So, I'm not sure if everyone is aware but when the Delegate goes to the WA page they get to see a summary of how every WA Nation in the region is voting. Creating a separate voting process in which only some the WA Nations will vote was and is a bit pointless.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

So, I'm not sure if everyone is aware but when the Delegate goes to the WA page they get to see a summary of how every WA Nation in the region is voting. Creating a separate voting process in which only some the WA Nations will vote was and is a bit pointless.

That can only happen once the resolution is up for vote in the World Assembly. However, when a significant Delegate (such as ours) votes early, that has a measurable impact on how other nations, both within TSP and abroad, cast their vote. OWL is, among other things, a tool to gauge beforehand how the region will stand on these issues so the Delegate can vote early and therefore have more impact in favor of South Pacifican interests on resolutions that are at vote.

Reply

For me, the biggest issue remains that by moving this offsite to the people who are "active" in it, we're giving that handful of people active in OWL over the 700+ members of the region. Unlike the rest of the offsite government which most members of the region can choose to ignore, this would have a direct impact on every WA nation in the TSP. 

OWL currently runs on-site, through a dedicated embassy region. Any WA nation in TSP, as well as any non-WA nation certified to being in SPSF, may vote.

While I'm happier than it's on-site, fact remains that through OWL we had 12 nations vote for the proposal currently at a vote in the WA while 290 voted directly to the WA. And, I think that sums up my overriding concern that I don't want the opinion of those 12 to overshadow the 290.

Although, the proposal — as currently suggested — lets the Minister of WA decide how to hold the OWL vote (so it could easily be moved offsite) and doesn't build in the practice anjo described that allows for the delegate to change if the majority of the overall region is going against the initial recommendation.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

That's something that's bothered me a bit, too, especially when the few people who vote on the embassy RMB aren't in line with TSP's overall votes.

I think OWL should really consider a.) expanding voting to Discord, and b.) weighting voting in a way that the actual votes of most TSPers matters. For instance, once the resolution is at-vote, those votes should weigh a lot more than a handful of RMB votes. There's no reason why our Delegate can't change their vote towards the end, if it's clear that most TSPers actually want to vote the other way.

(This post was last modified: 01-31-2021, 06:52 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

This is a fascinating topic.  I have found that my vote for the majority of GA proposals go counter-TSP (that's just my nat-sov leanings coming out, usually) and so I have greatly appreciated having an "increased voice" by being able to vote through OWL ahead of time.  Just last week, I finally figured out how to get automatically notified for each proposal coming to vote.  It's possible I am extremely dense and missed all the associated dispatches, but it wasn't at all obvious or easy to figure out how to get auto-notified when a proposal was incoming.  I'm going to be saying some possibly controversial things in the next paragraph, so please give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not a horrible person!

I have long had the thought that a lot of the individual GA votes are what we might call "low information votes", someone that isn't particularly aware of the debate and/or implications surrounding the proposal at vote, but votes because the title sounds nice.  There's a reason I read the whole proposal top to bottom, then read the drafting thread to understand the thought process and intent behind proposal creation.  I do not at all want to deny any citizen's vote and voice, but I also feel it is not inappropriate for the delegate's vote to be more heavily weighted by a smaller body of informed and engaged citizens.  Especially, as has been mentioned above, the early voting period is crucial to any proposal's chance of success and so I appreciate the fact that we as a region want to use our delegate votes to exert as much influence as possible.

All of this to say, I think we should continue with the onsite voting through OWL, but I also believe we should publicise it far more.  Let's put together an information campaign and invite everyone to be a part of this crucial ministry that helps our region continue to have have a positive, inspiring and benevolent impact on our world!  (And let's also make it very obvious how one can be auto-notified of any new proposals on the table.  Again, maybe I'm super dense, but it took me a while...)  Let's make it clear we want everyone to be involved.  =)  Definitely don't want to shut any voices down.

Land Without Shrimp

Reply

But what happens if the OWL is opposite the rest of the region when the vote closes? Would the delegate still be require to vote with OWL rather than the rest of the region?

At the end of the day, the delegate votes with the region, not the cabinet. Id very much like to keep it that way.

There's no reason why our Delegate can't change their vote towards the end, if it's clear that most TSPers actually want to vote the other way.

This was consistently and explicitly my policy when I was delegate and voting based on OWL. I assume it has been Amerion's too, though I haven't checked.

As Anjo already noted (though most of you seem to be ignoring them!), it's actually written into the internal OWL Procedure Guide:
 

 
Before the proposal’s voting period ends, if the Delegate’s vote is contrary to the overall vote of all WA nations in the region or if there is no recommendation, the Delegate will change their vote to align with the overall vote. (If the decision was to Abstain, the Delegate will still abstain, no matter if the region has voted for or against).

OWL is meant to sway the regional vote. If we didn't have it and we waited until a large segment of the region had voted, we'd be letting TSP voters be swayed by the preponderance of WA votes cast from other large regions' delegates. OWL is about giving TSP citizens a chance to determine how the delegate uses their influence -- not necessarily how the delegate votes in the end.

The issue is not with how OWL operates. OWL currently operates just as everyone is suggesting. The issue is with this current draft, which is in conflict with how OWL currently operates.

Additionally, as a member of the OWL senior staff, I can vouch for the fact that it's plenty active and has a sizable staff -- greater in activity and staff size than some ministries, I'd wager.

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

Reply

The issue is not with how OWL operates. OWL currently operates just as everyone is suggesting. The issue is with this current draft, which is in conflict with how OWL currently operates.

Somy — I noted in my last post that anjo mentioned this policy, but that's not what's written in the law.

In essence, the Assembly is being asking to make a law that says "OWL solely dictates the delegate's vote" and then arguing that it's OK because OWL has a policy we're arguing for. But, OWL currently has sole discretion on their policies, so this could change whenever under the law we are being asked to pass.

Can't we alter the proposal to say that the delegate is allowed to change the vote if the majority of the voting public is different than the OWL dictate? That seems like a simple alteration.

I don't think any of us are against using OWL to influence and push the vote early, but we all just want the reassurance we won't be making it illegal for the delegate to vote with the majority of the region.

As an aside: I'm getting the feeling that the current MO of the Assembly is to push through original proposals rather that alter proposals based on feedback being given in the thread. I don't think it's a generally helpful mode for the Assembly to operate in and I hope we remain open to changes to our proposals.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I have revised Article 1 of the proposed World Assembly Act to address the concerns made in recent replies. If I missed something, make sure to call it out.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 02-03-2021, 04:28 AM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

I have revised Article 1 of the proposed World Assembly Act to address the concerns made in recent replies. If I missed something, make sure to call it out.

Thanks Jay! 

I'm thinking 1.1 of the WA Act is a bit wordy. Might something like the following be more succinct and flexible?

(1) The Delegate shall cast their vote on proposed World Assembly resolutions according to voting recommendations issued by the Ministry of World Assembly Legislation, except under circumstances in which the Ministry issued a recommendation for the Delegate to abstain from voting. If the the ministry's recommendation is contrary to the vote of all World Assembly nations in the South Pacific, the delegate may choose change their vote in collaboration with the Ministry. 

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I'm thinking 1.1 of the WA Act is a bit wordy. Might something like the following be more succinct and flexible?

(1) The Delegate shall cast their vote on proposed World Assembly resolutions according to voting recommendations issued by the Ministry of World Assembly Legislation, except under circumstances in which the Ministry issued a recommendation for the Delegate to abstain from voting. If the the ministry's recommendation is contrary to the vote of all World Assembly nations in the South Pacific, the delegate may choose change their vote in collaboration with the Ministry. 

Done.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply