Adding an abstain option for World Assembly votes

[Auralia]

I strongly feel that the World Assembly should have an "abstain" option that is included in the vote tally. Abstain votes would not be counted for the purposes of determining whether there is a majority of votes in favour, but they would still be distinct from a "for" or "against" vote. I believe there are a few good reasons for this change.

1. Players would be able to express their position on a resolution more accurately. There is a difference between simply not voting on a resolution and making an active decision to remain neutral. Not voting might be confused with mere ignorance that a vote is even occurring or general disinterest in the World Assembly, whereas abstention indicates that the player has engaged with the World Assembly but simply decided not to support or oppose the resolution.

2. The World Assembly electorate would have more accurate data on player views. This is an extension of the previous point. At the moment, it is impossible to know how many voters have not voted out of ignorance or general disinterest versus an active stance of neutrality because the current system does not allow players to express that distinction. This is useful information that allows authors and other interested parties to gauge the level of interest and support for a particular resolution.

3. Flippant voting in favour or against resolutions that players are not interested in would be less likely to occur. At the moment, players have a perverse incentive to vote in favour or against a resolution -- even a resolution in which they have no interest and for which they are unwilling to do adequate research -- simply to make the vote notification icon go away. Incentives for uninformed votes harm the overall quality of the World Assembly game. An abstention option would give players the option of making the notification go away without making an ill-informed vote. (Frankly, though, it would be preferable to have a separate option to disable the notification without having to vote at all, so as to better preserve the meaning of the vote to abstain.)

[Leutria]

Also

4. Clears annoying notification when you don’t want to vote on something

[Kenmoria]

It seemed like a rather big change for something that would be practically indistinguishable from not voting. Whilst there are some differences like the more accurate representation you still would have some who would not vote and considering nobody else can see a nation's vote that would have little effect.

[Excidium Planetis]

I support it.

[Outdoor Bovita]

I strongly feel that the World Assembly should have an "abstain" option that is included in the vote tally. Abstain votes would not be counted for the purposes of determining whether there is a majority of votes in favour, but they would still be distinct from a "for" or "against" vote. I believe there are a few good reasons for this change.

1. Players would be able to express their position on a resolution more accurately. There is a difference between simply not voting on a resolution and making an active decision to remain neutral. Not voting might be confused with mere ignorance that a vote is even occurring or general disinterest in the World Assembly, whereas abstention indicates that the player has engaged with the World Assembly but simply decided not to support or oppose the resolution.

2. The World Assembly electorate would have more accurate data on player views. This is an extension of the previous point. At the moment, it is impossible to know how many voters have not voted out of ignorance or general disinterest versus an active stance of neutrality because the current system does not allow players to express that distinction. This is useful information that allows authors and other interested parties to gauge the level of interest and support for a particular resolution.

3. Flippant voting in favour or against resolutions that players are not interested in would be less likely to occur. At the moment, players have a perverse incentive to vote in favour or against a resolution -- even a resolution in which they have no interest and for which they are unwilling to do adequate research -- simply to make the vote notification icon go away. Incentives for uninformed votes harm the overall quality of the World Assembly game. An abstention option would give players the option of making the notification go away without making an ill-informed vote. (Frankly, though, it would be preferable to have a separate option to disable the notification without having to vote at all, so as to better preserve the meaning of the vote to abstain.)

I agree with an abstain vote but believe there would need to be four options to vote to eliminate the Hobsons Choice principle of deciding on all or nothing. Also this would leave the polling statistics looking like two separate fields of YES & NO as to not confuse the voter. HIGHEST figure out of the four would win!!!

Here is one I made earlier adding Abstain value to Repeals:
(YES/NO for a repeal to important Marriage legislation is not the same as YES/NO MANDATORY REPEAL & REPLACE)

Online Vote: Repeal Marage Equality (Answer question A (OR) Question B)

Question A
Repeal

Yes No o I answered question B

Question B
Repeal and Manditory Replace [Attached Replacement Legislation]

Yes No o I answered question A


Error Messages...

(You must answer only question A (OR) question B)

Do you not this this system would save unnecessary bureaucratic maintenance, save the taxpayer money and be fairer to the voter who wishes to abstain. As well as adding clarity to the problem with the issue and requirements upfront for the issue to be solved.

In my opinion, people that can work out how to do this vote do not deserve to vote at all!

The polls might look like this

Repeal

35% 65%

Repeal and Replace

49% 51%

Largest figure wins? Work out this maths for me? XD (I think is works out, 2 Chances to say NO, 100% to say Repeal, 100% to say Repeal and replace)... Therefore equation adds to possible Abstain voter inclusion!) - Correct me if I am wrong?

[Gig em Aggies]

that requires modifications to the software code and some testing to make sure it actually works why the trouble for a useless option when you can just not vote its that simple don't like either option then don't vote what's the purpose of saying I don't support either side with a abstain vote that doesn't even count? just don't vote its that simple.

[Excidium Planetis]

snip

Look, it isn't going to work because when a repeal goes up 1) There is not always replacement legislation already written and 2) Sometimes there are more than one replacements. How do you decide which replacement is attached to the repeal in those cases?

that requires modifications to the software code and some testing to make sure it actually works why the trouble for a useless option when you can just not vote its that simple don't like either option then don't vote what's the purpose of saying I don't support either side with a abstain vote that doesn't even count? just don't vote its that simple.

Auralia explained why very clearly. Simply not voting does not provide any information on how many people did not vote because they saw the vote and decided not to vote either way, or ones that for some reason did not see the vote at all or do not care about the WA at all.

Also, some people have no opinion but vote just to get rid of the notification. These people skew the vote with uninformed votes, so should have an abstain option.

[Gig em Aggies]

snip

Look, it isn't going to work because when a repeal goes up 1) There is not always replacement legislation already written and 2) Sometimes there are more than one replacements. How do you decide which replacement is attached to the repeal in those cases?

that requires modifications to the software code and some testing to make sure it actually works why the trouble for a useless option when you can just not vote its that simple don't like either option then don't vote what's the purpose of saying I don't support either side with a abstain vote that doesn't even count? just don't vote its that simple.

Auralia explained why very clearly. Simply not voting does not provide any information on how many people did not vote because they saw the vote and decided not to vote either way, or ones that for some reason did not see the vote at all or do not care about the WA at all.

Also, some people have no opinion but vote just to get rid of the notification. These people skew the vote with uninformed votes, so should have an abstain option.

You know you can see how many people didn't vote right? Just take the total amount of votes and subtract that from the total amount of WA nations problem solved. Plus no need to change the software just so you can see how many didn't vote besides what is gonna be used besides saying this many people didn't vote.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would welcome a mechanism by which large delegate votes are amplified.

[Bears Armed]

and considering nobody else can see a nation's vote

You can if you look at the nation's 'National Happenings' before the vote falls off the bottom of that list...

[Aclion]

I would welcome a mechanism by which large delegate votes are amplified.

Don't get too excited. Assuming that people who would otherwise abstain vote more or less randomly there wouldn't be any statistical effect. The influence of large delegates would just *appear* larger.

Though if they're instead voting with the trend, the oft cited lemming effect, then adding an abstain option would lessen the influence of large delegates. Or that of those large delegates who make a point of voting early.

[Excidium Planetis]

You know you can see how many people didn't vote right? Just take the total amount of votes and subtract that from the total amount of WA nations problem solved. Plus no need to change the software just so you can see how many didn't vote besides what is gonna be used besides saying this many people didn't vote.

That is not at all what I said. We don't want to know how many people did not vote, we want to know
A) how many did not vote because they did not have a For or Against stance
versus
B) how many did not vote because they didn't log on / died / refuse to vote in the WA / etc.

Only an abstain option shows that. Why are you against this change?

[Gig em Aggies]

A) how many did not vote because they did not have a For or Against stance
versus

^^^^^ This is useless to everyone except maybe the highups in the WA leadership.



B) how many did not vote because they didn't log on / died / refuse to vote in the WA / etc.

^^^This is what it is and will be until max and his tech minons decide. Plus too much work for no reward.

[Excidium Planetis]

A) how many did not vote because they did not have a For or Against stance
versus

^^^^^ This is useless to everyone except maybe the highups in the WA leadership.

This information is useful to every WA author because it lets them know if the people who did not vote simply did not have an opinion or were not informed. It helps them understand why their vote fails if it fails, allows them to either focus on informing more voters to vote or writing resolutions people actually care about.

Insulting the people who write 100% of all WA resolutions does not help your argument.

Plus too much work for no reward.

All reward and no downsides to the player. The NS Admins' job is to create a better game for the players. I hope they see this and realize that an abstain option helps a lot and has no drawbacks, benefitting the players.

[Gig em Aggies]

A) how many did not vote because they did not have a For or Against stance
versus

^^^^^ This is useless to everyone except maybe the highups in the WA leadership.

This information is useful to every WA author because it lets them know if the people who did not vote simply did not have an opinion or were not informed. It helps them understand why their vote fails if it fails, allows them to either focus on informing more voters to vote or writing resolutions people actually care about.

Insulting the people who write 100% of all WA resolutions does not help your argument.

Plus too much work for no reward.

All reward and no downsides to the player. The NS Admins' job is to create a better game for the players. I hope they see this and realize that an abstain option helps a lot and has no drawbacks, benefitting the players.

If you want to inform voters then send out Mass telegram campaign talking about your proposal their one problem solved. Who's insulting I'm just stating that having a third option that is basically meh won't do anything useful if you don't care about the proposal or don't like either option then don't vote. Like I said an addition like this would require coding and software changes and again it's all work for no reward.

[Excidium Planetis]

If you want to inform voters then send out Mass telegram campaign talking about your proposal their one problem solved.

You obviously have zero experience actually doing this.

There are as of the time of writing this post 23,972 WA member nations. That's $23 of telegram stamps to send out one informational telegram.

And before you say "Oh, you can just send it out manually or with a telegram script", neither of those options will in any way reach all 23,972 nations in the 4 days that a proposal is at vote.

So you are saying that instead of asking the admins to code a system which will benefit every player involved in the WA resolution writing process, those players should shell out 23 US dollars instead... every single time they want this information. I don't know about you, but I don't see that as a good use of my money. I would rather pay the NationStates staff by the hour to code an abstain button, honestly.

And that doesn't even provide the information you want. I sent out a WA wide telegram before. Out of about 22,000 nations, only around 500 bothered to respond to the telegram. That doesn't tell me anything at all about the other 21,500 and whether they cared about a proposal or not.

Who's insulting I'm just stating that having a third option that is basically meh won't do anything useful if you don't care about the proposal or don't like either option then don't vote.

The option is clearly not for
the people who don't care. In fact, no code changes are ever made for the people who don't care about them, but for the ones who do. It is for the hundreds of players who have written WA proposals. Just because you personally do not benefit from this proposal does not mean that it is "useless" or has "no reward".

Like I said an addition like this would require coding and software changes and again it's all work for no reward.

I have thoroughly described the rewards. It informs proposal authors to a higher degree and makes votes less skewed by people who voted just to clear away the annoying notification.

There is no downside. You have not even tried to present any downsides to this change.

Instead, you simply point out that the admins would have to code it. Spoiler Alert: That's their job. Literally every feature that ever got coded for NationStates required hard work from the NS staff. But they did it because they wanted to make NS better for the players. And that's what thus change does.

[Eluvatar]

I'd really rather you didn't argue about the proposal.

Excidium Planetis is correct that the fact this would require code changes is not a reason to ignore this proposal.

I am concerned, however, that this would reduce participation in the WA too much. How would proponents address this concern?

[Auralia]

I am concerned, however, that this would reduce participation in the WA too much. How would proponents address this concern?

I would argue that non-informed participation in the World Assembly has a negative value, and so discouraging this kind of participation is actually a good thing. If you're abstaining from a World Assembly vote because you really don't care enough about the issue to do the basic level of research required to develop an actual opinion about it, then you just shouldn't vote.

It would be better to give voters the opportunity to become informed: perhaps by including a link to the resolution thread in the GA forums, or maybe by creating dispatch categories for the current resolution and including previews of the top-voted dispatch for and against.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'd really rather you didn't argue about the proposal.

Excidium Planetis is correct that the fact this would require code changes is not a reason to ignore this proposal.

I am concerned, however, that this would reduce participation in the WA too much. How would proponents address this concern?

I would say that deliberate abstaining is, in fact, participation in the WA. Much more so than ignoring the alert till it goes away, and much much more so that random selections to make the alert disappear.

An abstention can also be employed to make a political point - for example the 2004 Landless Peoples Movement in South Africa. While in NS we don't deal with anything of that seriousness, an abstention is a good way to show rejection of the premise or relevance of a resolution without voting it down.

Case example: Recently, the proposal "Marriage Equality" was proposed and passed, then repealed. A large number of people supported the ideas involved, but voted against it because of the quality of the submission. A large number of people disliked the quality, but felt obliged to support to avoid an end appearance of a majority being opposed to marriage equality. Abstention would have been an excellent protest position to assume in this case, and would have been one I would gladly have taken up. "I refuse to treat this seriously, therefore I abstain." Even if the abstention carries no subsequent weight, the very existence of a high proportion of abstentions would then give grounds for the democratic mandate itself to be challenged, and be a good basis of repeal legislation.

In the trivial politics of NS, an abstention would be a way of saying "For whatever reason, I am consciously choosing not to vote." Maybe that's from apathy, or neutrality, or protest. Regardless, it has a different message to simple non-attendance.

I am strongly in favour of an abstain option being added. The only reason I can see to go against this is admin workload, but that is a separate discussion.

[U SA Minor]

I like the idea... all I got to say about this... just stating my opinion.... alright, this is a pretty useless post...

[Outdoor Bovita]

I am concerned, however, that this would reduce participation in the WA too much. How would proponents address this concern?

I would argue that non-informed participation in the World Assembly has a negative value, and so discouraging this kind of participation is actually a good thing. If you're abstaining from a World Assembly vote because you really don't care enough about the issue to do the basic level of research required to develop an actual opinion about it, then you just shouldn't vote.

It would be better to give voters the opportunity to become informed: perhaps by including a link to the resolution thread in the GA forums, or maybe by creating dispatch categories for the current resolution and including previews of the top-voted dispatch for and against.

Do you care about this issue?.. Yes, I care about it but I beleive it needs a "MIDDLE GROUND" answer... "Then just don't vote on this one!.. Don't vote, but its about something very personal to me, and I do not want it to pass.. Then chose against, the against answer looks racist.. Then don't vote again.. Great so the out come here was based on 2 extremes, and the NO VOTE goes on my record too, ahh politics .

[Outdoor Bovita]

Please read through this carefully and tell me what's wrong with using this system "for the world".. I aim to engage "all of the voters here..

The maths to resolve and get 90% of the people voting in my estimation is fairly simple.

1. Yes 100% Resolution TOPIC
2. Yes 100% Resolution TOPIC and Solution

3a. No 50% Resolution TOPIC
3b. No 50% Resolution TOPIC & Solution

No = 100% as NO IS THE SAME "resolution!" for both TOPIC (OR) TOPIC & Solution. 50+50=100.

There are 4 ANSWERS to chose from and 3 SOLUTIONS for the policy. YES to TOPIC, YES to TOPIC & SOLUTION, NO.

OUT of the NO's you can see why no and if the VOTER chooses either of the 2 no's colloquially, you know they SAW at least high enough AS THOUGH there were an ABSTAIN OPTION.

EVERY VOTE WILL COUNT!!!! Highest out of FOUR poll figures NOT TWO!!!!


POLL FIGURES

RESOLUTION TOPIC - Maths = 1

YES 40% NO 20%

RESOLUTION TOPIC & SOLUTION - Maths = 1.5

YES 30% NO 10%


Only way to fairly add enough ethical structure to abstain, Maths = 1+ 1.5 then divide into 4. Truth = 0.625?

[Frisbeeteria]

Voting 1 to 1.5

I think you need to stop contributing to this topic. Every single post you've made in this thread (and your own related thread) have been confusing and nonsensical. I'm not sure if you're trying to submarine the effort by baffling us with bullshit, but I wish you'd stop.

[Outdoor Bovita]

Voting 1 to 1.5

I think you need to stop contributing to this topic. Every single post you've made in this thread (and your own related thread) have been confusing and nonsensical. I'm not sure if you're trying to submarine the effort by baffling us with bullshit, but I wish you'd stop.

What bit does not make sense to you?

[Phydios]

I think you need to stop contributing to this topic. Every single post you've made in this thread (and your own related thread) have been confusing and nonsensical. I'm not sure if you're trying to submarine the effort by baffling us with *bleep*, but I wish you'd stop.

What bit does not make sense to you?

I can't speak for Fris, but I don't understand one bit of your last post. Not one bit. It's all nonsense.