This encourages regions to gather like-minded folk together.

Downsides:
Delegates are just figureheads. They can direct their regionmates like a party whip might, but can't force anything.
Delegates who try to force their regionmates to vote a certain way could breed resentment.


\Delegate Influence Cap

Keep current system but...
Delegate votes are worth a maximum of 100 votes.

Upsides:
You still get more influence as a powerful delegate.
The number of regional delegates that truly matter increases considerably: the top 100 or so delegates likely become global powerbrokers.
There's no real harm in fragmentation of regions, if they're fragmenting down to 100 WA nations.

Downsides:
Very artificial.
You get no more for being delegate of a very big region than a big region.

[The Blaatschapen]

\Delegate Influence Cap

Keep current system but...
Delegate votes are worth a maximum of 100 votes.

Upsides:
You still get more influence as a powerful delegate.
The number of regional delegates that truly matter increases considerably: the top 100 or so delegates likely become global powerbrokers.
There's no real harm in fragmentation of regions, if they're fragmenting down to 100 WA nations.

Downsides:
Very artificial.
You get no more for being delegate of a very big region than a big region.

More downsides on it. Since it is very artificial, everyone and their dog will argue that the limit should be higher/lower. Rather than focusing to work with the system.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Another upside though, is that it removes the inherent advantage of being delegate of a feeder region. A strong recruiting region can equal the influence of a feeder region nice and quickly.

[Flanderlion]

It seems that all the maths and formula-hacking people are doing here doesn't actually do anything other than pretend that nations live in regions which they don't actually live. That doesn't do 'democracy' any good. The Delegate, because most nations in a region don't actually vote, is given an extra vote to cast on those nations' behalf, so 1-endorsement-1-vote makes quite a lot of sense. The only modifier which would benefit that is if a Delegate were given added votes based on a running tally of active WA members in that region.

Or have votes deducted for each nations that gets off their arse and actually clicks the button?

Or the opposite, votes added for each nation that actually votes in the resolution. The issue seems to be the difference in WA nations endorsing a delegate rather than the actual delegate vote system. Adding votes to regions is just asking to be exploited, move a couple of nations into a new region, and your vote is multiplied.

Despite TNP having 1200 votes, I'd prefer the system to remain the same, or worst comes to worst, delegate votes = (1 +(n/2)) rounded up. N = nations endorsing the delegate. I think the voting tallies should be hidden and only your regions votes should be shown for the first X hours to reduce/mostly remove the impact of a big stack in the beginning.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Or have votes deducted for each nations that gets off their arse and actually clicks the button?

Or the opposite, votes added for each nation that actually votes in the resolution. The issue seems to be the difference in WA nations endorsing a delegate rather than the actual delegate vote system. Adding votes to regions is just asking to be exploited, move a couple of nations into a new region, and your vote is multiplied.

Despite TNP having 1200 votes, I'd prefer the system to remain the same, or worst comes to worst, delegate votes = (1 +(n/2)) rounded up. N = nations endorsing the delegate. I think the voting tallies should be hidden and only your regions votes should be shown for the first X hours to reduce/mostly remove the impact of a big stack in the beginning.

Either we should use a system that makes endorsed votes have different weight based on the delegate's total endorsements, or we shouldn't change the system at all. Simply chopping at all endorsements with the same strictness does little to address the problem.
The problem isn't just that delegates have a lot of power as a whole. It's mostly that a select few delegates bear an extremely disproportionate weight in their vote.

[Aclion]

It seems that all the maths and formula-hacking people are doing here doesn't actually do anything other than pretend that nations live in regions which they don't actually live. That doesn't do 'democracy' any good. The Delegate, because most nations in a region don't actually vote, is given an extra vote to cast on those nations' behalf, so 1-endorsement-1-vote makes quite a lot of sense. The only modifier which would benefit that is if a Delegate were given added votes based on a running tally of active WA members in that region.

This assumes that each endorsement is a reflection of approval of the delegates voting record.

Either we should use a system that makes endorsed votes have different weight based on the delegate's total endorsements, or we shouldn't change the system at all. Simply chopping at all endorsements with the same strictness does little to address the problem.
The problem isn't just that delegates have a lot of power as a whole. It's mostly that a select few delegates bear an extremely disproportionate weight in their vote.

Well not necessarily. If delegates had a number of votes proportionate to their endorsements; say at a 1 to 2 ratio that would still curb the power of delegates relative to member nations and change the paradigm.

Though I agree that it's preferable to have something like the system you proposed.

[Tananat]

The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.

...Says somebody from The North Pacific, the largest region there is.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.

I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.

[Drasnia]

The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.

I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.

Not to mention that the feeders get nations automatically why UCRs have to work for each recruit. Sure, some of the feeders like TNP have a good retention program but it is in no way equal to even the largest UCRs.

[Alkasia]

Nah, Too electoral college-y.

It's not though. The change would give individual nations more voting power. That's like... the opposite of the electoral college.

[Aclion]

I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.

Not to mention that the feeders get nations automatically why UCRs have to work for each recruit. Sure, some of the feeders like TNP have a good retention program but it is in no way equal to even the largest UCRs.

This, If it wasn't for the vibrant culture some of them have I'd argue that feeder delegates should be observers only.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.

I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.

They aren't arguing that some regions are more equal than others. They are arguing that regions aren't equal and ought not be treated as if they were. This in of itself is patently true.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.

They aren't arguing that some regions are more equal than others. They are arguing that regions aren't equal and ought not be treated as if they were.

Except the World Assembly is designed to provide an aspect of democracy to international negotiation, and with regional delegates, I think it's reasonable to assume that it's intended to democratize inter-regional relations. The whole idea of democracy is that those within it are equal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

They aren't arguing that some regions are more equal than others. They are arguing that regions aren't equal and ought not be treated as if they were.

Except the World Assembly is designed to provide an aspect of democracy to international negotiation, and with regional delegates, I think it's reasonable to assume that it's intended to democratize inter-regional relations. The whole idea of democracy is that those within it are equal.

It isn't though. The point of the World Assembly is to simulate the hierarchical structures of power inherent to international diplomacy. That is what it does and why it is set up that way. The solution to this entire issue with endorsements and what-not is to build bigger regions. This is part of why I have quite a lot of respect for Vancouvia. His region, The Western Isles, when it was a year old, had 170 endorsements and more voting power than most of the sinkers.

I agree that this would be a really big problem ... if it were impossible to build large regions. It very obviously isn't. And the regions which have succeeded have been run exceptionally well. When I ascended to the Delegacy, Europe was in a contraction. There were around 150 endorsements. I've worked hard over the last year to expand the region. The reason why 10000 Islands, The Communist Bloc, and Europeia are so powerful is not because they have inherited that growth. They are constantly sustaining it with huge efforts. Why is Mikeswill still delegate of NationStates after a decade running? That is one hell of a huge effort. It is very much in the power of regional leaders to take the fate of their own regions into their own hands and expand their regions.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Except the World Assembly is designed to provide an aspect of democracy to international negotiation, and with regional delegates, I think it's reasonable to assume that it's intended to democratize inter-regional relations. The whole idea of democracy is that those within it are equal.

It isn't though. The point of the World Assembly is to simulate the hierarchical structures of power inherent to international diplomacy. That is what it does and why it is set up that way. The solution to this entire issue with endorsements and what-not is to build bigger regions. This is part of why I have quite a lot of respect for Vancouvia. His region, The Western Isles, when it was a year old, had 170 endorsements and more voting power than most of the sinkers.

I agree that this would be a really big problem ... if it were impossible to build large regions. It very obviously isn't. And the regions which have succeeded have been run exceptionally well. When I ascended to the Delegacy, Europe was in a contraction. There were around 150 endorsements. I've worked hard over the last year to expand the region. The reason why 10000 Islands, The Communist Bloc, and Europeia are so powerful is not because they have inherited that growth. They are constantly sustaining it with huge efforts. Why is Mikeswill still delegate of NationStates after a decade running? That is one hell of a huge effort. It is very much in the power of regional leaders to take the fate of their own regions into their own hands and expand their regions.

By all means, a successful region like 10000 islands deserves more power than a region like mine. And under the system I suggest, they'd still hold considerable power.
If I thought those efforts were no more important than those of a tiny region, I'd be suggesting we get rid of endorsements entirely.
But I think my suggestion offers a comfortable balance.
There's still a hierarchy using my formula. But it's not as extreme as the one we have right now.

[Tananat]

The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.

I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.

It's not 'some regions are more equal than others' argument, its a 'some regions are better than others' argument. Feeders like TNP and especially large UCRs with high numbers of endorsements on their delegates didn't get that way magically. It took months and years of hard work and that hard work is rewarded in reality by having delegates with high numbers of endorsements who can use those in the World Assembly. That's not a problem and shouldn't be seen as one.

Some of the suggestions here would wipe out those years of hard work and for what? To 'level the playing field' for some regions who are too lazy or incompetent to grow and prosper? To let WA authors off the hook for bad proposals and leave the WA entirely at the will of the lemming effect? Gimme a break.

[Frisbeeteria]

It's not 'some regions are more equal than others' argument, its a 'some regions are better than others' argument.

You're both wrong. It's a matter of "the system is inherently unequal, and players have adjusted to that inequality".

It's not a democracy, where each player gets one vote. What this thread is talking about it changing that inequality to a different inequality. Let's not get sidetracked into "better or worse".

To 'level the playing field' for some regions who are too lazy or incompetent to grow and prosper?

We're talking about changing the playing field. There will be winners and losers and people who aren't particularly affected. It's a malleable game. We make changes occasionally.

[Canton Empire]

I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.

It's not 'some regions are more equal than others' argument, its a 'some regions are better than others' argument. Feeders like TNP and especially large UCRs with high numbers of endorsements on their delegates didn't get that way magically. It took months and years of hard work and that hard work is rewarded in reality by having delegates with high numbers of endorsements who can use those in the World Assembly. That's not a problem and shouldn't be seen as one.

Some of the suggestions here would wipe out those years of hard work and for what? To 'level the playing field' for some regions who are too lazy or incompetent to grow and prosper? To let WA authors off the hook for bad proposals and leave the WA entirely at the will of the lemming effect? Gimme a break.

I don't think having nations automatically spawn in your region counts as hard work.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

It's not 'some regions are more equal than others' argument, its a 'some regions are better than others' argument.

You're both wrong. It's a matter of "the system is inherently unequal, and players have adjusted to that inequality".

It's not a democracy, where each player gets one vote. What this thread is talking about it changing that inequality to a different inequality. Let's not get sidetracked into "better or worse".

Welp, I can stand to be wrong, and it's certainly not a bad thing to be corrected.

[Environmental Support]

The system is fine as it is. The feeders and regions with a great many endorsements on their delegates are just more successful than others and shouldn't be punished for other regions incompetence.

I don't think a "some regions are more equal than others" argument is very powerful.

It's not 'some regions are more equal than others' argument, its a 'some regions are better than others' argument. Feeders like TNP and especially large UCRs with high numbers of endorsements on their delegates didn't get that way magically. It took months and years of hard work and that hard work is rewarded in reality by having delegates with high numbers of endorsements who can use those in the World Assembly. That's not a problem and shouldn't be seen as one.

Some of the suggestions here would wipe out those years of hard work and for what? To 'level the playing field' for some regions who are too lazy or incompetent to grow and prosper? To let WA authors off the hook for bad proposals and leave the WA entirely at the will of the lemming effect? Gimme a break.

I'm gonna have to stop you right there. This debate isn't about taking away representation from the regions(if I'm reading this debate correctly) its about leveling the playing field between individual nations. Since as it stands, 10 nations basically decide the outcome of every WA proposal. What this change would do is make it so the direct voting of the individual nations is greater than that of the much smaller group of WA delegates. Regions like The Pacific and other large or feeder regions would still in the end have more representation because they have more individual nations than other regions. You aren't loosing representation. You as an individual are gaining more.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Since as it stands, 10 nations basically decide the outcome of every WA proposal.

Well, that's patently false. Just look at the vote going down in the Security Council right now.