Elections

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

Again, I am on both sides of this particular fence and although I'm not ready to have an opinion on this particular element of the debate, I will share some personal observations.

In the AntiCapitalist Alliance, of which I was a member for a long time, I declined to stand as UN delegate and only once voted in an election. However, except in one circumstance, I added my endorsement to whichever candidate was elected.

Both the instance of voting and the declining to add my endorsement to the elected delegate were related to my feeling that the delegate position was simply rotating around a cadre of members who, by nature of their close association over time (through the NS telegram, through PMs on the regional forum and through Messenger contact), appeared to me to have grown to consider themselves a vanguard for the region.

In some cases, AntiCapitalist Alliance issues were being discussed inside a closed CACE forum (of which I was part, being also a member of CACE) before they had been brought to the attention of the regional members.

Certainly in my opinion this had become an example of the organisational structures creating a hierarchy.

Subsequently, the delegate position did slowly become occupied more frequently by other members - although there is still a problem now with the incumbent wishing to retire but the newly-elected delegate not having sufficient endorsements.

When I joined the AntiCApitalist Alliance there were less than 100 members, now there are more than 200. I still fear that a great many of those members are not actively involved in the region and that a very tiny proportion are "managing" - or trying to manage - the activities of the region, with an assumed mandate of more than 200 members.

Whether this is actually the case or not is not really important, I believe what is important is that the structure is open to that perception.

As I have said here before, I use my UN membership as validation that Sacco and Vanzetti is not a mere puppet. When I eventually leave CACE (I have been inactive as a member there for more than six months but believe I have to RP my withdrawal realistically) I may reconsider my UN membership also.

I believe Michaelaccio is right that this region will attract a number of people who object to the UN and its fatuous resolutions. It will also attract a number of puppetwankers and wreckers.

I believe Walter and Theodor is right that it is inappropriate for non-UN members to have control of the UN delegate position. There are a number of ways non-UN members can work together (and with UN members) to achieve positive outcomes for issues within the tACA region and the NS world. However, we all must not allow the UN delegacy issue to either come between us or instill even the remotest whiff of a regional hierarchy. If that becomes the case it would not be long before S&V retired back to its solitary vigil behind the locked doors of our own "Anarchism" region. I have already fought and lost a battle against elitists, I wouldn't spend time or energy trying to do it again.

[Walter and Theodor]

I think at this stage its imperative that critiques also attempt to supply at least some pointers for a resolution of the problems entailed within those criticisms. It seems that we agree that UN and non-UN members should be equal members of the region at the same time non-UN members are concerned about the authority that the UN begins to achieve and UN members are concerned about the destructive potential of puppets/agent provocateurs.

If I can stake out a position for people to bounce off of I would say that game mechanics sort of simply mean that UN members will start to exercise more influence in a region as they are more active. Unless we have some kind of reference point for the non UN contingent to engage with and exercise influence around then they quite simply have less to engage around. While I see the point of staying out of the UN I think complaints about being marginalized by that action are problematic as that is such a central dimension of the game as it stands. In the region I used to be in, though there were many non UN members, activity in the region would almost die out in those periods where there wasn’t a UN issue at vote. The UN issues are an impetus to engagement and activity of all kinds – even non related issues. It follows that the UN people tend to react and initiate more of the activity concerning the region even if this is RP concerning withdrawal from the UN or other treaties that UN people are more likely to be involved in. Power is exercised in groups! That’s not an admonition it’s a material argument that is fundamental to socialism. For individual entities to complain that their influence is retarded or marginalized because they refuse to sign onto power blocs of any kind is sort of like complaining that the color blue is the color blue.

For me, if I am to take Michelaccio’s argument seriously, rather than seeing it as an entirely academic critique of power, then I think it is essential that some proposal are put forward that can resolve the situation. If the only answer is that we should all reject the UN then are we perhaps gaming in the wrong forum?

That’s not a love or it leave it suggestion, I have been wondering about this myself and recently found an organization that is trying to encourage experiments in democracy by providing an internet resource for people to experiment. The simple issue is I don’t have the time for it right now and so I am experimenting and playing here instead. If I had more time I would wonder about how one might imagine an anarchist congress through its provision. If someone else wants to start it up they can consider me their first participant.

www.tgde.org/

[FreeLandofAIM]

I certainy don't believe UN nations should be dismissive of others in the alliance/region merely because they are not in the UN.

As UN resolutions do affect the region as a whole, and how it is described thus in terms of economy and other matters, I think that it affects non UN members too who are in that region.

[Walter and Theodor]

Michelaccio

I think I offered a critique of your argument that pointed out it was not so much a viable solution to the problems that are before us as much as it was a formula that instituted your particular agenda. Your ‘solution’ made regional UN participation effectively pointless. Thus you have not so much engaged collective concerns as you have tried to get everyone ‘round to your way of thinking.

What I am asking for is a way to allow effective UN participation, which is to say organization and bloc votes which potentially double ones voice, at the same time that we
counter-act the tendency to UN nation hegemony within the region as you describe it.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that the UN is great thing – it seems that most of us subscribe to it for reasons that have to do with game mechanics. Your welcome to try and convince me that I should leave the UN but if I were convinced of this I would see little point in continuing to play this game at all. You clearly get something else from the game than I do – so how do we work out a position that allows me to continue and allows you to continue as well?

Could our elections entail a council that always involves at least one UN member who could then take on the delegacy nominally?

I could see my way giving a voice to non-UN nations on UN votes (if they so wanted) if there was some way of understanding what counts as a puppet and what is not a puppet? A lot of farming collectives in the SE US require new members to go through a kind of orientation period before they have a say in the decision making? I can see the draw backs of that and even its unworkability but its a possibility. All member who have five posts? Or the council could decide who has voting privs and who does not? That might lend to some excitement as it would give us a reason to recall it?

These are just suggestions. I would love to hear other proposals. Or from those who think we are crazy.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

I'm not sure anything's imperative, is it?

Certainly if anyone has any relevant observations regarding this on-going debate, I'd like to hear them, whether they have yet formed opinions or not.

[vequalsv0plusat]

Walter said:

It seems to me that people are assuming that the delegate is a kind of governor rather than a representative of the regions interests in the UN. I don't get why someone who won't be effected by the outcomes of the UN is interested in how the region votes. Perhaps there is a division of powers that need to be discussed?

I am not asking people to defend a position I am really actually curious...its only in this discussion that I suddenly realize that I don't understand why nations not in the UN should care about the UN at all?

Same reason why we care about people in other nations being forced to work for less than a dollar a day under horrific working conditions.

[Walter and Theodor]

sigh...working weekends...

I assumed that the problems of tracking the UN delegacy and responsibilities therein under the built in endorsement system, and maintaining a somewhat complete level of UN member endorsement trading was unwieldy in a way that was unworkable. I just assumed that, in all likelihood delegacy would end up being so mobile, due to members coming and going, that unless everyone was checking in almost daily, votes would be lost and most of our time would be spent reminding people to do x or y related to the delegacy, endorsements and voting. On some basic level I think time and energy rebels against a delegacy that changes on a weekly and perhaps even a monthly basis. (I think this is the potential value of recall - elections are held when needed and thus occur becuase someone has the energy and desire to make them happen.)

However, I may be assuming a larger, more active, and so transitive, region in our future than Michelaccio's proposal did. I like large regions where you can pop in after a few days and find something interesting has kicked off without you.

With that said if others think the proposal is a good idea and might work W&T will obviously make every effort towards its success.

And I guess it isn't really imperative. Co-workers, superiors, way behind schedule, transference, transference, transference...you get the idea

[vequalsv0plusat]

Clapton said:

I'm actually beginning to think it might be best to just go with what's built into the game (as M seemed to suggest above). In other words, just endorse whoever you tend to agree with, or whoever's putting forward the most cogent arguments with regard to the resolution at vote. That way our weight in the UN would be proportional to our collective strength of feeling on any given resolution. We should still aim for consensus when discussing the resolutions, to help ensure we debate them properly.

Hmm. I suppose that might work. The only problem is that members of the UN would then be the only ones with a voice.

Perhaps each UN member could be assigned to two or three non-UN members whose opinions he would try to represent when voting on delegates or UN resolutions. Of course there'd be drawbacks to this, namely that (1) non-UN members may just be puppets of UN members also in the region (2) this may add yet another level of structural organization to the region, but...just a random thought.

[FreeLandofAIM]

Michelaccio said:

Echoing Sacco and Vanzetti's remarks, I don't mind stating now that if this region goes the way of the ACA, TPC or most any of the other major left regions, I won't be around to watch that descent. I've already seen it.

Well there you have various options; one of them being you stick around to help stop such a descent.

But yes, I agree that if there was no stopping such a descent, I would leave also.

But if a descent did start to occur, we would have every chance of stopping it.

[Fenria]

Workers said:

Sacco and Vanzetti has suggested to me that it may be time to have our first proper regional elections. Does anybody have any suggestions concerning how we might set about doing this in the most democratic way possible?

Instant runoff voting! ^^ Quite simply, the person with the most votes wins.

(Just ignore the Great Beer and Food delegate canvassing the crowd, handing out free beer and pamphlets, ok?!)

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

The peoples of Sacco & Vanzetti nominate The Theocracy of Walter and Theodor as interim UN delegate, pending regional agreement on the structure of appointments to the position and with the only proviso that the interim delegate is recalled if, in any one week, three members of the region (whether UN members or not) call for it. In such cases, the UN delegate position defaults to the region founder.

Three reasons:

1. Walter and Theodor is passionate about the UN - passion makes things happen.

2. We're happier with a separate UN delegate and founder.

3. W&T has been key to the on-going debate about the delegate status and structure of appointment and the common concerns about it.

This should not be seen as the end of the debate, merely a change in delegate on the grounds that we should, as a new region, encourage as much activity on as many fronts as possible and four hands are more active than two.

[Walter and Theodor]

The people of Walter & Theodor are flattered and honored to be nominated in this way by the esteemed people of Sacco & Vanzetti. However, the information collectives of The Theocracy have been engaging most regional discussion in the interstices of compiling a significant report, with accompanying video, on the future of the nation. As we speak communes from across the nation are submitting their data and an increasing burden of responsibility is being placed upon the information collectives. This burden will only increase until the report finally goes public in early December. Until then W&T would likely make a mess of the regional delegacy but we do look forward to taking it away from someone else at the first available opportunity. Hopefully contrivances will not be necessary and the delegate will go down in fiery bout of recriminations upon which the ascension of Walter & Theodor will take on messianic dimensions thus providing Theodor, for the first time in his life, with an audience that listens, and Walter with an unrestricted travel budget for sampling the worlds finer opium and hashish output.

Thank you,
Siegfreid Kracauer
Shopgirls and Typing Pool Local 101

[Walter and Theodor]

bump

[theyellowspot]

what about a method for electing/maintaining a UN delegate? it seems that has gotten pushed aside. I propose having a new election every month or so, elect the delegate by at least 2/3 majority, delegate's votes are bound by a 2/3 majority vote of all (UN?)member nations, and instant-recall vote is instituted by 3 members, followed by a new vote. maybe a limit on terms served? i also agree that non-UN members should be involved in discussion of resolutions, though i'm not sure about having a say in the vote for a resolution.

[Walter and Theodor]

Yellow Spot,

I think your proposal sounds a little compliicated but on the right track. Perhaps if we can agree something we can get this ball rolling. How 'bout this:

...elections are called whenever by 3 or more nation states who must provide a reason for the election. The reason may simply be 'political stagnation and the value of change'.

The three nations that call an election must have one (or more) UN members represented.

The two thirds majority needed to establish a delegate is 2/3 of those registering an opinion in this forum. ---(we need to establish a time frame for the election then - is one week too little?)

I can forsee problems with this formulation but perhaps, since there is an active founder, we could revisit issues as they arise. Maybe this will just get us off the starting bloc?