NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Delegates:

I have recently suggested a proposal to codify the qualifications for determining voter eligibility in those nations who conduct elections. It is entitled the Voter Qualification Act and the wording of the proposal is included below:

WHEREAS, it is the desire of all democratic governments to ensure that their citizenry is enfranchised and enabled to effect governmental change through civically peaceful, predictable and confident means

AND

that citizens inducted to the voter roles be appropriately qualified to cast a vote prior to election dates so as to minimize voting difficulties for all citizens, the following proposal is presented to define, identify and confer voting rights.

To qualify to vote a citizen must meet all proposed eligibility criteria:

1./ All persons of residence in the applicable country must be legal citizens of that country either via birth or government conferred naturalization.

2./ All citizens must have attained the age of either 21 years OR be of an age to qualify for induction into the applicable country's armed forces, whichever is the lesser.

3./ Present taxation return documentation proving that the citizen has paid their taxes and that they are an overall contributing member of society for both of the past 2 years prior to the election date. Citizens who are a net tax drain may not be allowed to vote as it is for the common good that the governance of the country be determined by those who are a net supporter of the society to be governed.

4./ Not having been convicted of or finshed serving the sentence for a felony conviction for at least the past 36 months. For convicted felons who have served their sentence and the last date of sentence served has exceeded 36 months past, their voting rights will be automatically restored providing they meet the above 3 criteria.

A vote in favor of this proposal means being in favor of qualifying voters for induction to the eligible voter list with the above listed criteria.

If this proposal meets your views with a like mind, I would appreicate your support of this submission. Thank you for your attention.

Too one-size-fits-all for us.
voter eligibility in those nations who conduct electionsAll UN member governments will be affected by this. NS UN resolutions are not optional.
either 21 years OR be of an age to qualify for inductionWe don't induct anyone into our armed forces - they are corporate employees like everyone else. Our citizens vote when they become productive citizen-employees, which can happen as early as age 11.
persons of residence in the applicable countryIf they work at one of our corporations (including overseas offices) they get to vote. We don't have to naturalize them to hire them, and voting rights disappear at the end of the contract, just like all other perks.

The tax bit and the felony bit are good ideas, but too rigid.


No thanks, we'll stick with our own system, and suggest that you manage your own nation however you wish. This one's clearly an issue better decided by each nation.

Of course, you should vote your conscience.

I agree with Frisbeeteria, it is too rigid to apply to all nations, espcially for those who have civil rights as a high priority.

For example, if not contributing to the nation's financial economy makes a person illedgible to vote, so does this apply to differently-abled people and retirees?

This is something a nation should decide on individually.

The Council and People's Assembly of Enn are agreed on this matter, and have declared their opposition to this proposal. We do not believe in meritocracy as a political system, preferring our hybrid form of oligarchy and democracy.

Our felons can vote once they are out of prison.

We are also not letting 18 year olds vote.

NAY.

4./ Not having been convicted of or finshed serving the sentence for a felony conviction for at least the past 36 months. For convicted felons who have served their sentence and the last date of sentence served has exceeded 36 months past, their voting rights will be automatically restored providing they meet the above 3 criteria.

We don't like this Article. We know convicted felons effectively removed themselves from society but we don't think that just because someone is in jail that they cannot have a say in how their country is run. What if they were framed? Or wanted to change the law that wrongly convicted them in the first place? We believe that is a voice that needs to be heard.

Dear Delegates:

I have recently suggested a proposal to codify the qualifications for determining voter eligibility in those nations who conduct elections. It is entitled the Voter Qualification Act and the wording of the proposal is included below:

Ok, let's do it.


WHEREAS, it is the desire of all democratic governments to ensure that their citizenry is enfranchised and enabled to effect governmental change through civically peaceful, predictable and confident means

Sounds good, so far.


AND

that citizens inducted to the voter roles be appropriately qualified to cast a vote prior to election dates so as to minimize voting difficulties for all citizens, the following proposal is presented to define, identify and confer voting rights.

Not really sure where this is going now.


To qualify to vote a citizen must meet all proposed eligibility criteria:


One wonders why the UN needs to set qualifiers to limit voting in individual states; shouldn't the populations of those states; who know their own interests best; determine the qualifiers?


1./ All persons of residence in the applicable country must be legal citizens of that country either via birth or government conferred naturalization.

Why this limitation? Suppose an individual society wants aliens in their midst to vote? Would this not then be disenfranchising their own voting principles?


2./ All citizens must have attained the age of either 21 years OR be of an age to qualify for induction into the applicable country's armed forces, whichever is the lesser.

Too limiting to be an inclusive qualifier. Suppose a nationstate has no armed forces? And what gives the UN the right to limit rights based on age against the will of locality? This sounds more like it is limiting democratic freedoms, than furthering democracy.


3./ Present taxation return documentation proving that the citizen has paid their taxes and that they are an overall contributing member of society for both of the past 2 years prior to the election date. Citizens who are a net tax drain may not be allowed to vote as it is for the common good that the governance of the country be determined by those who are a net supporter of the society to be governed.

What about states with no taxes? (Such do exist you know).... This sounds like more meaningless limitations upon the rights of people.


4./ Not having been convicted of or finshed serving the sentence for a felony conviction for at least the past 36 months. For convicted felons who have served their sentence and the last date of sentence served has exceeded 36 months past, their voting rights will be automatically restored providing they meet the above 3 criteria.

Would not this determination also be best left to the populace of the locality?


A vote in favor of this proposal means being in favor of qualifying voters for induction to the eligible voter list with the above listed criteria.

But why? In what way does this help to force voting qualification onto people who may choose their own qualifications? It sounds like a whole slew of meaningless qualifications to disenfranchise state voters for the benefit of a few.


If this proposal meets your views with a like mind, I would appreicate your support of this submission. Thank you for your attention.

I will not be able to support this.

2./ All citizens must have attained the age of either 21 years OR be of an age to qualify for induction into the applicable country's armed forces, whichever is the lesser.


What if you don't have a military, but have an age of majority of 14? Do people not get to vote for 7 years?


3./ Present taxation return documentation proving that the citizen has paid their taxes and that they are an overall contributing member of society for both of the past 2 years prior to the election date. Citizens who are a net tax drain may not be allowed to vote as it is for the common good that the governance of the country be determined by those who are a net supporter of the society to be governed.


This strikes me as a touch unfair. Surely those who have been let down by the government - the long term unemployed for example - deserve a voice more than anyone else. And what about those who are ill and can't work?

And children won't have these records until two years after they reach the age to pay tax (14 in my case). So do they not get to vote in that time period?


4./ Not having been convicted of or finshed serving the sentence for a felony conviction for at least the past 36 months. For convicted felons who have served their sentence and the last date of sentence served has exceeded 36 months past, their voting rights will be automatically restored providing they meet the above 3 criteria.


Why should criminals not get a vote? They are not going to be in jail forever, and when they are done serving their sentenace they should get a say in the way the nation is run. The only justification I can see for this is if someone is not going to be out by the time the next election is held, and even then they might vote to support someone who is going to reform the prison system - a topic on which they really should get a say :}

Everyone who is over the age of majority gets to vote in TilEnca. We have records so that people don't vote more than once, but we don't deny people the right to vote because they have done something wrong in their past, or have been let down by the government in some way. That would just be cruel and unusual, not to mention somewhat undemocractic.

I disagree with almost all the limitations and I had my own points, but I think the others have covered it adequately so there's no real point in me tossing out more. Your preamble states that you want to "minimise voting difficulties", but how this is accomplished by limiting democratic and civil rights is beyond me.