Adjusting the Influence of WA Delegate Votes

[Bears Armed]

[quote="Unibot III";p="36857350"]I'm just going to throw out an idea that I had a while ago that was discussed but not really ever considered at any higher level: creating a class of 'WA Representatives' separate to the 'WA Delegate.'

The more endorsements a WA Delegate has, the more WA Representatives a region would have. Then the votes that the WA Delegate would be split between the WA Delegate and the WA Representatives. The WA Reps would be the next highest endorsed nations in a region.

This way you're 'breaking up' the monopolistic power that certain delegates have, but you're adding to, not subtracting value from large regions/communities that have attracted large numbers of WA member-nations./quote]
Except that in "old" regions some of those highly endorsed nations might be much less active than one would hope the Delegates are...

[Unibot III]

Except that in "old" regions some of those highly endorsed nations might be much less active than one would hope the Delegates are...

On the flip side, many old regions have old delegates that fall asleep at the wheel for five years at a time and their newer, more active WA members flock to other regions to be a contributing member.

I just don't see a lot of evidence of this as a problem to the proposal: the oldest, biggest UCR I can think of, Europe, has a full page of very active players in their high endorsement range who would get to exercise a new level of participation in the WA by virtue of being a WA Representative.

There's different ways this concept of multi-polarity could be applied. One way to do it is say...

Once a WA Delegate hits a number of WA endorsements equivalent to the WA Quorum number, the surplus of votes is then distributed to the proceeding nations in terms of endorsements (each given half the quorum rate in terms of votes) and this transfer is carried recursively until there are no more votes to transfer.

So TNP for instance would have a WA Delegate (74 votes), 20 WA Representatives (each with 50 votes), and 1 WA representative with the remaining residual (37).

This way TNP still has a big say in how the WA votes but the influence is being diversified among a whole group of TNPers, giving them even more reason to want to stick around and collect endorsements in TNP.

This plan would impact larger regions exclusively but it also adds a selling point to their region for WA member-nations who might not otherwise see the point of hunkering down in a big region to collect endorsements they can't use.

[Fauxia]

What would be the calculation for that, Unibot?

Right now I think the Delegate number is a little bit low. Most regions shouldn’t have representatives. Only at a certain point where a Delegate becomes extremely powerful.

[The New California Republic]

Personal opinion: I think large delegates have too much of an influence on the vote, especially with vote stacking. I think the overall vote totals should be invisible for the first day or so of voting, so you can only see your regional vote/delegate vote. I was in the view that delegate votes should also be diluted, so that larger delegates were worth more than smaller, but not as much, but people have good points about it making their endorsement not equal to others.

If we were doing it as a formula, normal votes until over 100 endoes. Then 100+1+(total endoes -100)^0.9 So someone with 10 endoes will have 11 votes, 1 endo will have 2 votes like normal, while over 100 it'll be slightly reduced. I think hiding the global vote though would help vote stacking much more.

To repeat what I said in the other thread, which I did not get an answer to: why should other people's endorsements be worth less than others? The endorsements over a certain threshold would be worth less, meaning if I endorsed someone later than others then my endorsement is worth less than someone who endorsed earlier.

[Unibot III]

What would be the calculation for that, Unibot?

Right now I think the Delegate number is a little bit low. Most regions shouldn’t have representatives. Only at a certain point where a Delegate becomes extremely powerful.

Sorry I messed something up when I plugged it into my calculator. The way it'd work is kind of like a cap. At 73, you'd hit a cap as a delegate and your other votes gets distributed in equal shares (73/2) to each representative until the last rep who would get the partial remainder.

Out of the regions that have voted on the most recent GA resolution, it would affect 16 regions. If you add Osiris/Lazarus into the mix (who haven't voted yet)... you get a result like this...

TNP - 1071 (1 Delegate (74), 27 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (27).)
TEP - 633 (1 Delegate (74), 15 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (21).)
TWP - 584 (1 Delegate (74), 14 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (8).)
10000 Islands - 369 (1 Delegate (74), 8 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (9).)
The Pacific - 382 (1 Delegate (74), 8 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (22).)
Europe - 338 (1 Delegate (74), 7 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (14).)
Balder - 305 (1 Delegate (74), 6 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (17).)
Lazarus - 271 (1 Delegate (74), 5 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (19).)
Lazarus - 266 (1 Delegate (74), 5 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (14).)
TRR - 227 (1 Delegate (74), 4 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (11).)
The Leftist Assembly - 227 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (37), 1 Rep (11).)
Democratic Socialist Assembly - 133 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (37), 1 Rep (25).)
CCD - 124 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (37), 1 Rep (16).)
Thaecia - 100 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (28).)
New Western Empire - 100 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (28).)
Thalassia - 95 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (23).)
Forest - 94 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (22).)

That's 117 WA representatives.

Now of course this isn't a complete list, there's certainly regions that just didn't participate in the most recent GA resolution, but it gives you an idea of how many additional WA representatives might be participating in any given GA resolution. The "big" delegates would be capped at 73/4 - regions larger than that would be represented by a number of additional WA representatives (1-27).

[Fauxia]

What would be the calculation for that, Unibot?

Right now I think the Delegate number is a little bit low. Most regions shouldn’t have representatives. Only at a certain point where a Delegate becomes extremely powerful.

Sorry I messed something up when I plugged it into my calculator. The way it'd work is kind of like a cap. At 73, you'd hit a cap as a delegate and your other votes gets distributed in equal shares (73/2) to each representative until the last rep who would get the partial remainder.

Out of the regions that have voted on the most recent GA resolution, it would affect 16 regions. If you add Osiris/Lazarus into the mix (who haven't voted yet)... you get a result like this...

TNP - 1071 (1 Delegate (74), 27 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (27).)
TEP - 633 (1 Delegate (74), 15 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (21).)
TWP - 584 (1 Delegate (74), 14 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (8).)
10000 Islands - 369 (1 Delegate (74), 8 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (9).)
The Pacific - 382 (1 Delegate (74), 8 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (22).)
Europe - 338 (1 Delegate (74), 7 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (14).)
Balder - 305 (1 Delegate (74), 6 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (17).)
Lazarus - 271 (1 Delegate (74), 5 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (19).)
Lazarus - 266 (1 Delegate (74), 5 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (14).)
TRR - 227 (1 Delegate (74), 4 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (11).)
The Leftist Assembly - 227 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (37), 1 Rep (11).)
Democratic Socialist Assembly - 133 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (37), 1 Rep (25).)
CCD - 124 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (37), 1 Rep (16).)
Thaecia - 100 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (28).)
New Western Empire - 100 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (28).)
Thalassia - 95 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (23).)
Forest - 94 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (22).)

That's 117 WA representatives.

Now of course this isn't a complete list, there's certainly regions that just didn't participate in the most recent GA resolution, but it gives you an idea of how many additional WA representatives might be participating in any given GA resolution. The "big" delegates would be capped at 73/4 - regions larger than that would be represented by a number of additional WA representatives (1-27).

Why 73? Edit: I assume because it’s quorum.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Thank you to the Mods for cleaning up and getting this thread back on topic.

As I've always said, it's not the Delegates themselves that are the problem, it's the disproportionate voting power large Delegates have over the World Assembly.
Using the current vote as an example, as of now, there are 12,111 votes total.

4635 votes are by individual nations.
7476 votes are by WA Delegates (total).
5044 votes are by the largest 16 WA Delegates alone (and yes, this includes me).

In other words, 16 large WA Delegates, representing just 0.3% of nations voting, have more voting power than all 4635 individual WA nations that have cast votes. This doesn't even take into account, as pointed out above, that this inequality is further amplified by the fact that large Delegates can vote in blocks, and cast thousands of votes early in the voting process to swing the vote one way.

I'll respond to a few points people have raised:

Players can withdraw their endorsement for political reasons, reducing delegate power. Strikes me as fair.

This doesn't address the inequality pointed out in this thread, and withdrawing endorsments decreases regional power outside of the WA as well, e.g. in smaller non-foundered regions, or regions with executive WA Delegates, this can also be a regional security risk.

I guess withdrawing your endorsement makes sense if you disagree with the delegate's vote on the current issue, but it's not really practical to check your delegate's vote on every issue and endorse/unendorse on an almost daily basis, plus this doesn't take into account that often GA and SC proposals are voted on concurrently.

Sorry I messed something up when I plugged it into my calculator. The way it'd work is kind of like a cap. At 73, you'd hit a cap as a delegate and your other votes gets distributed in equal shares (73/2) to each representative until the last rep who would get the partial remainder.

Out of the regions that have voted on the most recent GA resolution, it would affect 16 regions. If you add Osiris/Lazarus into the mix (who haven't voted yet)... you get a result like this...

*snip*

I think this would definitely be an improvement over the current system, but I'm not really a fan of the idea of creating "WA Representatives" as it creates a much more complex and somewhat counterintuitive system, e.g. the Representatives' voting power is determined by the WA Delegate's endorsement count, but the Representatives are assigned based on their own endorsement count?

This also doesn't really solve the problem of large regions having too much voting power, because those with the most endorsements in a large region are generally going to have similar viewpoints and vote in a similar way to their region's WA Delegate (with some exceptions) - this would just make it require a little more effort and coordination to do so.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Sorry for the double post, but I've thought a bit more about the idea of WA Representatives and I actually really like it, but linear splitting the current vote totals among several nations doesn't really work in my opinion. It would need adjustments to both the Representative's voting power, and the total voting power overall.

What I would propose is something akin to the following:

WA Delegate voting power = (endorsements)^0.75 +1
WA Representative voting power = (endorsements)^0.5 +1

WA Delegate voting power is determined by the Delegate's endorsement count.
WA Representative voting power is determined by their own endorsement count

The number of WA Representatives is determined by the number of endorsements on the WA Delegate.
Regions with less than 100 endorsements have WA Delegate only.
101-199 endorsements: 1 WA Delegate + 1 WA Representative.
Each 100 endorsements grants an additional WA Representative.

To give some real life examples:

As the WA Delegate for CCD, I currently have 124 endorsements = 125 WA votes.
Under this system I would have 38 votes, and we would have one WA Representative with 10 votes, for 48 votes total.

The North Pacific currently has 1065 votes.
Under this system they would have 1 WA Delegate with 187 votes, plus 10 WA Representatives with 30-32 votes each, for roughly 500 votes total.

[Unibot III]

Sorry I messed something up when I plugged it into my calculator. The way it'd work is kind of like a cap. At 73, you'd hit a cap as a delegate and your other votes gets distributed in equal shares (73/2) to each representative until the last rep who would get the partial remainder.

Out of the regions that have voted on the most recent GA resolution, it would affect 16 regions. If you add Osiris/Lazarus into the mix (who haven't voted yet)... you get a result like this...

TNP - 1071 (1 Delegate (74), 27 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (27).)
TEP - 633 (1 Delegate (74), 15 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (21).)
TWP - 584 (1 Delegate (74), 14 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (8).)
10000 Islands - 369 (1 Delegate (74), 8 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (9).)
The Pacific - 382 (1 Delegate (74), 8 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (22).)
Europe - 338 (1 Delegate (74), 7 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (14).)
Balder - 305 (1 Delegate (74), 6 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (17).)
Lazarus - 271 (1 Delegate (74), 5 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (19).)
Lazarus - 266 (1 Delegate (74), 5 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (14).)
TRR - 227 (1 Delegate (74), 4 Reps (37 each), 1 Rep (11).)
The Leftist Assembly - 227 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (37), 1 Rep (11).)
Democratic Socialist Assembly - 133 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (37), 1 Rep (25).)
CCD - 124 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (37), 1 Rep (16).)
Thaecia - 100 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (28).)
New Western Empire - 100 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (28).)
Thalassia - 95 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (23).)
Forest - 94 (1 Delegate (74), 1 Rep (22).)

That's 117 WA representatives.

Now of course this isn't a complete list, there's certainly regions that just didn't participate in the most recent GA resolution, but it gives you an idea of how many additional WA representatives might be participating in any given GA resolution. The "big" delegates would be capped at 73/4 - regions larger than that would be represented by a number of additional WA representatives (1-27).

Why 73? Edit: I assume because it’s quorum.

Yeah, it's just a lazy arbitrary number but quorum is already in use, it's about the right size of integer, and it ebbs and flows with WA activity.

I think this would definitely be an improvement over the current system, but I'm not really a fan of the idea of creating "WA Representatives" as it creates a much more complex and somewhat counterintuitive system, e.g. the Representatives' voting power is determined by the WA Delegate's endorsement count, but the Representatives are assigned based on their own endorsement count?

This also doesn't really solve the problem of large regions having too much voting power, because those with the most endorsements in a large region are generally going to have similar viewpoints and vote in a similar way to their region's WA Delegate (with some exceptions) - this would just make it require a little more effort and coordination to do so.

I agree that the proposal doesn't draw power away from any region as a whole -a region like TNP for example, doesn't lose votes as a result of this plan. In fact, they gain a new advantage of being able to market themselves as having representative slots available for players to trade endorsements and contest.

But that's to the proposal's advantage: it's not wholly detracting for a select group of regions, it's getting more of their players involved in the decision-making process but it's not taking away from their overall influence. I think you're far more likely to see a proposal be adopted if most people think it is fair to regions of different sizes.

I also think you're overestimating the difficulty of coordinating multiple representatives and getting them all on the same page. Take for example this current GA vote, the TRR Delegate is against the resolution but 70% of WA member-nations in TRR are supporting the resolution -- I would expect a lot of representatives to vote along different lines. It's like herding cats. People aren't going to agree.

EDIT: I'll add that I don't really care at all how the system works in terms of the specific threshold or vote allocation algorithm. I just thought people were hung up in this thread on using a different formula for rejigging results, when there's a different way to bring some balance: giving more residents a direct say in the allocation of big regional vote totals as representatives. Effectively this method gives more 'big region' players a stake in high-level WA decision-making than just one player, breaking up the monopolistic influence within regions rather than between them.

[Separatist Peoples]

Players can withdraw their endorsement for political reasons, reducing delegate power. Strikes me as fair.

This doesn't address the inequality pointed out in this thread, and withdrawing endorsments decreases regional power outside of the WA as well, e.g. in smaller non-foundered regions, or regions with executive WA Delegates, this can also be a regional security risk.

Such is the nature of power.

I guess withdrawing your endorsement makes sense if you disagree with the delegate's vote on the current issue, but it's not really practical to check your delegate's vote on every issue and endorse/unendorse on an almost daily basis, plus this doesn't take into account that often GA and SC proposals are voted on concurrently.

Sometimes you gotta determine what one of two issues is more important. And its more like a biweekly removal, given that only two proposals per chamber can come to vote in a week.

Not buying it. Hard pass.

[Aclion]

This doesn't address the inequality pointed out in this thread, and withdrawing endorsments decreases regional power outside of the WA as well, e.g. in smaller non-foundered regions, or regions with executive WA Delegates, this can also be a regional security risk.

This is a separate issue, that executive power is tied to the WA representative.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Almost all of the top candidates from the recent election mentioned adjusting the influence the World Assembly has in general, with three of the top eight candidates from Round 3 explicity including a reduction of Delegate voting influence in their platforms, and one of the top 4 from the general election.

Ultimately yes, the Sec-Gen is a joke role with no actual power to change this, but it does serve to highlight that such a change seems relatively popular with WA nations overall.

[The New California Republic]

Almost all of the top candidates from the recent election mentioned adjusting the influence the World Assembly has in general, with three of the top eight candidates from Round 3 explicity including a reduction of Delegate voting influence in their platforms, and one of the top 4 from the general election.

Ultimately yes, the Sec-Gen is a joke role with no actual power to change this, but it does serve to highlight that such a change seems relatively popular with WA nations overall.

Or most people understood that it was all a bit of fun and didn't really give two shits about policies? Yeah, let's go with that option, instead of the option that's just desperate to eke out some kind of a win for losing candidates.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Almost all of the top candidates from the recent election mentioned adjusting the influence the World Assembly has in general, with three of the top eight candidates from Round 3 explicity including a reduction of Delegate voting influence in their platforms, and one of the top 4 from the general election.

Ultimately yes, the Sec-Gen is a joke role with no actual power to change this, but it does serve to highlight that such a change seems relatively popular with WA nations overall.

Or most people understood that it was all a bit of fun and didn't really give two shits about policies? Yeah, let's go with that option, instead of the option that's just desperate to eke out some kind of a win for losing candidates.

Yes, it was all just a bit of fun, that's why other top candidates decided to spend 50K stamps and run a further active campaign targeting our voters to put together a voting block and keep Jocospor out of the top 5.

Do you really have nothing better to do than sit on this forum and respond in every thread you see my username pop up? Like I'm just a bit tired of you following me around like a puppy.
I guess it's time to just start ignoring your constant protests, this is probably the last time I'm going to be bothered to respond.

[The New California Republic]

Or most people understood that it was all a bit of fun and didn't really give two shits about policies? Yeah, let's go with that option, instead of the option that's just desperate to eke out some kind of a win for losing candidates.

Yes, it was all just a bit of fun, that's why other top candidates decided to spend 50K stamps and run a further active campaign targeting our voters to put together a voting block and keep Jocospor out of the top 5.

And your lot didn't go down the route of mass telegrams now or in the past? Nah, you guys wouldn't do the thing you are accusing others of.

Do you really have nothing better to do than sit on this forum and respond in every thread you see my username pop up? Like I'm just a bit tired of you following me around like a puppy.
I guess it's time to just start ignoring your constant protests, this is probably the last time I'm going to be bothered to respond.

I've already posted in this thread on previous occasions, but if you interpret that as "following you around like a puppy" then you just do you I guess.

[Reploid Productions]

Okay, stopping this trainwreck. This thread is about ideas to adjust the weight of WA delegate votes. It's NOT about the April Fools election and who-did-what in said election. Let's stay on topic please.

[Lord Dominator]

I believe I've seen a prior suggestion that delegates should lose votes if their constituents vote, or for the ability to coordinate, they lose votes when constituents vote opposite of them.

Regarding the motives behind this thread, they are obvious. However, most of the prior threads on this subject tended to have similar motives, so this one isn't unique on that regard.

[Minoa]

I would support a simple voting cap, similar to the EU (where each nation has a limit of 96 MEPs).

I think the question is where the cap should fall: too high and it would be ineffective in managing the power of the most influential delegates; too low and the incentive to be a delegate is crippled.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What per cent of total votes should be delegate votes, Shrew? Half?

[ShrewLlamaLand]

What per cent of total votes should be delegate votes, Shrew? Half?

Delegates currently control 61.6% of the votes in "Commend Kuriko". Half would still be too heavily weighted towards Delegates, maybe 30% would be fair.

I want to specify though that it's not smaller Delegates that are the problem, it's Delegates like McMasterdonia dropping 1068 votes alone.

The top 26 delegates (including myself) controlling over 50 votes each have a total of 6484 votes. That means these 26 nations, of over 6000 total voting nations, control 43.6% of all votes. All other Delegates control only 18% combined.

[Mallorea and Riva]

What per cent of total votes should be delegate votes, Shrew? Half?

Delegates currently control 61.6% of the votes in "Commend Kuriko". Half would still be too heavily weighted towards Delegates, maybe 30% would be fair.

I want to specify though that it's not smaller Delegates that are the problem, it's Delegates like McMasterdonia dropping 1068 votes alone.

The top 26 delegates (including myself) controlling over 50 votes each have a total of 6484 votes. That means these 26 nations, of over 6000 total voting nations, control 43.6% of all votes. All other Delegates control only 18% combined.

How is McMasterdonia the problem if he's on the losing side? In fact, the individual vote count is winning. Doesn't seem like a good example to prove your point.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Delegates currently control 61.6% of the votes in "Commend Kuriko". Half would still be too heavily weighted towards Delegates, maybe 30% would be fair.

I want to specify though that it's not smaller Delegates that are the problem, it's Delegates like McMasterdonia dropping 1068 votes alone.

The top 26 delegates (including myself) controlling over 50 votes each have a total of 6484 votes. That means these 26 nations, of over 6000 total voting nations, control 43.6% of all votes. All other Delegates control only 18% combined.

How is McMasterdonia the problem if he's on the losing side? In fact, the individual vote count is winning. Doesn't seem like a good example to prove your point.

McMasterdonia is the problem because regardless of the side he's on, he's got 1068 vites.

You're right, it's not a good example. I didn't pick a good example - I'm just using the current proposal at vote because the numbers are nice and visible and it still serves to make a point of the current voting inequality.

A much better example of this having a very big effect would be "Condemn Lord Dominator" viewtopic.php?p=34697608#p34697608

[Warzone Codger]

I've only skimmed the post, but I prefer Uni's idea.

[WayNeacTia]

How is McMasterdonia the problem if he's on the losing side? In fact, the individual vote count is winning. Doesn't seem like a good example to prove your point.

McMasterdonia is the problem because regardless of the side he's on, he's got 1068 vites.

You have the exact same ability as McMasterdonia to acquire endorsements. If you had 800 or 900 endos, would you be making these "suggestions"? I think we all know the answer to that one don't we?

[ShrewLlamaLand]

McMasterdonia is the problem because regardless of the side he's on, he's got 1068 vites.

You have the exact same ability as McMasterdonia to acquire endorsements. If you had 800 or 900 endos, would you be making these "suggestions"? I think we all know the answer to that one don't we?

This is very obviously false if you just think past "they have to click a button to endorse McMasterdonia, and they have to do the same to endorse Shrew. The same." Your point does apply to larger UCRs, but is very, very different when you're comparing GCRs... which just so happen to make up most of the largest regions in NationStates.

Feeders are at a very, very large advantage because nations are created inside these regions. Sinkers are at a large advantage because nations are re-created inside these regions. TRR is at an advantage because ejected nations end up inside this region.

To answer your question, yes, I would. No one should have that much power over the WA.