Citizens of Dharma who wish to run for delegacy in the Feb-Aug 2010, please post here by Monday, January 17, 2011 11:59 EST. In this thread, Candidates should announce their candidacy, and talk about their prospective policies as delegate -- as well as their preferences as a WA author.

Keep in mind you'll have responsibilities as delegate to your region that you will not be able to keep if you wish to further a military career such as defending. That's why I won't be running at-least (also being delegate in your own region is a little tacky).

I've decided that election periods will be expanded from last time. Voting will begin on Jan. 18 and end on Jan. 24 11:59 EST. Every citizen will have two votes -- citizens cannot vote for the same candidate twice, and they cannot vote for one and abstain for another. Citizens should vote by telegramming their decisions to The Dharma Electorate. Following the election, the current delegate will then have a week till the end of this term.

I'm announcing my run for the delegate position in Dharma. I want to bring a bit more of an intellectual debate to the region my plan is instead of the general vote that Quelesh has done I will vote by who has the strongest argument. Now I'm not hiding my Moderate-Conservative views but I know a good argument when I see one from the other side. I want us to not only vote on things but to discuss them now if a response is strong enough against or for a resolution, or if its a tie in my view I will cast my vote to whichever side has the most votes.

I know this is a big change but I think it's the best way to strengthen us as a region and what goes wrong with legislation. Now I bet your wondering what legislation I will personally pursue if elected I plan on continuing my cyber-legislation and will also pursue openness in Government, and Businesses that run on a global scale. This is only a taste of what I want to do as delegate as far as legislation is concerned.

As for my history I have passed two pieces of legislation. The Anti-Cyberterrorism act and the Anti-Identity Theft act. As I've said before I hope to pursue legislation that's similar to those two acts.

A more ceremonial note and fun fact would be that my Anti-cyberterrorism act was the 100th piece of legislation passed by the General Assembly.

I'd like to publicly announce my candidacy for the position of Dharma's Regional Delegate. I won't have a single-system voting policy because I rather disfavour taking absolute positions, in fact, my entire personal philosophy is based on the fact that what I believe cannot be applied in every situation. I guess you could say I'm a bit of a pragmatist.

As such, I think that the most pragmatic way to decide the regional vote is through a compound of the intellectual debate that American Capitalist is proposing and the current general vote used by Quelesh.

1. When the proposal is submitted, I will take a preliminary vote to see whether I should approve it or not. This is not merely to decide whether I should approve it but also to see where the lines fall on the issue.
2. Once it's up for vote, I will select one person from the "FOR" camp and one person from the "AGAINST" camp. This selection will not necessarily be random.
3. These people will present their arguments for or against the proposal; they may also present the arguments of others in their camp (proposition/opposition). This is simply to keep the debate neater and tidier. Each person will then attack the others arguments once (refutation). Each person will then defend the attack (rebuttal).
4. I will present a simple breakdown of what the proposal entails in addition to the debate.
5. I will hold a general vote.
6. I will vote with the results of that vote.

I believe that this is the best way to do things because (1) with the difficulties presented by timezones and everyday life, an extended debate may not be possible and (2) I still want the region to decide democratically what way we vote; rather than using arguments to sway the delegate, each side will use their arguments to sway the rest of the region.

In the WA, I plan to help maintain what I called the freedom/harm balance, trying to give the most freedom that I can while striving to cause the least harm and likewise, limiting freedoms if I believe the concession they give are too harmful. I am neither NatSov nor IntFed, I respect the sovereignty of the nation and the sovereignty of the individual but I also respect the authority of the World Assembly, the authority that we invest in it by joining it. I am a strong believer in individual freedoms but individual freedoms are already pretty well-protected in the WA; I'm rather hoping that my current proposal, the Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee, will be the final nail in that coffin.

I wish to pursue a pragmatic realist agenda in the WA; I believe that far too often, debates in the General Assembly are too much in the abstract and that practical concerns are not taken into account enough. In short, I will be a skeptical, critical presence in the GA, I will deconstruct the proposals that are put before me, I will seek out the flaws, I will highlight them and, if I believe the intent of the proposal is correct, I will try to get the flaws removed. Whether I am for or against a proposal, I will campaign and fight tooth and nail for my side. I believe I displayed that in the debate on Embolalia's conscientious objection proposal, and I'd like to point out that I successfully got the concessions that I argued for from Embolalia, and that the defense I gave of the proposal (linked in the OP) caused the voting gap to increase by over 300 votes in favour before a coalition of regions brought the proposal down. Admittedly, there were two oversights that really brought down the proposal that didn't catch my eye but I have learned from that mistake and I can ensure you that, should I be elected as your Regional Delegate, I will perform to the absolute best of my abilities.

In terms of authorship, as I already mentioned, I am currently pursuing a protection of bodily sovereignty, but I feel that once that is passed, there will be little need for an individual freedoms agenda, bar further work with conscientious objection. I'm still interested in a conscientious objection proposal, though Embolalia may be working towards a second attempt at his own one, or Charlotte Ryberg may try to revive hers; either way, I believe the issue of conscientious objection is very important and I will once again support it, either through my own proposal or by working with a proposal by another nation.

I want to take a look at business; in particular, I wish to examine the ideas of "corporate manslaughter" and "grossly negligent management causing death", which were recently introduced in Ireland, making corporations criminally responsible for deaths caused by overwork. I would be in favour of a regulated drugs industry as well, taking cues from "Recreational Chemicals for Fun and Profit", though I would obviously be a bit more serious about it.

I'm also still interested in my repeal of the Delineation of Borders Act, though I will certainly have to draw up a bit more of a hub-bub to get it to quorum. Also, I hereby promise to be more active in drafting a replacement legislation instead of just pushing a repeal, as I was when I first made the proposal. I wish to maintain the neutral meeting-place facet but I wish to give more legally-binding powers to a committee on border dispute arbitration. I also want to include a provision, or possibly a separate proposal, that would prevent anyone from forcing anyone living in land given to or taken by another nation from living in that nation.

My fellow Dharmanian nations, I have presented honestly and frankly to you what I intend to do if elected as delegate, I have admitted and conceded my flaws and failures and I have promised to rise above those flaws and failures and serve you as best I can in the position of delegate, should you elect me.

The position I represent is a pragmatic realist one and I will always work to temper idealism with pragmatism and realism, to debate things in the abstract and in practical terms. Once I am done with my current proposal on individual freedoms, I will be examining business and reexamining the issue of conscientious objection, as well as working towards a repeal and replacement of the Delineation of Borders Act, one which will work harder to end violence and bloodshed. There is also the possibility of a proposal preventing people from being displaced from their nation, though that may merely be a provision of the aforementioned replacement proposal.

That is my prospective agenda if I am elected as your regional delegate. I sincerely hope that you will support my candidacy. Thank you.

To both, Ossitania and American Capitalist.. if a resolution by a Dharmarian was in the queue. Would you stack the resolution (out of patriotism) if no one had yet to comment on the resolution?

I am hereby Declaring my candidacy for the Dharma Delegate Position for the February to August Term. If elected, this nation, Mahaj, will go to Brave New Antarctic a and my WA nation, Mahaj WA Seat, will come to TEID.

Like Ossitania, my plan for voting on a proposal is to see both which argument is stronger and how many people support which argument. When a proposal comes up for voting, i'd like to hold both discussions on TEID's RMB as well as gathering public opinion through telegrams, much like Quelesh does. I'd also like to get more discussion on our forum going. It seems like there has been little or no activity recently. In the region where I am currently delegate (my term expires this week), we hold discussion on both our forum and our RMB.

Of course, any TEID (The Eastern Islands of Dharma, obviously) proposals would automatically get an approval and a FOR vote. Unless, of course, the region seems to be against it, in which case I would be against.

I have a couple projects that I am working on in the World Assembly. In the General Assembly right now, I am working on my Missing Child act, which can be found at http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=88967 (for some reason the http:// tag isn't working for me. Dunno why.) I also have my project in the Security Council, Commend A Mean Old Man http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=84422 for which I have been doing some work on. Thats all I have right now (and its a good bit of stuff), but later if I see something I feel needs to be fixed you bet I will try.

In history, I was the coauthor (and submitter, since the author didn't log on for 20 some days) of Repeal Condemn Great Nepal. It failed miserably, but it gave me an experience at having something up for vote for the first time, which was pretty cool.


So thats what there is. I have honestly presented to you what I stand for as a delegate. If there are any questions you want to ask me, you may do so. I'll take them on this forum (if others don't mind), or else by telegram. I'll respond to you as quick as I can.

So I sincerely hope that you will vote for Mahaj as your choice for the Dharma Delegate Position.

(And If you do plan on voting for me, its probably best to submit your choice as Mahaj and not Mahaj WA Seat, as Mahaj is in TEID.)

Thank you,
Mahaj.

Yes however I would alter the vote based on the arguments and voting of the region. As I'm sure any Dharmarian delegate would its been the law of the land for awhile and I see no need to change that particular rule.

I would like to say that when approving a legislation unless it's a Dharmanian I will listen to the arguments in that proposals thread. If the citizens of Dharma are against I will withdraw my approval.

i'll answer this as well.

I would stack the resolution, i.e. vote for. My default vote on a Dharmarian proposal would be FOR. However, depending on what the region thinks, my vote could change. I will do what the region wants me to. It is only fair.

Mahaj.

Not necessarily, I believe that would be irresponsible. After all, being Dharmanian doesn't necessarily make anyone infalliblie and it certainly doesn't make anyone intelligent or sane. If it was time to vote and no one had commented, I'd try to draw imaginary lines based on my experience of previous votes. If I was unable to do that, I'd just consider it as I would have considered any other proposal; is there anything I object to or that would cost money excessively and/or unncessarily? If yes, AGAINST, if no, FOR.

Like I said, I'm a pragmatist and a realist. Voting for a resolution because of patriotism would be wholly irresponsible to the people of Dharma.

While I have no intention of running, I should make it known that my support (and votes) can be.... acquired.... should I receive the traditional.... donative.

:)

Greetings to the inhabitants of The Eastern Islands of Dharma:

I would like to input my candidacy for WA Delegate of TEID. I was, for two short terms, Delegate of The Kodiak Republic, therefore in charge of 12-15 votes. Though the terms were unplanned, I believe that I served well as an interim Delegate, and at least one nation was supportive of me staying full time. I refused the post, believing in the Kodiak Republic's democratic system.

In addition to my brief tenure as Delegate of TKR, as the natives call it, I am the author of two General Assembly resolutions - Resolution 119, "Nuclear Testing Safety", and Resolution 125, "Repeal 'Missing Minors Database'". On both resolutions I had help; for NTS the Ambassador from the Kingdom of Cardoness was the main co-author, while Ms. Sarah Harper of Minoa was the secondary one. For the repeal of MMD, my co-author was the Ambassador from Quelesh. I am also a constant presence at the debate halls for General Assembly proposals, and am currently most involved in Mahaj's MMD replacement, and Ms. Harper's abortion proposal.

As for voting in the scenario of myself being Delegate, I would have a system similar to the current one - but not exactly like it. For proposals, since I regularly debate them, I usually have a good idea of whether or not I like them by time of submission. However, should a Dharmian request I approve or not approve, no matter my current opinion, I will give the proposal a good hard look.

For voting on at-vote proposals, I will adhere to the decision of Dharma. I will ask for votes and arguments for either the FOR or AGAINST side. If an argument is very strong but goes against the majority will, I may still adhere to the argument unless a sufficient counter-argument is made. Also, a proposal authored by a Dharmian will not get immediate approval or a FOR vote. There will be an opportunity to argue against such proposals.

Thank youfor your time.

- Official Statement of Dr. Park Si-Jung, Darenjon WA Ambassador

I am running for re-election for delegate!

Voting Policy:

If elected, I will continue essentially the same policy that I have practiced during my first term. Once a proposal has reached quorum, I will solicit the opinions of region natives, and will vote in accordance with majority opinion. If regional opinion is tied, I will either vote my own conscience or abstain.

I understand American Capitalist's reasoning for proposing a "strongest argument" system for determining the delegate vote; however, I feel that such a system lends itself too much to delegate bias. Which argument I, or American Capitalist for that matter, deem to be the "strongest" would be influenced by my own bias, and I feel that would be unfair to the people of Dharma. I will not attempt to hide my own bias, but the number of region natives for or against is a better determining factor for the delegate vote than the subjective "strongest" argument.

Other candidates have brought up a good point, however. Dharma could use some more active, detailed discussion about proposals. I will solicit more detailed opinions about proposals from region natives; perhaps good, strong arguments can sway other natives for or against.

I will also make another attempt to revive discussion and voting on these forums. My last attempt to do so at the beginning of my first term foundered because only one or two people consistently responded on these forums. Perhaps now with more nations in the region there will be more participation on the forums. However, if not, we can still conduct this business on the RMB and I can solicit regional votes via telegram.

Regarding submitted proposals that have not come to vote, I will continue to reserve the right to approve or not approve them at my discretion; however, any region native can request that I approve or not approve a proposal. Requests to approve a proposal will very likely be followed, unless I strongly oppose the proposal in question.

To answer Unibot's question about proposals submitted by Dharma residents:

I will approve any proposal submitted by a native unless it is blatantly illegal. If I don't approve it, send me a TG to remind me. When the proposal reaches quorum or comes to vote, I will solicit opinions as normal. If there have been no comments when the proposal comes to vote, I will initially vote FOR as a courtesy until my final vote has been decided.

It is possible that I may be forced by my conscience to make an exception to the above policies, if a proposal comes to vote that I vehemently oppose and that the region generally supports. This never happened during my first term, and is unlikely during the next term, but it is possible. Examples of proposals that could cause such a scenario would be the Convention on Execution resolution and the aborted Family and Religion proposal. I would not have been able to bring myself in good conscience to vote in favor of those even if regional opinion was for. The most I would do in such a case is to abstain. However, we have never encountered such a scenario, and it is unlikely to be an issue.

Past authorship in the WA:

I have authored two successful WA resolutions:

International Criminal Court, which established an international court of justice to try alleged perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, the most serious and egregious of all crimes, in cases in which their home jurisdiction refuses to do so.

On Female Genital Mutilation, banning that practice. As an aside, this resolution passed with 88.28% of the vote (5009-665), the highest margin of victory of any resolution of the World Assembly.

I have also co-authored, with my fellow candidate Darenjo, one resolution, Repeal "Missing Minors Database". The resolution Missing Minors Database which was repealed by Darenjo and me was well-intended but deeply flawed.

I am very proud of all of my achievements within the WA, and look forward to more.

Future projects:

There are several projects that I intend to pursue within the WA as time permits:

1. Repeal Restrictions on Child Labor and replace it with a resolution protecting all individuals vulnerable to exploitation, regardless of age, without mandating discrimination based upon chronological age. I previously drafted a proposal repealing Restrictions on Child Labor (discussion thread) which I set aside, but I would like to return to it eventually, concurrent with a separate draft proposal as a replacement, banning exploitation in general.

2. Prohibit double jeopardy. I want to ban the practice of double jeopardy in all member states, that practice being inherently unjust. However, much to my chagrin, the extant WA resolution Habeas Corpus specifically allows double jeopardy, and so must first be repealed. I intend to draft a resolution repealing the existing Habeas Corpus resolution, and a replacement that grants the right of habeas corpus to all inhabitants of member states while prohibiting double jeopardy.

3. Prohibit capital punishment. The death penalty is barbaric, and has no place in civilized society. In order to ban it, however, the extant resolution Convention on Execution must be repealed.

More generally regarding my personal philosophy, I am a strong believer in human rights, and "national sovereignty" arguments carry no weight with me on human rights issues. I value the rights and freedoms of individuals over those of states, corporations or other entities.

I am strongly socially libertarian; I believe that every individual has the right to do whatever he or she pleases so long as no one else is harmed without consent. I will generally support resolutions that enhance the freedom and liberty of the individual over the powers of the state.

However, I am generally inclined to leave member states' political and economic systems alone, except in cases of compelling need.

Cute Kittehs:

Like in the previous election, if I am re-elected my first act will be to give everyone a cute kitteh:



If anyone has any questions for me regarding my policies as delegate, feel free to ask, either here or via telegram.

Oh, by the way, the code for that is:

For all running candidates: Glen-Rhodes has established his own voting calculator, RealVotes, that removes the delegate votes and reveals how many member nations have supported/voted against a resolution. Glen-Rhodes states "RealVotes was created to address the problem of delegate votes morphing the true amount of nations voting for or against a resolution. By assigning one vote for each nation, RealVotes allows you to see the true, democratic vote in the World Assembly. " Do you agree with the notion that delegates' extra votes shouldn't count as 'real votes' -- that the 'true democratic vote' ought to involve equality in the number of votes, why or why not?

Others citizens who have questions, please ask your own questions. I'm just trying to get the debate-ball rolling here. :)

In short, no, I do not agree that delegate votes should be stripped away.

RealVotes is an interesting tool, but I think having delegates, whose power increases with the size of the region, makes for a much more realistic nation-simulation game. Large regions, like powerful countries, tend to have more influence than small regions and less powerful countries, and the delegate system that NS uses now translates that to the game.

Without delegates, WA votes would be mere popularity contests. All that would be necessary for a resolution to pass would be to have a nice-sounding title and maybe some fluffy wording (Read the Resolution Act notwithstanding). Under the current system, working within the WA is a highly political process: convincing delegates of large regions, and the populations of those regions in cases, like 10ki, in which the delegate votes based upon a popular vote of the region.

I think that, frankly, delegates from large regions act as a buffer against stupid resolutions. There are exceptions, of course, but delegates tend to be reasonable people who invest some substantial measure of time into the game and won't vote for anything that's just fluff with no substance. Many individual players, and this is not intended as an insult, devote very little time to the game and will just vote based on their gut feelings about the title of a resolution. This isn't because they're stupid; it's just because they don't devote enough time or energy to the game to vote intelligently. That's one reason why we have delegates.

A good example is the resolution currently at vote, Extinction Preparation Act. The resolution has a nice name; it's a feel-good resolution. It doesn't really do much, however, and there are several flaws and shortcomings with it. Most of the individual WA nations that are in 10000 Islands, among those who have actually voted on the resolution in NS anyway, have probably voted FOR the resolution, just as the majority of individual nations in the game as a whole have. The thought process is: "extinction preparation act," sounds nice, we should prepare for species to go extinct, vote FOR. Again, this isn't an insult; it's simply the result of players not investing enough time into the game to vote intelligently. However, those players in 10ki who are active on the 10ki forums are ones who devote more time to the game, actually read the resolution and think critically about it, and discuss it on the 10ki forums and vote there for their delegate's vote. These players in 10ki are largely against, and have influenced their delegate's vote accordingly. If the resolution had enough redeeming characteristics, its proponents could visit the 10ki forums themselves and argue on its behalf.

I've used this resolution as an example because it's currently at vote, and 10ki because it's the region with the most powerful delegate.

Having delegates who wield large vote totals adds a fun element to the game. It's lobbying and politics, which is really what the WA is about.

So no, I don't think that anything should change in that regard. It's true that some worthy resolutions lose out because a couple of delegates are against, but the alternative is to have a less interesting game.

One "reform" that I wouldn't object to, however, is to have an absolute limit to the size of a region. It's not very realistic that a "region" would have almost 4700 nations, as Lazarus currently has. Of course, the game would need more feeders, and more regions for "reborn" nations, and possibly more for ejected nations as well, and it would require changes to the game code that the admins probably wouldn't do, but I think it would be interesting to say that, for example, a region can have no more than 500 nations. Since there's a limit, regions that want to have a strong WA presence would have a good reason to try to encourage the participation of WA nations and discourage participation of non-WA nations. It would add a new element to the game.

Hmmm, an interesting question.

Delegate votes effectively give each nation two votes, but entrusts all the second votes of a region in the hands of one person, plus their own, iirc. Just for the scenario I'm discussing, we'll use Just Guy, since he tends to be a major vote swinger, and since he's the WAD for 10000 Islands, we'll pretend there are 10000 people in the region.

So, 10000 Islands has a total of 20000 votes to spend, but Just Guy controls 10001 of those votes. Let's say 6500 10KI nations vote for a resolution and 3500 vote against it.

If Just Guy is with the "for" camp, he essentially neutralises the opposition in 10KI, since the votes cancel each other out, which means that instead of 6500 for/3500 against, it simply becomes 13000 votes for.

Likewise, if he is in the "against" camp, he essentially neutralises the proposition in 10KI, since the votes cancel each other out, which means that instead of 6500 for/3500 against, it simply becomes 7000 votes for.

While the first scenario is alarming in itself, the second is even more shocking; with the push of a button, Just Guy could give the minority in his nation more votes than the majority.

Clearly, there is something wrong when the opinions of nations, nay, their very votes on the matter, are essentially being turned to abstains.

In fact, that raises another issue; a nation that abstains on the issue essentially hands Just Guy their second vote to use as he pleases, without it being neutralised.

Given that, the system seems rather unfair and rather undemocratic. It essentially allows delegates to turn people's votes to abstains and abstains to votes, evening allowing them to give more support to the minority position than the majority

Given that, I'd have to agree with Glen-Rhodes on this one. The delegates should still have the authority to approve proposals but they shouldn't hold extra votes, especially with the implications outlined above. It would be more like a bicameral parliament, with the delegates acting as a failsafe to prevent illegal proposals getting through but voting like other nations once the proposal was up for vote.

Glen-Rhodes calculator presents the reality of the problem in stark light; there is currently a gap of less than one hundred votes against the current proposal but going by individual nations, the vote is 1452 for/706 against. The proposition is over double the opposition but the delegate vote is swinging it just in favour of the opposition. That is totally unfair and undemocratic.

That said, I am currently lobbying several other regions to withdraw their approvals for the awful Conscientious Objector proposal currently at hand, which, as Quelesh said, is a part of the real-life political process and adds an element of fun to the game. Also, the removal of delegates would make the business of treaties and alliances and whatnot a lot less interesting.

Things should be more democratic but to the detraction of the fun of the game? If the game was less fun, then that would probably be more destructive than the currently somewhat undemocratic voting system.

It's an interesting question, certainly. There are pros and cons, and I'm not sure whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice-versa. I'd have to think about this further before giving a definite position.

Okay.

@Quelesh:
● My understanding of your last response is that "typical voters" are generally thoughtless twits, and delegates are perhaps more knowledgeable and well meaning -- therefore, democracy is saved by having delegates as a fail-safe for when typical voters make a bad decision. I believe this stems from an overall negative view of the typical voter. Do you agree or disagree, why or why not?

● I will quote an entry from the Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce: Absurdity is "a statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion".
→ What distinguishes between a "good voter" and a "bad voter"? I often see the terms being thrown around and the general opinion seems to me that one identifies someone as a "good voter" when the voter votes how the identifier voted.. and a "lemming" or "bad voter" votes against how the identifier voted.
→ You make the bold statement that: because you think the Extinction Protection Act is --let's say-- crap, than anyone who votes for it "must not be investing enough time to vote intelligibly". Define "voting intelligibly".

● In the circumstance that all voters were "good voters" who "voted intelligibly", would the vote of a delegate be rendered superfluousness/pointless? Your whole justification for delegates as far as I can see is derived from the assumption that voters are dumb.. and thus need shepherds to guide the vote in the 'right' direction.

● I'm not sure if you addressed the entire question, are delegates preventing the World Assembly from "true democracy"? Why or why not? You seemed to be certain that delegates are the 'grease' to the system, they make sure we're more likely to pass good legislation and defeat bad legislation. But this has not addressed the popular criticism that some of the important articles of the democratic process have been sacrificed for the very expediency that you've done a thorough job at explaining.

I will reply to you shortly, Ossitania.

Well, first of all, I think Glen-Rhodes's tool is very neat and would be an interesting thing to look at after a resolution has passed/failed.

My opinion, much like that of Quelesh, is that we should keep the system as is. One of the reasons for this is that if we change it, its unfair to the delegates, (maybe in the feeders, or 10000 Islands or another region with a delegate who commands many endorsements) who have had to wait and work to get that role. Its basically saying "yeah, you've had to wait a while. Sucks for you."
Plus, the existence of delegates, and large ones, is that it adds another dimension to voting. A proposal would become essentially a piece of garbage that has a nice title. And if that nation is popular, then they will get a lot of votes.

With the big delegates, they know their vote counts for quite a bit, so I think most of them actually read the resolution and pay attention to what the resolution says/does.

However, I don't like big delegates like Just Guy. I feel that they have gotten too big. But if Just Guy was about 200 Endorsements less, so that he is around 300, its better.

Since you guys mentioned me, I feel as if I ought to reply.

But... It's never like that. I doubt more than 10% of my endorsers actually vote on a resolution.

I virtually always vote according to a poll which is on our forums. Any WA Islander is more than welcome to vote in it.

A nation is also allowed to remove their endorsement of me during a vote.

I can understand that... But from the POV of a resolution-writer, I do think one large Delegate (especially if they have such a transparent process as 10ki) would be preferable to several smaller Delegates.

I haven't been part of your process, but from what it sounds like you have a fairly open one.

And thank you for responding.

I wasn't saying that's actually what happens in 10KI, I was discussing delegate voting in the abstract, I just used your name and 10KI because they're recognisable names and I hate using "Nation A", "Region B" when I can use a name.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

@Ossitania

I'm amazed at your proficiency in numeration but I do have so brief questions and concerns..

● I detect in your post, quite a bit of resistance towards the notion of the minority in the region winning a vote over the majority ("allowing them to give more support to the minority position than the majority"). I guess this begs to question a few things:
→ Is it undemocratic for the Assembly to side with a minority opinion? Or alternatively, is it democratic for the Assembly to always side with the majority opinion? Or even more elementarily, is a democracy, a government that is run by the will of the majority?
→ Should power in a government always be vested in the majority? Why or why not. NOTE: If there is a difference between a government and the Assembly, please forgive me, and correct me where this tangent goes astray.

● You stated that Just Guy by voting can change people's vote to an abstention. In my opinion this seems to be an error in logic. Guy is in fact, not changing anyone's vote. The relationship between the two votes as 'canceling' each other out is a fictive relationship... because both votes hold equal importance and could help either camp, "FOR" or "AGAINST", be successful in passing/defeating any given bill. Furthermore, it could be just as easily argued that one's vote could be used to 'neutralize' the delegate's vote -- the distinction of the latter from your notion is simply the difference between a glass being half full or hall empty. Additionally, this notion does not address that people are not required in 10ki to endorse Guy as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), so don't they consent to the supposed 'neutralization' of their vote by endorsing Guy? If you disagree with these assertions, please feel free to defend your original position, and refute my own.

● You make the assertion that democracy would be less fun than "undemocracy" (hereby referred to as oligarchy). I'll define fun as a source of amusement and pleasure in the case of a game like NationStates, and I think the source of this amusement and pleasure -- the fun of the game -- is derived from activity and participation. My understanding of oligarchies and despotism and other forms of government that aren't democratic, is that although they require public servitude to run smoothly, citizens aren't required to be active or engaged citizens in the political happenings of their community. I'm not sure if it is entirely fair to connect this analogy with democracy in a game community, like NationStates, but if fun is derived from activity and participation.. much like Democracy in Real life, I will experience higher pleasures if I have an outlet available for political thought... if my vote really means diddly squat, or I had no vote at all.. then it would be an odd taste of intellectualism to cultivate my understandings of resolutions if Delegate X or Y is going to vote however he/she likes.. and they will practically control the vote (hypothetically -- it is not the case in reality). Do you disagree with me, is oligarchy, despotism or 'undemocracy' intrinsically more fun (more of a source of amusement and pleasure) in the game than democracy -- in regards to the World Assembly?

@Majah

Most of the questions I had with Quelesh's post could be applied to yours as well. I would like it if you would read my response to Quelesh and post a response to it. Choose which questions to answer at your own discretion in regards to what you think is relevant to your opinion or your expressed sentiments. I do have one specific question, though.

● Is the aforesaid quote not just an arbitrary preference? Is there some mathematical reasoning behind it, or a philosophical justification for preferring a particular numeral over another? Forgive me, but when we're dealing with heavy topics such as the political philosophy behind the concept of democracy, it seems frivolous to worry about such a trifling preference as the difference between 500 and 300 votes. :P

But residents of 10ki who don't like the way Just Guy has voted can always unendorse the delegate. Likewise, if he votes consistently in a way that they don't like, they can permanently unendorse him (which may be against the rules in 10ki) or just leave the region. Short of taking such a drastic step, I think it's perfectly legitimate to temporarily unendorse a delegate during a vote if he's voting in a way you don't like, as long as you re-endorse afterwards.

This shouldn't be too much of an issue, since I plan on continuing my policy of voting based upon how the region natives want me to vote. Just Guy does the same thing.

That's not really the case. I don't think the "lemmings" are stupid. I think they're doing for the most part exactly what I would do if I only had maybe 1-2 minutes per day to devote to NS: log in, maybe do an issue, glance at the title and maybe skim the text of the resolution at vote, and vote yea or nay.

They're not stupid, and I actually said in my post that I wasn't insulting the players behind individual NS nations or calling them stupid. Delegates simply tend to devote a lot more time to the game (one is unlikely to become delegate of a large region like 10ki anyway without being intelligent and dedicated) and are likely to pay much closer attention.

I do think that more regions should (voluntarily) do what we do, and what 10ki does, i.e. have the delegate vote based on the opinion of the region. That would be more democratic while still allowing for the more political experience that comes with delegate votes.

For what it's worth, I think Extinction Preparation Act is a good idea that's not done particularly well. I think it should be improved before being implemented. However, with Eireann Fae's (a delegation that I respect greatly and very often agree with) declaration of support for it on the RMB, regional opinion has tilted for, so assuming there are no further developments I'll vote for it in the next day or so.

I think that most people tend to believe that, in general, those who disagree with them aren't really thinking things through. Depending upon the topic, I may be more or less inclined to be convinced to change my opinion, and the resolution at vote is a topic that I could definitely be convinced about, but I think I'm right about Extinction Preparation Act (for example), and therefore I think that people who disagree with me are wrong. That doesn't mean they're stupid; it just means I think they're wrong.

Some of them are the "lemmings" we were discussing above; again, not stupid people, just people who vote after at most skimming the resolution and not putting too much thought into it because they don't have much time. Some of them I'm sure have put a lot of thought into Extinction Preparation Act and either don't see the same flaws in it that I do, don't see them as flaws or have decided that the proposal is a good thing even with the flaws. Reasonable people can disagree about just about anything.

As I've said, I'm not calling voters stupid. I'm just saying that some of them, the "lemmings," don't put much thought into how they vote because they're constrained for time and/or have more interesting things to do.

But, let's say for the sake of discussion that all the "lemmings," the players who don't have much time to devote to NS, quit the game, or at least quit the WA, and that everyone who voted on a resolution read the full text of it in detail and put a good deal of thought and consideration into his or her vote. There would still be a lot of people voting for and a lot of people voting against, because, like I said, people can think about an issue and disagree on it. I do think that, in such a case, Extinction Preparation Act would be losing the "real vote," but I'm biased.

I do think that delegates have that effect, although I don't think the effect is as pronounced as you seem to think I think it is. To answer the question, though, yes, but that's OK.

If the WA were a true democracy, there wouldn't even be regions (as far as the WA is concerned anyway). The WA would just be a group of 12,000 nations, each one (well, maybe half of them) voting on a resolution, and whether it passes or fails depends on which side gets most votes. That would, in my opinion, be the most democratic and the least interesting way to do things.

If the WA only had 50 or so nations, it would be a different matter, but it's impossible to effectively lobby 12,000 people and make any kind of realistic dent in the vote totals. Only a small fraction of voters read the discussion thread on the forums. Basically, once a proposal were submitted, the fun part would be over, and the result would be up to fate, or rather would depend on how the title/text of the resolution influenced those 12,000 individuals to vote, many of whom are the previously discussed "lemmings" (again, and I feel like a broken record here, no insult is intended by this).

However, trying to convince a few delegates to support your proposal can be fun and interesting; it gives you a concrete way to change the result of voting in a substantial way. Likewise, going on the 10ki forums and lobbying for your proposal (or for or against someone else's) can be an effective way of influencing a vote, as changing just a couple of votes on the 10ki forums can lead to a swing of 1000 votes in NS.

It's not true democracy, just like the United States and other "democratic" countries aren't true democracies, but that's fine for our purposes, and I think it makes the game a lot more interesting. Individual voters still have a choice. They still have a vote that counts, they can unendorse a delegate temporarily, they can endorse someone else and try to get another delegate put in place, they can leave the region and go somewhere else. These are all interesting aspects of the game that would go away if we went to pure individual vote totals.

Really, though, while this is an interesting subject, it doesn't matter too much, as this isn't something that we'll be able to change anyway. Any such change would have to be made by the game admins and Max would have to okay it.

@Quelesh

● You did not address the question, although granted, the question was being less charitable to your position than it should have been. If everyone could read the resolutions in detail and thoughtfully and independently voted, would there be any point to a delegate having these extra votes?

● Finally Quelesh, so we can understand your last paragraph. I'd like you define democracy. What does true, normative and/or ideal democracy mean to you?

Sometimes you learn a lot more about a person by asking them silly questions than the more obvious ones (e.g what are your policies? what will you do as delegate?). I've certainly learned quite a bit about our candidates because of their responses to these questions. So -- humor me. :P

In the strictest sense, the answer to all those questions is "no". "Democracy" comes from the Greek: δημοκρατία – (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (Kratos) "power", in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.

The basic idea behind a democracy is a system of government whereby decisions are based on the will of the people. There are three types of democracy;

Consensus democracy - where all decisions are unanimously agreed upon by everyone in a society.
Direct democracy - where all decisions are decided by public petitions and votes, i.e. initiatives, referendums, recalls, etc.
Representative democracy - where all decisions are decided by elected representatives of the public.

It is, therefore, strictly speaking, not undemocratic for the Assembly to side with a minority opinion, nor is it necessarily democratic for the Assembly to always side with the majority opinion, because, elementarily, a democracy is a government that is run by the will of the people; all the people.

However, consensus democracy is totally impractical in decision-making; there is almost nothing on which everyone will agree. Half the democratic process could be spent trying to convince someone who will never change their principles to do exactly that; it would be wasted, in other words.

Direct democracy is only practical on a small scale. Referundums, plebescites, what have you, are all easy and cheap to organise on a local level, but it's entirely unfeasible for every decision to be made by referendum on a national level.

That leaves us with representative democracy, which is the system that the WA employs. Nations are represented by governments that (at least nominally) represent the will of the people, and regions are represented by nations that (at least nominally) represent the will of the people.

As we've already established that consensus democracy is unfeasible, then it would only seem fair that the government should represent what most of the people it represents want. However, while majority votes sound good in theory but every time a majority makes a decision, a minority opinion is defeated. And sometimes, that's fine because the two choices aren't that different. And sometimes, that's fine because the minority in this case are freaking nutjobs. But other times, it isn't fine, because it's a prejudiced, discriminatory majority oppressing a minority.

The problem is that the majority isn't always right. A majority of Americans do not think that the theory of evolution is factually true, but it is.

So democracy, which is supposed to be a system of liberty, fraternity and equality, becomes a weapon with which to destroy the very principles for which it stands.

This is especially the case when you consider the many of these representatives fall prey to the traps of ideological and partisan politics. Rather than representing the interests of the people they supposedly represent, they represent abstract ideologies or party platforms which may be of little interest or even relevance to the people they supposedly represent. I think we have all seen examples of this in the WA, where someone is supporting or opposing a proposal, not necessarily because of the effect it will have on their people but for ideological reasons.

What this effectively creates is an oligarchy of sorts, where the decisions are made by an elite few, who are nominally given power by the people. However, it is not exactly an oligarchy because there are several oligarchies; there are factions within the elite few holding ideals tangently related to the will of the people and because these factions argue, it gives the illusion of democracy.

I believe at the regional level, we can have a decent approximation of democracy because we are few and we are representing ourselves. But in the chambers of the GA and SC, it's another story, because in addition to representing ourselves, we have other people supposedly representing us, people who might be representing us in name only. This creates a sort of compound oligarchal democracy, where the will of the people is represented but there is an oligarchy, or several oligarchies, that have the power to go against the will of the people if necessary.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that there are no real democracies, or, at least, there are very few and if there are real democracies, the WA is not one of them. My resistance towards the notion of the minority in the region winning a vote over the majority is based on the fact that, realistically, the best we can do when dealing with things on a national and supranational level is go with the majority opinion and I just feel like it's slightly undermining our already barely democratic system when the minority opinion wins over the majority.

The Assembly is basically just the parliamentary chambers of a supranational government, however much the NatSovers wish it wasn't. It's not quite IntFed either but for all intents and purposes, the Assembly is a government.

As to the question, I have already said that I believe that the sort-of democracy is more or less the best we can do, but that's not to say I believe that minority opinions should not be represented either. Sometimes, minorities need to be protected from majorities, especially when the majority is prejudiced against the minority. I believe the term sometimes used is "positive discrimination", but I'm not talking about institutionalised support for the poor and ethnic minorities. I think now and then, the government needs to go against the majority opinion when it is in the best interests of the people. Where the line falls and when it is crossed is impossible to tell, the balance is purely subjectiv

What I mean is that, let's say the vote is 5000 FOR/5000 AGAINST without delegate votes, then JG casts his 10000 delegate votes AGAINST. 5000 of his AGAINST votes are from endorsements from the 5000 nations who voted FOR. A FOR and an AGAINST vote cancel each other out. If an issue was at a tie and one person voted FOR and another AGAINST, the issue would still be at a tie, i.e. the votes cancel each other out. In the same way, 5000 of JG's AGAINST votes cancel the 5000 FOR votes, leaving JG with 5000 AGAINST votes, which leaves the tally at 0 FOR/10000 AGAINST.

The reason I wrote it that way is because, in my mind, at least, the national vote is the base voting system and the delegate votes are an addition, if you get my meaning.

I was using Just Guy and 10KI as space-fillers, because I don't like using things like "Nation A" or "Region B", I was not commenting on the political system of 10KI.

Well, first of all, I dispute the logic that because something is not democracy, it is the opposite of democracy, i.e. oligarchy. Just because I was saying that something was undemocratic does not necessarily imply it is oligarchal, so I wasn't saying oligarchy was more fun.

Second of all, I was saying the politics of an undemocratic/oligarchal system add an element of fun, the lobbying, the alliances, what have you, they add to the political intrigue of the whole game.

Third of all, I have outlined above how I believe the WA currently operates on a compound system of "oligarchal democracy", though the name is just something I made up. Therefore, I believe that in its current state, the WA gives us both the fun of oligarchal politics and, to an extent, at least, the fairness of democracy. Like I said, I needed more time to think out my position on that one.

Finally, to answer your question, no I don't. I believe that you need a bit of both for the fun.

Sorry if any of this was incoherent, I have quite a bad headache and I'm in need of sleep.

It is more of a preference, yes. I just think at with Just Guy being so far ahead of the other delegates, he gets a lot more attention. Yes, it is deserved, but I still think what I think. It is of no great matter. If 200 votes makes a difference in a resolution passing or failing, then it is very close.

I would say a good voter is one that takes the time to read the resolution, that actually thinks about what the resolution would do, look on the forum and read a bit, maybe make a post, and then cast their vote. And a bad voter is one that doesn't. Whether they agree with me or not doesn't make them good or bad, in my book.

I don't think so. You can still democratically choose your delegate and whether you endorse them or not.

Mahaj

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply to your post. But I don't agree with the view that "delegate" vote aren't "real" votes. It's a in-game way of deciding influence and obviously it's worked rather well so far. Not every one votes and the best way so the best way to get the most people represented is to have delegates vote for them and then the people who aren't delegates also get to vote there way.

That's not to say the system is perfect I do feel that too much power is placed in the hands of delegates with a large number of endorsements. However at the end of the day its really Max's decision and opinion on how things should be done.

I would like to say that since Quelsh has brutally attacked my proposal I want to respond. Maybe he can't distinguish a good arguments with his rather strong opinions. But I've been to several debates and while I do have strong opinions but I can distinguish what's a good argument and isn't. If I feel that I'm not able to distinguish the better argument I will excuse myself and go with the popular vote. I guess the way I would describe it is bringing a bit of a judicial style to the delegacy.

For instance I would have to go with the popular vote on his proposal for a death penalty because to me it's an insane idea to propose. Obviously I would vote for it at first though.

@Ossitania

However, on the international level in a game like NationStates, direct democracy is quite feasible.. WA's voting is a mix of direct and representative. So if you're going to defend representative government, you're going to need to find something intrinsically good about representative governance over direct governance. Because otherwise direct democracy is clearly the more representative of the will of the people? Or is it?

Hhm, and I guess what I am trying to hint at is, perhaps, what you consider undemocratic, fun and/or 'political intrigue' is what I consider a democracy? I suppose what I am arguing is that democracy isn't about going with the majority and having a delegate that is a talking monkey that pushes the buttons that the loud violent majority wants it to... no, not at all, democracy is simply a government that provides an outlet for intellectual thought and active citizenship... it not only requests that you get involved with your community and how it is run, it requests you think for once (every four years). That is what the defining characteristic of democracy is, at-least in my eyes and it is profound thing when you think about how our lives would be run if we lived in the Medieval times with a self-declared overlord ruling everything for us -- never asking of anything of us but our obedience and our mindless servitude in exchange for our lives and mediocre well-being. Is this something you'd agree with, would you like to adapt it, or dispute? I know that I make a sloppy/preachy philosopher, I apologize in advance.

@American Capitalist

• " If I feel that I'm not able to distinguish the better argument I will excuse myself and go with the popular vote. I guess the way I would describe it is bringing a bit of a judicial style to the delegacy." <-- When two or more arguments of seemingly equal merit are in opposition to one another, isn't that the time when judicial wisdom and arbitration is needed the most? And thus the minority opinion needs to be protected and considered equally? You say "judicial style" in reference to a jury, that concludes with a democratic consensus (which can be more of a tyranny of a majority using peer pressure). Judges however, offer a third-party insight of legal wisdom, and when you and your opponent both make a good case.. do you want a Judge who will consider both of your arguments equally or twelve people who will disregard your opinion because your opponents' opinion seems to be more popular? The fact that one side has more quantity of supporters seems to me to be a poor justification for choosing between a bail of hay and a trough of water. We do this fairly often though.
• Just because something is Max's idea and decision doesn't mean it is the right idea and decision? Does it? I mean, for example, Rule IV was Max's idea and decision.. were people wrong to try to oppose and/or civil disobey it?

Question to all the candidates - do you think that there's ever any circumstance where attempting to pass an illegal proposal can be justified? If so, what?

*run from the modz, warning everybody of their arrival at the top of his lungs*

Is foreign relations, including potential voting agreements (like Dharma now has with Capitalist Paradise) part of the Delegates job or Unis?

In any case, do any of you have any thought for more things of that sort?

On a related note, what do you make of the fact that many residents of Dharma are also natives, even Delegates of other regions?

(Btw: I'm old fashioned and no matter how friendly I am here, I can't consider myself native (and hence not voting), since I'm my own region first until I quit that.)

For the first response when referring to judicial I was actually referring to the a more American Supreme Court style. Not in the form of an American court where there's a jury to decide things. However I would note that you can say the same of the current system just because the majority votes one way doesn't meant they're right and doesn't mean they make a good argument.

I would like to note that I never implied that Max Barry is right every time merely that it is fully his decision. I probably should have been more clear with that.


Can I as a candidate challenge one of my opponents? I want Quelsh to defend his current decision system and how it fits with the image of Dharma? To me Dharma is not just a region it's also a place to debate and refine WA proposals. His system is that of a popular vote and while there hasn't been a major problem yet the system is tyranny by majority.

Sorry it's taken so long.

I think that the current system should stay in place. Should a nation wish to abstain or vote against a delegate, they could often remove their endorsement - and that is a rule I would use if I were elected. With particularly large delegates (Just Guy and a handful of others) it becomes a problem because of inflation regarding endorsements, but these delegates either don't often vote (such as Alsted) or vote with a realist, moderate mindset (like Guy does most of the time).

Also, due to the nature of the WA and the occurrence of people not really reading or understanding what they're voting on, there has been a lemming effect, with people simply voting for whichever side has the most votes. I'm not saying that delegates are unexceptionally above that system, but the larger ones or those with forum-heavy regions tend to act more responsible and can counteract the lemming effect and stop a bad proposal from happening.

So yes, I believe that the system, while enforcing the weight of some delegates, also creates safeguards against the WA simply becoming a popularity contest and degrading into an Uninformed A vs. Uninformed B scenario.

Honestly, I think the rules are there for a reason.

I think some of them (House of Cards, the one co-author rule) could be given a second look, but those are minor and aren't really worth getting into a long argument with the mods over.

With regards to the General Assembly, which is where I'd put most of my attention as delegate, I don't think that there is justification for illegal proposals, most of which fall under three categories: NatSov's, far left IntFed's, and metagamers. The typical NatSov argument can be used to repeal everything - hence the rule that says you must have a non NatSov argument in proposals. On the other hand, the base philosophy of the IntFed camp could be used to make the WA omnipotent - hence no WA army or international police. Those rules essentially prevent the GA from becoming a total warzone between IntFederalism and NatSovereignty. Also, with regards to metagaming, it's really not worth it to redo the rules of the forums everytime a resolution is passed. The forums already have decency rules. We don't need the WA to get into it.

And if a rule weren't? Hypothetically. By being 'reasonless' thereof, can a rule not be intrinsically pernicious? And if something is this bad, why legitimize it through obedience? Why value your obedience and adherence to the rules over the good of the game?

Hehe.. a debate between the mod's legal positivism and Uni's legal realism. W00t W00t! Only on NationStates, baby.

Feel free to ask what you like, and make what treaties you like so long as they go through me -- I will be fairly generous in what I allow.. what I won't allow is something that obvious sells the regional sovereignty or obligates me to do a lot of work. :P

Dharma's definition of a native comes from SC#15, ""Native" is a nation which takes up residence in a region without the intention of furthering the goals and aims of a foreign force;"

I welcome it, just keep the discussion to a respectable level of calm discourse, and be charitable to Quelesh in his position as he/she will be to you -- I'd hope, that is. :P

Dedicated, yes; intelligent... :P

On a more serious note, I have enjoyed reading this debate/discussion. :)

Just to clarify my intentions here...

I have taken up residence in Dharma, and I do not have any intention to further the goals of 10000 Islands or any other foreign force.

However, as I am the Delegate of 10000 Islands, and its interests might influence my decision if I were to be eligible to vote, it would not be fair if I would be. Therefore, I am relinquishing any claim to be a Dharmian native for now.

Ugh, that sounds awful. I should've just wrote I'm not a native. :P

I hadn't considered entering my name into the race until I received a telegram recommending that I throw my hat into the ring. After briefly weighing my options, I've decided to run for the position of regional delegate.

For those familiar with my delegation, you've probably noticed we often vote on more 'liberal' proposals while shunning ones which are evidently conservative in nature. Our reasoning for this is simple, we as capitalists feel that people need freedom in order to thrive. We do feel that certain socialist resolutions do not necessarily run contrary to our principles, such as those for education and providing support to those unable to help themselves for reasons beyond their control, or anything requiring long term investment. After all, not everything can be achieved in the short term. Instant gratification is short lived.

As for a time when illegal proposals are justified, if we start to make exceptions then we lose the order we've worked for. I can see the need to revisit the rule governing the citation of previous resolutions, however, the concerns associated with it are entirely valid.

Questions on policy would be best in this situation.