(10-06-2021, 12:28 PM)Drugged Monkeys Wrote: Is it just me or is the wording of this funky.
Shouldn’t it say:

“(2) In the absence of a recommendation, the Delegate shall vote on proposed World Assembly resolutions according to the overall vote of all World Assembly nations in the South Pacific AND consult with Cabinet to determine which direction to vote in. If the direction is contrary to the vote of all World Assembly nations in the South Pacific, the Delegate may choose to change their vote in collaboration with the Cabinet.”

Or is something else wrong, because I’m confused on why this actually says

The point is to cross out the part where, in the absence of OWL action, the Delegate will simply vote the way the majority of WA nations in TSP vote.

The reason for this is because assessing the direction the majority of WA nations in TSP vote introduces a substantial delay before the Delegate can cast their vote (often 12-24 hours) which foregoes TSP's ability to shape the outcome of the vote using its substantial voting power early on. Instead, it actually gives other regions the power to shape how our individual nations vote, given that the so-called "lemming" or "follow on" effect dictates how many individual WA nations or smaller Delegates vote on a proposal (i.e. people assume if a proposal is winning with 75% of the vote that those 75% must be "right").

Under the proposed solution, if there is no OWL recommendation on a vote, the Delegate may ask the Cabinet how to vote. The Cabinet will then say "at the beginning of the vote, do X, but if the majority of WA nations go the other way after a time, you may do that instead". This way, even if not the entire TSP populace or an OWL vote is determining our initial stance, at least some kind of democratically elected/accountable TSP institution is determining the direction of our WA vote (and our international WA influence), rather than simply whichever way the international winds of decision-making blow.