Reaching Quorum

[Morlago]

I don't see the point of have at least 6% of the WA Delegates to support proposals before letting the world to vote. If the delegate dislike the proposing nation, wouldn't that make it unfair for the proposal? Proposals may not reach quorum just because of this reason. Is it illegal to suggest the abolition of the modern quorum system (not through a proposal, through a forum)?

[The Emmerian Unions]

This is more of a Technical thread. I'll request the tow service, so please do not post another over there.

EDIT: Done: viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=16&t=4650

[Far-Tortuga]

If a proposal can't convince 52 people to sign off on it and get it through quorum, it is unlikely that it'll be able to convince thousands to pass it into law. The quorum process is largely used to keep poorly written (misspellings, vague, illegal clauses, contradictions, etc.) proposals from going to a vote because to make the entire WA have to vote down bad resolutions would take an inordinate amount of time.

If the delegate dislike the proposing nation, wouldn't that make it unfair for the proposal?

This doesn't make much sense to me. Proposals reach quorum by getting delegates to approve them. A delegate who disapproves of the proposed resolution simply doesn't vote, but this does nothing to stop other delegates from voting.

[Morlago]

If a proposal can't convince 52 people to sign off on it and get it through quorum, it is unlikely that it'll be able to convince thousands to pass it into law. The quorum process is largely used to keep poorly written (misspellings, vague, illegal clauses, contradictions, etc.) proposals from going to a vote because to make the entire WA have to vote down bad resolutions would take an inordinate amount of time.

If the delegate dislike the proposing nation, wouldn't that make it unfair for the proposal?

This doesn't make much sense to me. Proposals reach quorum by getting delegates to approve them. A delegate who disapproves of the proposed resolution simply doesn't vote, but this does nothing to stop other delegates from voting.

We are talking about a more general term. If the nation is widely criticized and looked down upon, then it may mean the end of the proposal. Also just because quorum is not reached does not mean that it will not convince thousands. One person can change the world.

[Far-Tortuga]

Yeah, well, he still needs to convince 50 others first.

If someone has really driven their reputation so far into the ground so as to alienate every one of the 800-odd regional delegates, it surely isn't too difficult to found a puppet nation to act as a WA smokescreen, or to get another nation to submit the proposal for them.

Personally, I like to think that there are plenty of regional delegates who are capable of putting their personal opinions aside and judging a proposal on its own merits, and not who proposed it. That is why most proposals fail to reach quorum: because the proposal itself is flawed, not the proposer.

[Morlago]

Personally, I like to think that there are plenty of regional delegates who are capable of putting their personal opinions aside and judging a proposal on its own merits, and not who proposed it. That is why most proposals fail to reach quorum: because the proposal itself is flawed, not the proposer.

Or is it because the delegates themselves are so strict that they expect the impossible? The resolutions of the past have already changed the world a lot, that is why many proposals fail to reach quorum. Whenever the delegates meet a proposal that affects a major topic (say:fair trial) then they always think that it has been passed as a resolution, but the truth is that both the Fair Trial Act and the Fair Criminal Trial Act (or something along those lines) have been repealed.

OK, so even if the quorum system is well, can't we decrease the percentage of delegates support to, say 4%?

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

OOC: Probably a better solution is to have 500 votes, WA member states, not delegates, but maybe include the delegates aswell, have 500 member states vote for the proposal to be approved, if approved by 500 member states, let the proposal go through the quoroum and allow all to vote for the resolution to be passed or rejected, delegates, we have almost exactly the same delegates just about approving anything they see without even reading it, even if it is illegal or not, thus preventing member states from expressing their views and opinions on the proposal on why the proposal should or should not be voted by the limited number of member states, approving the proposal before going through the vote.

Delegates, anyone can submit proposals that carry two or more endorsements, but whats the point of submitting them when it all goes down to delegates which are a tiny spec minority within the WA itself with 10,600 member states, most proposals that reach quoroums are mostly those submitted by the delegates themselves, thus not giving the member states a chance to decide on their own aswell as the delegates, this system is like a dictatorship of delegates having to choose wheither or not to approve, perhaps to make things more balanced, we should allow those to approve that carry 10 endorsements or more, so it's not only the delegates having to approve the proposal but giving member states a chance aswell.

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

I don't see the point of have at least 6% of the WA Delegates to support proposals before letting the world to vote. If the delegate dislike the proposing nation, wouldn't that make it unfair for the proposal? Proposals may not reach quorum just because of this reason. Is it illegal to suggest the abolition of the modern quorum system (not through a proposal, through a forum)?

Also things gotta be considered such as if a proposal reaches quoroum, majority vote against, the author then ends up resubmitting it numerious times even though the proposal itself failed and the majority have spoken they do not like the proposal, the Space Neutrality Proposal is a strong example, it has failed to reach quoroum and has failed to reach the majority votes on being approved, met with many oppositions, however, i believe that not all delegates are fit to be allowed to choose what proposal should be approved or rejected based on their biase perspective, another reason is even if the proposal is illegal, violates alot of factors included listed in the stickies for "WA Proposals" many proposals still violate the rules and it becomes illegal and yet we are having delegates approving the proposal and allowing it go reach quoroum, also if a resolution is being proposed, reaches quoroum, let's say it passes, it is met with criticism due to not allowing time for debating, hearing both sides of the story, allowing the author to redraft it and then submit, the proposal is passed and it becomes a resolution, a repeal is made, however delegates intend to reject almost 95% of all repeals proposed, not giving the normal member states a chance, in a way i support you Morlago and i see where your comming from, however allowing any member states to submit or approve without carrying a certain number of endorses, open doors for abusement, abusing the system itself, however the delegates themselves intend to abuse the system or just about seem to be accepting anything or rejecting anything even if the proposal has met an enormous amount of support from ordinary member states or from outside.

[Far-Tortuga]

You're starting to throw multiple arguments together, so I'll try and address them point by point:

Or is it because the delegates themselves are so strict that they expect the impossible?

We've had 52 resolutions passed by the World Assembly, with more having reached (and failed) a general vote. And let us not forget the late, lamented NSUN which had so many resolutions that there were almost entire pages devoted to repealing them. We generally get a decent resolution up for vote every week under the current system. This hardly seems to imply that the delegates have "impossible" standards.

The resolutions of the past have already changed the world a lot, that is why many proposals fail to reach quorum.

Yes, because redundancy in legislation is bad. It keeps the WA from wasting time on passing similar proposals, as well as forgoing the possibility of two proposals being incompatible with one another.

Whenever the delegates meet a proposal that affects a major topic (say:fair trial) then they always think that it has been passed as a resolution, but the truth is that both the Fair Trial Act and the Fair Criminal Trial Act (or something along those lines) have been repealed.

Most delegates aren't as stupid as you describe them. Even if they do happen to forget a historical resolution, there are those who are happy to remind them. Such as those who wish to pass a resolution that addresses a void left by repealed resolutions.

[Flibbleites]

The quorum process acts like a filter, the crap proposals get stopped while the good ones make it through. It also give the mods a chance to delete the illegal proposals that get submitted.

[Absolvability]

A filtering process of necessary for quality as well as (and more more importantly even,) quantity. The SC currently has no rules for proposal writing... and you can see how many of them are/were in queu. Now imagine if they didn't require to be approved first? Eesh. Add to that all the GA proposals that would jump out and we'd be inundated for a solid year.

Everything can't be considered. We haven't the time. It might be a little subjective for people to decide what is and isn't worthy... but really, this is politics, and you should be developing a good image of yourself anyway.

As far as whatever you said about criminal trials... uhhmm, yes, there have been some repealed, but there is an existing one called 'Fairness in Criminal Trials,' I believe. Now you may certainly address the issue, but you must do so firstly through a repeal.

[[violet]]

OK, so even if the quorum system is well, can't we decrease the percentage of delegates support to, say 4%?

We have changed the quorum number before, in order to maintain a proposal queue that's substantial but not too long. If, for example, there was a lot of new WA activity and the proposal queue became jammed up with waiting proposals, I would look at raising the quorum %, so only the cream makes it to a Resolution vote. If activity dropped and there was nothing in the queue, I would lower the quorum %.

But I don't think this will help in your particular example. If a nation is so obnoxious as to have pissed off 94% of all WA Delegates, it's probably pissed off 96% of them, too. And I'm not sure that kind of nation is likely to have many excellent WA proposals.

[Morlago]

Most delegates aren't as stupid as you describe them. Even if they do happen to forget a historical resolution, there are those who are happy to remind them. Such as those who wish to pass a resolution that addresses a void left by repealed resolutions.

I'm sure not everry delegate in the world bothers to check the 50 or so resolutions every time they go online. Actually, I can bet that many don't even check the WA Forums once in a week!