Insignificant Countries Representation on the MUN

Poll

Do you think we should not have so many insignifican countries represented at the MUN

-Here is a list of all the MUN representation seats-
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16R4YJQw9oUYHz6WNY-HL_tEDhEaSJmGaZfNIATv7e2Y/edit?pli=1
[It's a good idea to bookmark this page to keep up with reps]

Have a quick scroll through and you will notice that there are a lot vacant states/countries, so what I am asking is should we take the option to rep these countries away as there are simply too many to be represented at the moment.

I am simply suggesting that we take a few of the less significant countries/states/principalities off the MUN and only have them as a specific request by members who wish to represent them, such as...

•

Cape Verde (group of islands off West Africa)

•

Andorra (small principality boarding Spain and France)

•

Soloman Islands (east Papa New Guinea)

•

Marshall Islands (in the middle of the Pacific Ocean)

And other such states which are very rarely represented at the MUN.

What do you think/opinions?

Please VOTE so I can get an idea on what the MUN's view is on this!

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 1

Republic1

Nope. The point of the UN is that all nations are equal, and should have an equal say.

Reply 2

Will95206

Although with not enough members on the MUN let alone active members this might be worth considering. Open up the spread sheet and you mostly see vacant seats unfortunately.

Original post by Republic1

Nope. The point of the UN is that all nations are equal, and should have an equal say.

That may be true but how do you explain having a SC with P and non- P members. Surly some countries are more equal than others (those on the SC) and of those more equal ones there are those who are even more equal (those member's of the permanent SC with the use of a veto)- just a question of which to ponder on...

Reply 3

alexgr97

I agree to an extent but then where is the line drawn between what is considered to be significant and what is not?

Reply 4

Republic1

Original post by Will95206

Although with not enough members on the MUN let alone active members this might be worth considering. Open up the spread sheet and you mostly see vacant seats unfortunately.

That may be true but how do you explain having a SC with P and non- P members. Surly some countries are more equal than others (those on the SC) and of those more equal ones there are those who are even more equal (those member's of the permanent SC with the use of a veto)- just a question of which to ponder on...

I don't agree with having an SC - I'd like to see it abolished

Reply 5

Henry_Tudor

Original post by alexgr97

I agree to an extent but then where is the line drawn between what is considered to be significant and what is not?

I agree I am not sure where the line would be drawn? Perhaps all small islands and principalities?

We need to get an Ad on the main page-Cod Ghost has a banner today (and that in the gaming forum) i don't see why the MUN should not get a weeks worth of advertisement!

Reply 6

Johnstun

The MHoC values constructive contributions from all nations regardless of size, and as such opposes this change.

Reply 7

Superunknown17

No. What does this even achieve? I've seen lots of members take up small nations and thoroughly excel in them, I don't see why one would need to request them when it's simpler just to leave them as they are.

Reply 8

MrSuavetopia

I think leaving these countries open would be the best thing. Least then every one is represented (Or has the potential to be) by a passing new MUNer :smile:

Reply 9

Moist Penguin

While I beleive that all nations should be included and remain on the list maybe we could encourage people to take on the roles of nations that feature more prominently in MUN discussions and resolutions. For example both pakistan and palestine have no representatives and both countries are part of some of the major tensions in the UN today India-Pakistan and Israel-Palestine. So maybe people should be encouraged to take up these kind of countries rather than as said less significant countries but the problem is where do you draw the line.

Reply 10

Henry_Tudor

Original post by Moist Penguin

Yes these countries need to be filled

Posted from TSR Mobile[/SIZ

Reply 11

Birchington

The MUN is designed to replicate the real life UN, so it would be a shame to ditch smaller countries due to them being 'insignificant'.

The dual-rep system is a great way to represent both big and small states, and I'd urge current reps to get involved as it improved my MUN experience.