As a part of my discussions with members of the RMB, I learned that most people were apprehensive about extended/repeated use of the forum, and not use of the forum in any context. Giving the option to vote in Delegate elections via telegram creates an opportunity for us – if we create a system by which people really only have to use the forum once (which is all we need for IP checks) – then we are potentially opening ourselves up to more citizens and more voters. This is something that would not be required and likely would not be used by most citizens, but if even one or two new citizens/voters emerge from this change, it will be worth it.
The labor cost to implement is negligible – all we need is a Viceroy that logs into NS and copies/pastes their telegrams once every four months. This is also not a system which permits voter fraud – each vote is still only counted once and only citizens may vote. We can have a line in every announcement that we already make that citizens (and only citizens) may cast votes by telegram. I also don’t think we’ll get significantly more false votes because unlike the RMB the privacy of the TG doesn’t create a follow-the-leader effect of people who can’t vote, voting.
It’s just another option, a very small investment into a new avenue of access which can be of great benefit to the region. Furthermore, if no one uses it, there’s no extra work associated with maintaining it. Many RMBers support this concept, and the idea has been refined through conversations with various Viziers. Special thanks to New Leganes, A Mean Old Man, and Dragons Blood for their participation.
…3.5. Voting shall begin the moment Candidate Declaration is closed and last for a period of one week.
…3.5.1. Voting shall be primarily conducted in a designated forum thread created by the Viceroy (that is separate from the nomination forum thread).
…3.5.2. Voting shall also be possible via telegram. Citizens must telegram the Viceroy with their resident and WA nation(s) alongside their ballot. The Viceroy shall paste the contents and share an image of each telegrammed vote they receive in the designated voting forum thread before counting the votes and announcing the results.
wouldn’t it also be possible to fully automate it? We would just need to whitelist people once then it should work without any additional work. The program ofc needs to return the name of each person that voted but that should be no big deal
I mentioned this in the discord, but this is something the Viceroy can do whether or not this amendment goes through but I do encourage the Conclave to look into it.
This is also something being discussed on discord but if the Viceroy already has a full mailbox and not PMG, they can always appoint someone who doesn’t fit that description to do this task – since a number of former Delegate and current Viziers, some of which may be Arbiters (idk, there’s no list of PMGs out there), have PMG, I think it’s easy to find a trustworthy person for that. We can also just have a puppet or appointee who has an empty tg inbox. I don’t think anyone expects more than 20 mail-in votes here, but I do understand wanting to prepare just in case.
Not a fan of TG voting. RL mail-in voting addresses significant logistical issues a lot of people have with voting in-person. I don’t buy that TG voting would lower the barrier to voting here in any substantial way. Using TGs and the RMB to inform people that an election’s happening and how they can vote is great, and doesn’t require working around inbox limits or potentially passing around a centralized nation. But if you’re already doing that, then the barrier to voting isn’t having to travel all the way to a polling place on a specific day (workday for the Americans here). It’s taking 5 seconds to go to a provided url and make a post using a provided template. Citizens by definition have forum accounts, so the argument that TG voting would encourage more people to… head to the forum anyway and become citizens doesn’t sound convincing to me. I’d rather use TGs for advertising and informing about the election, not collecting votes. Maintaining a parallel voting system off-forum sounds like extra messiness for little gain.
However, I do see value in giving people the option to vote privately, whether through the forum or also via TG if we end up implementing that.
This is exactly the point. A significant group of people – potential voters – have logistical issues with the forums. Even some of our own Viziers have admitted that it’s not a walk in the park. It’s a survivorship bias that we are all here today – of course the people who have managed to use the forum are able to say that they find it easy to use the forum.
The argument is that “You only have to come here once” would be more appealing to people who aren’t comfortable/confident using the forums than “You have to come here once and then repeatedly afterwards each time you ever want to do anything.” Let me tell you, I’ve been in the RMB community for six years and I’ve been working on legislatively advancing its rights and health for five and a half, so even if you can’t see the logic here, trust that they will. That’s who we need to be convincing, and they’re already convinced. I know this because I’ve talked to a lot of them about this very proposal.
I think if we refer to it as a parallel voting system off-forum, we’re getting in our heads a bit and muddying the waters of what’s actually happening, which is this: Voters can send telegrams and all the Viceroy has to do extra is copy and paste those telegrams in the forum. If all it is to vote is “taking 5 seconds to go to a provided url and make a post using a provided template”, then how long is it to go to a provided url and hit ctrl c, ctrl v?
I don’t understand this. You’re okay with what you call a “parallel voting system off-forum” only if it’s private? A system that is objectively more abusable? So if I was making this same proposal but instead of public ballot it was private, you would support it? That means that your problem with the current proposal is not that it’s too difficult, it’s that it’s public? Please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m genuinely confused here and I’m sure it’ll make sense when you go into more detail.
I’ll start with this last part because yes, you’re wrong. I’m saying that regardless of whether we implement TG voting, some setup for people to cast votes privately may be worth considering. Not necessarily here, not necessarily now. My comment was inspired by your line about “the privacy of the TG,” even though the context was different.
Regarding the rest of it, I’m just struggling with the premise that opening a provided forum page once in four months is an onerous burden for people who need to use the forum to be eligible to vote anyway. It’s also where the candidates’ actual platforms are. I’m struggling to understand why posting in a provided forum thread is significantly more burdensome than typing out a TG, especially assuming you checked the forum anyway to see what the candidates’ plans even are.
You mention the added Viceroy workload being easy to handle, and I agree with you. So why would it be really easy for the Viceroy but not for voters? You mention the forums being awkward to use, and I agree with you there too. I don’t like this forum. But that’s addressed by linking specific threads and forum areas, and by improving the forum layout. Or are we going to move Magi votes to Discord to make that less awkward too?
I do understand that there’s a divide between primarily onsite/RMB players and primarily offsite players. That divide exists to some degree in any region with offsite infrastructure. My old region had a divide that got so bad it led to a complete schism with the RP community splitting off entirely. I’m just not sure that setting up additional onsite infrastructure for something so seemingly straightforward that happens so infrequently and is going to require some degree of forum participation anyway would notably improve things. We want people in the region to feel comfortable going on the forum, even really infrequently, because that’s the gateway to greater involvement and it’s where all our permanent stuff is. I worry that treating something as simple as voting every few months - which would still necessitate using the forum even if the voting itself can be done via TG - as this immense barrier might even have the opposite effect to what’s intended and exacerbate the divide in the long term.
That said, I’d likely support this if it goes to vote. I’m a big fan of greater accessibility even if I think this specific effort’s misguided, and the material risk is really low. TG voters would still be citizens with all that entails and the same people would be managing elections either way. And if you do end up passing this, please milk it for all it’s worth.
I also appreciate you bringing up your own RMB experience. It’s something I lack, and I’m not going to pretend my perspective isn’t incomplete. Because of that, I’m fine accepting your assertion that this is something that part of the community wants. And I do understand the logic animating this proposal. All parts of the region’s community should feel welcome in it, and it’s our responsibility to improve things where we can. I just don’t agree with the premise of TG voting alleviating some huge burden.
Thank you for clarifying. Thank you as well for your support and for privately reaching out to learn more about RMB-Gov relations. I appreciate going the extra mile to inform yourself and I encourage anyone else who doesn’t understand the current divide to reach out as well.
I support this yet have to agree with many of Cretox’s points.
Whilst there is a certain inherent good that lies in a more active total voter base within a region, I worry that voter literacy in its entirety would suffer as a result of this amendment. If not accompanied by another one to the same statute, that is.
Presently, pursuant to Section V.3., the following is mandated by law:
If we, as a region, seek to introduce voting by telegram, it’s crucial to ensure that all these lovely campaign materials we’re talking about remain accessible to this RMB crowd with a low proclivity to venture into our forums. What I mean is that we could make these resources more readily available on-site. Really, even in the absence of the great insight gained through reading the Q&A after the campaign post and the important interactive dimension of the campaign thread itself, I believe voters should still have the opportunity to review candidate platforms directly on NationStates; more than this, our laws should ensure this happens.
This could be accomplished by requiring (or simply allowing) that campaigns be posted in a dispatch linked on the RMB or published directly on the RMB itself. This kind of decision would help maintain a healthy degree of voter literacy and facilitate reasoned decision-making for all, so that this marvellous broader participation we’re aiming for with this amendment doesn’t come at the expense of a great deal of engagement with candidates’ platforms and positions.
I think it’s a good idea. However, it’d be best to poll the RMB to see if they’d like a limit on how many times an individual candidate posts their campaign on the RMB and what such a limit would be.
Campaign is so restricted on forums and discord because unlike other regions, TEP has a tradition of not making our elections override daily life of the region. I imagine the RMB would like the same, but maybe they don’t IDK - best to check.
In my view, there’s still no reason to consider opening an url on the forum so bothersome that we need to change our voting system for it. I keep seeing this as completely disproportionate. I really don’t see the problem. If you can create an account on NS, navigate to the TG module, figure out how and which Nation to TG with a template, you can do the same on a random forum. Everybody can do that. If some people simply don’t want to, we don’t need to cater to that. Because they’re not going to want to do a whole other bunch of stuff either.
Why shouldn’t an important change like this be controversial? You aren’t just deciding the wallpaper here.
Neither do I see where a duty to make voting as “easy as possible” would come from. That would imply this body would be under an obligation to go a lot further on this even (as “easy as possible” - so RMB votes? Pro-active telegramming? Voting by PM’s on Discord, TikTok, Facebook, IRC? Voting by e-mail? By SMS? House to house visits? Just post on the NSGP Forum? A poll? Let’s do away with all the formalities, just out your vote in the name of a Nation of your choosing, TEP’s government will do all the work to gather the data. It’s a duty you see ..).
If you think that’s easy then I don’t think we’re speaking about the same things, and therefore I don’t think it’s productive to continue our debate. Your stance and mine are clear. Let’s speak to each other with our votes on this matter and let those who seek compromise, agreement, or productivity to speak with debate. Debate for debate’s sake won’t help anyone.
Importance and controversiality are two separate things. Often, they may overlap, but I think it’s a disservice to democracy to say that there shouldn’t be agreement on important matters.
So dissent is not productive and should be ignored? What kind of “debate” do you want? I still haven’t seen any argument why voting on the forum is supposedly too hard.