[OOC Discussion] Secondary Nation Memberships

[Nathan]

"Secondary" by which I mean, in my case for example, Drak-Modan and Goetia.

After the conclusion of such important "out of character" votes like the flag, host city, and deputy election I was considering promoting the idea that secondary nations be invited to join the MTO. Although never explicitly prohibited, a few people I've talked to have hesitated having their secondary nations join because of the appearance of voting manipulation.

There will always be the concern of one person having two or three votes, and while membership is low, that can be a concern. I see pros and cons of openly encouraging secondary nations to join.

It is more realistic for Micras as a simulated planet to have more members in the MTO.

Some secondary nations have vastly different politics and cultures and may vote differently.

It allows smaller, secondary nations to have a new area of foreign interaction, raises their profile, and may allow them to distinguish themselves.

Some secondary nations are perhaps more representative of the IRL person because secondary nations are more often one-person. Alduria-Wechua, Elwynn, and Natopia, for examples that I know of, often have their policies decided by behind the scenes discussions, whereas Drak-Modan is entirely under my personal control. Therefore, for example, Natopia may be required to have a more nuanced point of view, whereas Drak-Modan can be more free to have more extreme views which is good for debates and generating interesting activity.

When we need to vote for new officers (or a new flag, or something else that has "tangible" effects), if secondary members are in the General Assembly, it could certainly tip the scales in favor of a candidate who may not necessary have the votes of more IRL people, but just the votes of IRL people who have multiple nations. (Depending on your point of view of Micras, this can be a feature or a bug)

MTO membership is still tied to MCS membership, so if someone can't maintain multiple nations, they don't get multiple votes. (Again, depending on your views on meritocracy in micronations, this is a feature or a bug)

MTO membership is now voluntary, so nothing prevents people from establishing their own secondary nations and having them join if they observe unbalanced voting. However, this may also feel like people are forced to make a 2nd or 3rd nation just to "keep up" which may result in some low-effort nations or ones only established as MTO seat grabbers which may seem disingenuous. However, the MTO membership still requires MCS membership, and the MCS will decide if a project is worthy enough to be added to the map.... but then that may seem to "punish" people that only want to focus on one project and don't have the time to start an entirely new nation.

One of the original purposes of the MTO was for the organization to draft multinational treaties and allow its members to sign on to the ones they like. Excluding secondary nations from some of these treaties doesn't make sense from an in-universe point of view. The text of the MTO treaties could be altered to remove references to MTO membership requirements, but then the purpose of the MTO existing as a membership organization begins to unravel and it become a treaty-drafting think tank.

The MTO and its treaties were created in a time before the rise of secondary nations and the ease of maintaining them on wikis. There was an assumption, at the time, that MTO members would all be run by multiple people and instances of one person controlling more than one vote in the General Assembly were rare and sometimes resulted in people resigning and shuffling themselves around to avoid that. So the MTO itself may need retooling or adjusting to compensate for secondary members if a sudden influx somehow "breaks" the MTO.

[Cosmic Fury]

In cases such as these, I advocate a "one person, one vote" rule.

There are obviously far fewer people active in Micras than there were several years ago. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, we still need to ensure that new nations are awarded representation while still preventing members with multiple votes from having their way.

As you said, nations can and will vote differently. However, their votes should either cancel each other out or only count as one.

[Ric]

If a country is a member of the MCS, it should be able to be admitted to the MTO. All members of the MTO are equal to one another. No member should be without a vote.

The idea of secondary nations insinuates that the countries are subordinate to one primary nation. This is against the Charter of the MCS, and if so, the so-called secondary countries should be expelled from the MCS (and thereby from the MTO).

[Jack]

Second that. In practice however you will probably see votes align. Luckily the MTO doesn't decide anything of importance.

[Eugene Friedriechsen]

I have, personnaly, not created an opinion about this matter yet.
Bassically, we have two facts:

• The Positive one, which means that allowing this kind of nations to ender the MTO would bring more ideas etc

• The Negative one, which means that theese nations would help their master manipulate the voting procedure or other functions of the MTO for their personal benefit.

I believe that, in some cases, it would be very very interesting to see new nations from older players, which would be tottaly different from their main ones, even holding different opinion; however, surrely some would exploit this by making alts to support their main nation.
I would propose that secondary nations be given some kind of "provisional", not full membership; this would keep theese good ideas aligned to the MTO, while preventing theese nations to act as sockpuppets of the main one.

[Continuator]

How I would resolve this is that if a chap has more than one member-state for which he is considered by the MCS to be the "proprietor", up to a maximum of three, then the value of his vote as an individual should be sub-divided between the three. So, as a hypothetical:

1. Ardy-jackboots-land: 1/3 of a vote
2. Ardy-fez&ziggurats-land: 1/3 of a vote
3. Ardy-insultingstereotypesofthecannibalsofpapuanewguinea-land: 1/3 of a vote

[Edgard]

How I would resolve this is that if a chap has more than one member-state for which he is considered by the MCS to be the "proprietor", up to a maximum of three, then the value of his vote as an individual should be sub-divided between the three. So, as a hypothetical:

1. Ardy-jackboots-land: 1/3 of a vote
2. Ardy-fez&ziggurats-land: 1/3 of a vote
3. Ardy-insultingstereotypesofthecannibalsofpapuanewguinea-land: 1/3 of a vote

I was initially in agreement with the views presented by the Ralgon representative, but I really do want to see all my projects be part of the MTO because I support the organization wholeheartedly. I think that the proposal put forth by Elwynn above is the most sensible compromise.

[Nathan]

It seems we're all quite split on the issue. 3 for fractional voting, 2 for full voting, and 1 for limited membership. I'm leaning towards full voting.

I'm not fully opposed to the fractional voting, which does serve as a good compromise. However, I can foresee situations where fractional voting might discourage splitting your own vote. And in cases of MTO members comprised of more than one IRL participant, it's unfair.

Provisional membership, which I assume would be similar to the existing, but unused, observer status wouldn't entice me, personally, to bother having another country join the MTO if it couldn't vote.

I do agree in principle that if a country is good and active enough to be on the MCS map and have a vote for those matters, its more than good enough to have a vote in the MTO which doesn't vote as often vote on things of tangible consequence.

We could go another compromise route: one IRL person can only control 2 delegations/votes in the MTO. Considering the low membership, one person having 3 votes is pretty weighted, but one person having 2 votes is not as bad.

Another consideration: Perhaps when it comes to electing and recalling a SecGen and Deputy SecGen we conduct just those votes under the one vote one person rule.

[Craitman]

While I'm not currently the nation's representative here, Tellia is a "secondary" nation of both mine and Joe's (the non-MTO Craitland and Mercury being the "primary" ones, respectively, of course), so if that's any sort of precedent that "secondary" nations should get a full vote, you're welcome to use it as such

[Ric]

It seems we're all quite split on the issue. 3 for fractional voting, 2 for full voting, and 1 for limited membership. I'm leaning towards full voting.

I'm not fully opposed to the fractional voting, which does serve as a good compromise. However, I can foresee situations where fractional voting might discourage splitting your own vote. And in cases of MTO members comprised of more than one IRL participant, it's unfair.

Provisional membership, which I assume would be similar to the existing, but unused, observer status wouldn't entice me, personally, to bother having another country join the MTO if it couldn't vote.

I do agree in principle that if a country is good and active enough to be on the MCS map and have a vote for those matters, its more than good enough to have a vote in the MTO which doesn't vote as often vote on things of tangible consequence.

We could go another compromise route: one IRL person can only control 2 delegations/votes in the MTO. Considering the low membership, one person having 3 votes is pretty weighted, but one person having 2 votes is not as bad.

Another consideration: Perhaps when it comes to electing and recalling a SecGen and Deputy SecGen we conduct just those votes under the one vote one person rule.

If I may offer a compromise:

If an IRL person controls 2 delegations, then in an Assembly vote, the vote must be split or one delegation abstain. In the event of a tie in the final vote, the majority vote from one IRL person will count toward an extra vote in the final tally.

If an IRL person controls 3 delegations, then in an Assembly vote, the vote must be split or two delegations abstain (e.g. 2 countries nay, 1 aye; OR 2 abstains, 1 aye/nay).

In a ranked choice vote, the highest ranked one must be different from another for multiple delegation people.

But for any Treaty revisions, ratifications from all these states count for change.

[Continuator]

I think we should avoid trending towards complexity in pursuit of a compromise that is ultimately illusory and unnecessary. In the present era members with more than one active participant are rare and the greater danger lies in gaming the system by affording an individual controller the full vote of more than one member state/delegation. Next to this the possibility that an individual controller might distort the narrative by having opposing states vote together on an issue of importance to the controller is distinctly lesser when the vote available to that member has been distributed fractionally and still amounts to one actual participant having one actual vote.

[Ric]

My proposal for compromise is a gentleman’s agreement. No changes in rules. I’m still of the mind that if independent according to MCS standards then full votes in the MTO follow.

[Jonas Windsor]

I don't get the problem. Fundamental changes require unanimity of all members anyway...? Making one subordinate to another by playing with votes is a slippery slope and can only create discussion (what would be 'secondary nations' exactly, etc.?).

If this organisation made important decisions, then I could agree that we needed a new system to secure votes, but as it is now... I can't see the benefit of any change.

[Nathan]

I tend to agree... however just to be clear changes to the MTO do require majority votes of varying degrees:

75% of the General Assembly to establish a Mission (like the Aldurian water crisis)
50%+1 of the GA to elect and recall the SecGen
75% of the GA to amend the Treaty
50%+1 of the GA to admit a non-voting observer
50%+1 of the GA to approve a new treaty for the treaty buffet
50%+1 of the GA to confirm certain appointments made by the SecGen

Only the Opinions are unanimous.

Since everything the MTO does is in-sim/in character, I believe there should be no distinction between members. Also, for the "substantial" votes like missions and amending the treaty, 75% is a high bar to pass even if a few people had 2 votes each, decisions to change the structure of the MTO would still require the approval of most real people (which is ideal, the MTO can't function if all of us don't approve of how it works)

[Malliki]

If each nation in the MCS gets to vote on the Jack motion of no confidence, then each MTO member should also get a vote.