The WA Voting Bias

[Lordieth]

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks there is a lot of auto-click behaviour on resolutions at vote, with a fair few nations voting FOR without really reading the resolution. Is there a way we could cut down on this? A few ideas;

- Turn the For/Against into a text box with manual vote typing

- Include a 'have you read and understood the resolution?' Tick Box, required to be ticked to make a vote.

- Flipping the FOR/AGAINST button placements around randomly.

- A direct link to the debate thread for the resolution at vote above the vote buttons.

- Prevent 'instant' voting by putting in a timer when a resoulution comes to vote (e.g Voting to Commence in; 30 Minutes).

Just a few ideas to throw around.

[Estovakiva]

I would have to agree with this, a few nations who has just recently joined the WA just auto-clicks i guess being new to this site, and perhaps to RP as a whole?, mehh many assumptions. Or they like the resolutions, like the aninal cruelty one.

[Blademasters765]

are you sure they just don't tend to like the resolutions at vote?

[Lordieth]

are you sure they just don't tend to like the resolutions at vote?

Just look at how often repeals pass. You can't tell me that there isn't a problem with auto-clicking in the WA. Less auto-clicking should in theory reduce needless repeals.

[Estovakiva]

are you sure they just don't tend to like the resolutions at vote?

Just look at how often repeals pass. You can't tell me that there isn't a problem with auto-clicking in the WA. Less auto-clicking should in theory reduce needless repeals.

Bingo, sadly som people does not want to read a wall of text and just auto-clicks.

[Bodegraven]

are you sure they just don't tend to like the resolutions at vote?

Just look at how often repeals pass. You can't tell me that there isn't a problem with auto-clicking in the WA. Less auto-clicking should in theory reduce needless repeals.

But it could also be that, like I sometimes do, vote FOR a resolution because you like it (I read it thoroughly, though), but when the Repeal for it comes around, I understand the flaws of the previously passed resolution and vote FOR the repeal so that a better version can be put in place, which WONT be repealed.

[Swkoll]

Another idea: Hide the current voting tally from WA members who haven't voted yet.

[Lordieth]

Another idea: Hide the current voting tally from WA members who haven't voted yet.

That's a brilliant idea. It would curb popularist voting.

[Lordieth]

Just look at how often repeals pass. You can't tell me that there isn't a problem with auto-clicking in the WA. Less auto-clicking should in theory reduce needless repeals.

But it could also be that, like I sometimes do, vote FOR a resolution because you like it (I read it thoroughly, though), but when the Repeal for it comes around, I understand the flaws of the previously passed resolution and vote FOR the repeal so that a better version can be put in place, which WONT be repealed.

I entirely understand your point. Auto-clickers don't behave that way though. These ideas are an attempt to increase democracy and fairness in the WA, which also makes lobbying fairer.

[Ballotonia]

Another idea: Hide the current voting tally from WA members who haven't voted yet.

That's a brilliant idea. It would curb popularist voting.

Won't work. People can just vote again. So standard behavior would then be:
1. vote FOR.
2. see vote total.
3. If in the minority, assume one has made a mistake and vote against.

Some people always vote FOR. Some people always vote AGAINST. Some people always vote along with whatever the majority seems to be (often presumed to be FOR, since the proposal made it to the floor in the first place).

My suggestion for an improvement (though it's not a solution!): add an ABSTAIN option. It would suck away some non-interested non-decisive voters, which is a plus.

I don't think there is a real solution for the problem you pose. There isn't one in Real Life either (after all, if everybody would vote being well-informed and intelligent, my own party preference surely would always get a majority of votes... no?)

Ballotonia

[Lordieth]

I agree Ballotonia, there is no perfect system, however if an idea is simple, easy to implement and makes the WA fairer for all its members, we should welcome it.

[Linux and the X]

Proposals are generally reviewed by the forums even before submission. Upon submission, they must be approved by the delegates. Between the two of these, most resolutions that get to the floor are pretty good.

[Sheepatropolis]

Proposals are generally reviewed by the forums even before submission. Upon submission, they must be approved by the delegates. Between the two of these, most resolutions that get to the floor are pretty good.

It's not the quality of resolutions that this is about. Almost the opposite; people not even reading the resolutions and then voting blindly on them. The quality of a resolution doesn't make the vote fairer in this respect. This isn't about WA members who read the resolutions before voting.

[Lordieth]

Oops, puppet posted there. Sheepatropolis was my reply.

[Beldonia]

Maybe we could make a resolution forcing nations to read a resolution.
Oh wait....WE TRIED THAT!
And it should be done in good faith.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Maybe we could make a resolution forcing nations to read a resolution.
Oh wait....WE TRIED THAT!
And it should be done in good faith.

Most people didn't read that.

[Vitius]

I think the most common problem is:

Vote has 1,000 votes for, and 600 votes against. Players see the difference, and automatically vote for. Peer pressure in an odd form.

[Ollie Via]

Ok you brought up the idea of not showing how many votes for and against until the person has voted. What if you dont show how many were for and against until the resoultion has been past??

[Jagalonia]

I would have to agree with this, a few nations who has just recently joined the WA just auto-clicks i guess being new to this site, and perhaps to RP as a whole?, mehh many assumptions. Or they like the resolutions, like the aninal cruelty one.

I like it because I found about 10 loopholes in it. lol.


The voting bias is most likely because of people that don't read the counterarguements for the proposal on the forum, they just read the arguements for the proposal, and say it looks good. Then, when a repeal comes around, they've completely forgotten the arguements for the proposal, and can only see the ones against.

[Sedgistan]

Ok you brought up the idea of not showing how many votes for and against until the person has voted. What if you dont show how many were for and against until the resoultion has been past??

Taking information away from people that they've previously had access to, isn't generally a good idea. Yes, the 'lemming effect' does exist, but it's not a major problem, and it can be overcome.

[Victorious Decepticons]

When I had a nation in the WA, I also noticed that a lot of resolutions seemed to gain "rubber stamp" approval. I figured that a lot of them weren't actually getting read since it's unlikely that so many people would agree with everything (or almost everything) that made it up for a vote.

Ok you brought up the idea of not showing how many votes for and against until the person has voted. What if you don't show how many were for and against until the resolution has been passed??

I concur with this.

I also like Lordieth's suggestion of a link to the debate thread. There are probably thousands of WA nations, but I remember that only a few were active in debating the proposals. Having a link might encourage more discussion as well as making it easier to find the viewpoints of those who've already debated.

[Lordieth]

I also like Lordieth's suggestion of a link to the debate thread. There are probably thousands of WA nations, but I remember that only a few were active in debating the proposals. Having a link might encourage more discussion as well as making it easier to find the viewpoints of those who've already debated.

Exactly. This is by far the easiest change to make, and if it gets more people discussing and making an informed vote, then that's no bad thing.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

I also like Lordieth's suggestion of a link to the debate thread. There are probably thousands of WA nations, but I remember that only a few were active in debating the proposals. Having a link might encourage more discussion as well as making it easier to find the viewpoints of those who've already debated.

Exactly. This is by far the easiest change to make, and if it gets more people discussing and making an informed vote, then that's no bad thing.

Thats probably the best suggestion.

Contact Unibot, see if he'll put it in the big list.

Meanwhile, can [violet] or Pyth take a look and maybe do something about this?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Flipping the FOR/AGAINST button placements around randomly.

Out of everything, I like this least, since it would require me to do a lot of extra work on my vote-tracking scripts.

Yes, the 'lemming effect' does exist, but it's not a major problem, and it can be overcome.

That's a bit much to say...

[Beldonia]

Exactly. This is by far the easiest change to make, and if it gets more people discussing and making an informed vote, then that's no bad thing.

Thats probably the best suggestion.

Contact Unibot, see if he'll put it in the big list.

Meanwhile, can [violet] or Pyth take a look and maybe do something about this?

Don't hold your breath.