Making the Secretary-General Meaningful

[Second Sovereignty]

I like the idea of a veto more than recommendations. Maybe during each term have one "hard" veto where the S-G can effectively kill a resolution in queue or at vote, then two "soft" vetoes where a vetoed proposal can pass if it has support from 2/3 of voters, as suggested by Ice States?

This seems fine; at least, as much as it can be if it applies to the GA.

You cannot possibly be serious with this? GenSec discards are already pretty bad, and they at least have good reasons. A SecGen veto, for, completely arbitrary reasons, is perhaps the most absurd suggestion in this entire thread. Absolutely not.

[The Ice States]

This seems fine; at least, as much as it can be if it applies to the GA.

You cannot possibly be serious with this? GenSec discards are already pretty bad, and they at least have good reasons. A SecGen veto, for, completely arbitrary reasons, is perhaps the most absurd suggestion in this entire thread. Absolutely not.

I suspect that a hard veto would very rarely be used in the GA, as they would have much more utility for a Gameplay-oriented Secgen in the SC. Additionally a veto power on a fixed number of resolutions (ie three) is far less power than a recommendation on every single resolution at vote. No Secgen in the GA would be the best option, but apparently that's not possible no matter how strongly the community is against it.

[Yelda]

How effective is the recommendation power expected to be? Is the consensus that it could possibly cause any resolution to pass or fail? Or are its effects expected to be more limited than that? Dragging a borderline resolution across the finish line? Or stopping one that was borderline, that sort of thing?

These are honest questions. I no longer have a feel for how impressionable the voters are and how much they would be swayed by a recommendation from the S-G.

[The Ice States]

How effective is the recommendation power expected to be? Is the consensus that it could possibly cause any resolution to pass or fail? Or are its effects expected to be more limited than that? Dragging a borderline resolution across the finish line? Or stopping one that was borderline, that sort of thing?

These are honest questions. I no longer have a feel for how impressionable the voters are and how much they would be swayed by a recommendation from the S-G.

We did some analysis on the lemming effect in the WA Discord; this graph shows the correlation between total vote % for new nation % for each hour that a resolution is at vote; data was extracted from Feb 2023 - Feb 2024. Data points are weighted based on the number of votes cast during that hour. Linear regression data attached below,

***Regression Model with Segmented Relationship(s)***

Call:
segmented.lm(obj = line, npsi = 2)

Estimated Break-Point(s):
Est. St.Err
psi1.TOTAL_FOR 0.378 0.002
psi2.TOTAL_FOR 0.544 0.002

Coefficients of the linear terms:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.228591 0.004319 52.93 <2e-16 ***
TOTAL_FOR 0.269253 0.016262 16.56 <2e-16 ***
U1.TOTAL_FOR 1.779144 0.036620 48.58 NA
U2.TOTAL_FOR -1.527877 0.033341 -45.83 NA
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 0.6915 on 35126 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.834, Adjusted R-squared: 0.834

Boot restarting based on 6 samples. Last fit:
Convergence attained in 2 iterations (rel. change 3.7703e-06)

This correlation is relatively strong. This graph shows the difference between the actual nation % for each power and what would be predicted based on a mathematical formula solely inputting total % for. The standard deviation of the difference between actual and expected nation % for is 9.3%; the most difference is on the resolution "Ban on Revenge Porn", of 17.1% (78.5% actual, 61.4% predicted).

The actual purpose of the analysis was to measure the effect of proposal titles on votes; this was done by measuring which resolutions had the most difference in standard deviations between actual and expected nation % for. These were the resolutions which, on average, got the most support from individual nations compared to the expected support,

1) Ban on Revenge Porn: 1.83 stdevs
2) Truth in Advertising: 1.75 stdevs
3) Medical Standards: 1.17 stdevs
4) Heritage Protection Committee Creation: 1.11 stdevs
5) World Assembly Website Act: 1.07 stdevs
6) Action on Period Poverty: 1.04 stdevs
7) Protecting Public Domain Dedications: 0.97 stdevs
8) Standards for International Freight: 0.97 stdevs
9) Against Racial Discrimination: 0.83 stdevs
10) Improving Infant Nutrition: 0.70 stdevs

The same except for least popular,

1) Repeal "Star Gazing Day": 1.51 stdevs
2) Repeal "Asbestos Consumption, Disposal and Worker Protection": 1.35 stdevs
3) Repeal "Promotion of Bee-keeping": 1.26 stdevs
4) Regulating Industrial Farming: -1.18 stdevs (multiple tag:wa's sent against)
5) Repeal "Right to Assemble": 1.07 stdevs
6) Repeal "Marine Protection Act": 1.07 stdevs
7) Repeal "Museums of Musical Heritage": 1.07 stdevs
8) Repeal "LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act": 0.97 stdevs
9) Repeal "Legal Equality Act": 0.95 stdevs
10) World Psychoactive Drugs Act: 0.90 stdevs

This would suggest that there are two main factors in determining a nation's vote on a resolution: 1) the title, and 2) which way the majority is going at the time. To answer your question as to how impressionable voters are, this analysis would suggest "very"; a Secgen recommendation power would benefit from this dynamic. While I don't know exactly what a Secgen recommendation would do -- we have no real way of testing it until it's actually implemented -- what we do know about the lemming effect suggests the effect would be very strong.

[Yelda]

Interesting, and thanks for the in-depth reply! I'll wait to see if there's a counter-argument before responding further.

[Bisofeyr]

I wonder what the merits are of maintaining the "Recommendation" (insofar as they can put a write-up on the WA page), but instead of actually being recommendations on each chamber's at-vote resolution, they are able to have a general message (similar to a WFE) that displays on the main-WA page. This way, if they wish to use it for something other than actual voting recommendations (like recruitment, for example), they are able to do this.

On initial thought, this would make the role more "powerful"; it still has the negative side effect of GP holding additional power over the GA, but it is less explicit, and GP would have to go out of their way to utilize the power of the position in a way that harms the GA, and would likely (speaking as someone largely uninvolved in that space) have better uses for that space.

This would be similar to having several free tag:wa tgs to send out over the course of their term, but a bit more dynamic (though I'd be okay with this option as well).

This is a loose thought, curious about others opinions.

EDIT: and to address the points that Sedge says are outstanding (though I hope my above comments are taken into account).

• Three rounds of elections, each lasting 24 hours. Four is too many. After the first round, only the top 25 get through, after the second, only the top 5 get through to the final round. In both 2nd and 3rd round, candidates are listed in order of votes received in the previous round. Previously nations could re-enter after being dropped; I'd prefer not to have this.

Perhaps have a percentage threshold per round; anyone with over 2% of the vote gets in after the first round, and anyone with over 10% of the vote gets in after the second round. This would help us avoid situations in the final round where there are 5 candidates, 3 of which with 33% of the vote each, and the other two with 0.5% of the vote. Overall, I don't have too many complaints about the system as-is, but just giving some food-for-thought.

What happens if the S-G/Deputy S-G both cease to exist. I'm inclined to lean towards leaving the role vacant (until/unless they refound), as that keeps us with two set times of year when the elections are held, which we can schedule around other events. Otherwise we might have an election running during N-Day or something, which would get crazy.

Obviously Deputy S-G takes over if S-G CTEs; I would suggest allowing the S-G to appoint a Deputy S-G if that position is currently vacant for whatever reason. If somehow under this system both positions go vacant (including via recall, as noted below), then I would also be inclined to leave the role vacant.

The merits of a SC "Recall" category. This would add some fun to things, and I think would get used (or attempted at least). However, we'd have to lose the set elections schedule, and I don't think it's worth that.

I think the SC should have recall power, but I think each recall should only be for one position: either the S-G or the Deputy S-G. I would also advocate for disallowing individuals with a current resolution that recalls them from holding either of these offices, or running for the office. If you adopt my above suggestion regarding Deputy S-G appointments, I don't think we'd have to lose a set elections schedule.

[First Nightmare]

Perhaps have a percentage threshold per round; anyone with over 2% of the vote gets in after the first round, and anyone with over 10% of the vote gets in after the second round. This would help us avoid situations in the final round where there are 5 candidates, 3 of which with 33% of the vote each, and the other two with 0.5% of the vote. Overall, I don't have too many complaints about the system as-is, but just giving some food-for-thought.

No, I don't think that's a good idea for the first round; the first round is free-for-all; indeed, if there are over 200 candidates you could end up with ZERO candidates remaining.
Or one or two with exceptional backing from gameplay. Or worse, the first 5 on the list only... which might be totally random people.
No thanks!
There is no need to restrict round 1 anyways. If unpopular candidates make it through they will end last on the list, which will force them to work even more to even get to the last round.

[Bisofeyr]

Perhaps have a percentage threshold per round; anyone with over 2% of the vote gets in after the first round, and anyone with over 10% of the vote gets in after the second round. This would help us avoid situations in the final round where there are 5 candidates, 3 of which with 33% of the vote each, and the other two with 0.5% of the vote. Overall, I don't have too many complaints about the system as-is, but just giving some food-for-thought.

No, I don't think that's a good idea for the first round; the first round is free-for-all; indeed, if there are over 200 candidates you could end up with ZERO candidates remaining.
Or one or two with exceptional backing from gameplay. Or worse, the first 5 on the list only... which might be totally random people.
No thanks!
There is no need to restrict round 1 anyways. If unpopular candidates make it through they will end last on the list, which will force them to work even more to even get to the last round.

Well-taken, but while my actual percentages seem to be off, there does seem to be some merit to it. Last year, 9 nations hit the 2% mark in round 1, while 21 hit the 1% mark, with the 25th person hitting 0.8%, so maybe a minimum threshold of 1% would be preferable. While the actual change may seem minor (and nonsensical to some), I would envision this change as encouraging candidates to actually having incentive to gain high thresholds of voters (and notably, to continue to gain voters in round 1, even if they are already in, say, third place, to further narrow down the pool of candidates in the next rounds), as opposed to simply beating out a certain number of other candidates. In short, I would hope that such a change would be more voter-centric as opposed to more candidate-centric.

While I'm here, I'd also like to offer the suggestion of not having candidates choose their running-mate at the beginning of the first round, as that would seem to tailor itself more toward GP super-coalitions (the delegate of, say, TNP, pairing themselves with the delegate of, say, TRR) who would be able to consolidate huge numbers of votes outright, when it would lead to more dynamic politics if we only allow people to choose their running-mates at the beginning of the second or (in my opinion, preferably) third round of voting, so that those that made it will fight over who would get the big-hitters who barely didn't make it. In a similar vein, potentially allow people to opt out of moving onto the next round so that someone who is, say, third overall can agree to be the Deputy to the second overall candidate at the beginning of the third round, in an effort to overtake the #1 person going into that round.

[Ostrovskiy]

(Sorry if this should go in NS events)

Sedge has said, I think, that there's absolutely no way that the powers will be ready in time, and it's only been 2 months since - not to mention I don't think there's even been an agreement on what those powers should be. Is there still going to be a powerless election?

[United Calanworie]

(Sorry if this should go in NS events)

Sedge has said, I think, that there's absolutely no way that the powers will be ready in time, and it's only been 2 months since - not to mention I don't think there's even been an agreement on what those powers should be. Is there still going to be a powerless election?

No.

[First Nightmare]

No, I don't think that's a good idea for the first round; the first round is free-for-all; indeed, if there are over 200 candidates you could end up with ZERO candidates remaining.
Or one or two with exceptional backing from gameplay. Or worse, the first 5 on the list only... which might be totally random people.
No thanks!
There is no need to restrict round 1 anyways. If unpopular candidates make it through they will end last on the list, which will force them to work even more to even get to the last round.

Well-taken, but while my actual percentages seem to be off, there does seem to be some merit to it. Last year, 9 nations hit the 2% mark in round 1, while 21 hit the 1% mark, with the 25th person hitting 0.8%, so maybe a minimum threshold of 1% would be preferable. While the actual change may seem minor (and nonsensical to some), I would envision this change as encouraging candidates to actually having incentive to gain high thresholds of voters (and notably, to continue to gain voters in round 1, even if they are already in, say, third place, to further narrow down the pool of candidates in the next rounds), as opposed to simply beating out a certain number of other candidates. In short, I would hope that such a change would be more voter-centric as opposed to more candidate-centric.

While I'm here, I'd also like to offer the suggestion of not having candidates choose their running-mate at the beginning of the first round, as that would seem to tailor itself more toward GP super-coalitions (the delegate of, say, TNP, pairing themselves with the delegate of, say, TRR) who would be able to consolidate huge numbers of votes outright, when it would lead to more dynamic politics if we only allow people to choose their running-mates at the beginning of the second or (in my opinion, preferably) third round of voting, so that those that made it will fight over who would get the big-hitters who barely didn't make it. In a similar vein, potentially allow people to opt out of moving onto the next round so that someone who is, say, third overall can agree to be the Deputy to the second overall candidate at the beginning of the third round, in an effort to overtake the #1 person going into that round.

There is no need to encourage candidates to get more voters - the candidates in the second round are ordered by first round support. It's much more important to ensure that we don't get some very undesirable results with too few candidates.

[Yelda]

Having given this much thought, and consulted with various players, I now support the recommendation power for the SecGen instead of vetoes.

[Bears Armed]

Can we have a 'None of the above' option in voting?