NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a pending proposal to grant the capital cities of democracies around the world equal voting rights in their national legislature. The author of the legislation, believes it is important to take a stand on the important issue of equal voting rights for all, regardless of the citizen's location of residency. Democracies thrive when voting rights are extended to all.

Do you support the pending proposal that all democracies should grant the residents of their capital cities equal voting rights in their national legislature, based on their human rights commitments to the United Nations? Yes or no?

Here's the language of the proposal:

Voting Rights for All Capitals

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Description: WHEREAS the citizens living in the capital city of every democracy in the world should have full voting rights in their national legislature;

WHEREAS the residents of most world capitals pay federal income taxes, fight and die for their nation in times of war and serve on federal juries;

WHEREAS those living in capitals without representation in their national legislature are denied a vote on any national issue, from health care to education to jobs to homeland security and the list goes on;

WHEREAS the denial of voting rights in the national legislature for nations around the world has the potential to destabilize foreign policy and efforts to promote human rights abroad, thus destabilizing the political climate of the whole world;

WHEREAS it is a global responsibility and is in the world's interest to ensure that democracy is carried out equally and fairly in the countries in which it exists;

Be it RESOLVED;

1) That all democratic nations grant equal voting rights in their national legislatures to the residents of their capital cities, in accordance to its human rights commitments as a member of the United Nations.

This is a matter best left for individual nations to decide. We don't really see that it's something the UN should involve itself in.

I'm afraid I just don't get this proposal. Why wouldn't the residents of the capital city have equal voting rights? In most places I'd be more concerned about the voting rights of those outside the cities.

I'm afraid I just don't get this proposal. Why wouldn't the residents of the capital city have equal voting rights? In most places I'd be more concerned about the voting rights of those outside the cities.
In the RL United States, Washington D.C. has no representation in Congress. I wonder if the author is a D.C. resident?

yeah - but they get 3 electoral votes :rolleyes:

The emphasis of this legislation is that the people living in the capital city of a democracy should not be denied voting rights in their national legislature simply because of where they reside.

They should be extended the same rights granted to the rest of the population in the nation. The resolution is intended to prevent democracies from creating a bastion where the government can treat the people like second-class citizens. It's un-democratic and a stand needs to be taken.

are there nations that also give certain groups more voting power? You should address that in your proposal.

I've never heard of this before. Does NS have any democratic nations where the people in the capitals don't have voting rights?

I'm not sure this is an international issue. Surely if the population of a nations capital city didn't have and wanted the right to vote, they'd either move or demand it. Makes more sense to me than the UN imposing it on all nations, most of whom don't need it.

If you have a triple E upper or lower house, (generally the other one will be population representative), and your capital is in a district of its own, you may end up setting it up with the capital not having a seat in that house. It might also be (if your capital is too small) that you don't have a representative in the other house as well - which is illogical, but I'm not telling nations how to fashion their government. However, I'm not going to start specifying how nations need to set up their government. As far as I'm concerned, we have just as much (if not greater) concern from nations that specifically pick areas outside the capital that have no representation ('cause there is a bit of logic on how you get to the capital not having representation)

OOC: DC residents can't vote? I thought that was a joke...

IC: I don't see any compelling reason for the UN to address this issue.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: DC residents can't vote? I thought that was a joke...
OOC: They can vote, they just don't get to elect a congressman or senators. D.C. is not represented in Congress.

IC: I don't see any compelling reason for the UN to address this issue.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN
IC: Nor do I.

In the RL United States, Washington D.C. has no representation in Congress.

i didnt know

but maybe this proposition should also be about RL territories as Puerto Rico, as:
"Puerto Rico does not have voting representation in the U.S. Congress; neither does it have any delegates to the U.S. Electoral College"
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico

so if this proposition is modified to include every territories as Puerto Rico in RL, we will support it

As long as the UN doesn't even require that members be democracies with elected legislatures (merely that citizens have some voice, which can be satisfied by an autocrat looking at opinion polls before making decrees), it seems odd and inappropriate to make requirements as specific as these. If we are consistently to demand equality of power within democratic systems, that means overhauling all kinds of things which are just as unfair as the exclusion of capitals. To use more examples from the US, the senate, where states have equal power, would have to be completely changed, because individual voters in large states have much less power than voters in small states. The same goes for the electoral college, where power is not proportional to population (again, voters in small states have disproportionately large amounts of power in electing the President).

In fact, first past the post systems would need to abolished altogether, because they allow groups that don't form a majority in any one consituency but still constitute a sizeable minority nationwide to receive absolutely no representation. This silencing of minorities is just as unfair as silencing a capital.

So really, if we were to be consistent about fairness in democratic systems, we'd have to go much further than this. But it would still be inappropriate, because it's silly to fuss at the democracies while leaving totalitarian systems as they are.

Plus, demanding representation for capital cities doesn't fit with electoral systems where NO geographical entities are represented (e.g. legislatures elected by list PR). At least change mentions of representation to say something like equivalent voting rights, and scrap mentions of federal anything - not all nations are federations.

The reason territories, for example, like Puerto Rico, are not involved in the proposal is because they do not pay federal taxes. Capital cities, as an actual part of the federal nation, do.

I hope that makes sense.

The citizens of the capital who are denied voting rights in the national legislature are also denied the power to change their situation, i.e. vote=power.

The real reason the UN should get involved is its implications on foreign policy. Democracies, oftentimes, attempt to improve human rights throughout the world. Countries that have poor human rights records have the potential to use the denial of voting rights in a nation's capital to their advantage as a bargaining chip. For example, again in the real world, a congressional delegation was sent to Hong Kong to preach democratic principles. U.S. Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), one of the primary negotiators, was talking to the Vice Mayor of Hong Kong. The Vice Mayor told him, "Until you provide democracy to the people of your nation's capital, don't talk to me about democracy in Hong Kong." His inability to persuade Hong Kong leaders has lead to a destablization in the region, affecting all countries.

This is why the issue has been presented to the world community, as a way to prevent human voting rights from being denied, to bring stability or prevent instability to foreign affairs around the world.

The reason territories, for example, like Puerto Rico, are not involved in the proposal is because they do not pay federal taxes. Capital cities, as an actual part of the federal nation, do.


ok, your right, i didn't know, but this was an exemple

"At least change mentions of representation to say something like equivalent voting rights, and scrap mentions of federal anything - not all nations are federations.)."

The "equal" in the line "equal voting rights" is intended, in my mind, to mean proportionally equal voting rights. For example, if based on population, the capital should receive voting rights equal to those jurisdictions that have similar popluations. The same goes for those systems based on land size. if based on PR, then they should have equal access to the elections of those who would represent them.

People living in democracies should not pay federal taxes and not receive representation in their national legislature. This proposal aims to prevent that from ever occurring.

The reason territories, for example, like Puerto Rico, are not involved in the proposal is because they do not pay federal taxes. Capital cities, as an actual part of the federal nation, do.

I hope that makes sense.

The citizens of the capital who are denied voting rights in the national legislature are also denied the power to change their situation, i.e. vote=power.

The real reason the UN should get involved is its implications on foreign policy. Democracies, oftentimes, attempt to improve human rights throughout the world. Countries that have poor human rights records have the potential to use the denial of voting rights in a nation's capital to their advantage as a bargaining chip. For example, again in the real world, a congressional delegation was sent to Hong Kong to preach democratic principles. U.S. Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), one of the primary negotiators, was talking to the Vice Mayor of Hong Kong. The Vice Mayor told him, "Until you provide democracy to the people of your nation's capital, don't talk to me about democracy in Hong Kong." His inability to persuade Hong Kong leaders has lead to a destablization in the region, affecting all countries.

This is why the issue has been presented to the world community, as a way to prevent human voting rights from being denied, to bring stability or prevent instability to foreign affairs around the world.

They don't possess direct power to change their situation - just as those stuck in dictatorships don't possess direct power. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat. While in dictatorships, popular revolutions, nation wide strikes and coups are pretty much the methods of choice, Washington would be better off by MAKING it an issue throughout the country - by showing the average person this disadvantage exists and complaining about the state of democracy. Honestly, considering your position, I don't care whether or not you should have a senate seat, but considering your population, and considering the lower house is a proportional representation system, I would say Washington needs at LEAST one representative.

Regardless, awareness might increase both national and international pressures, it is not the business of the UN (and I note, the RL UN has not issued a condemnation of the US about this issue) how a nation's government is set up. That is for the nation to determine. As Myopia said, Dictatorships aren't touched (nor will they be touched), yet we're telling democracies how to run their government? I'm sorry, I've got more important things to worry about - like how to improve my own government.

Given that this is of a similar situation as the United States:

-and-

Given that the Consitutional Reputlic of Tekania is modled closely after the Republican form found in the United States

I will answer this question:

Systems like the United States and the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, have situated their capital in a region that is outside of any particular state.

The systems are setup as a Federal Republic of STATES....

The Yorktown Federal District (much like the RL US District of Columbia) is not a state. Therefore is NOT represented in the FEDERAL republic of STATES.

The locatily, being constructed of land granted from another state or states (RL Virginia and Maryland); cannot, under the system, be made a state. And cannot be given representation and status as a state... The Yorktown District (Tekania) and the RL District of Columbia are effectively "territories" wherein the Capitol resides...

In the end, I oppose this Resolution...

I will not support this resolution.

Firstly, it was my understanding that not every nation in the UN was a democracy to begin with, much less a democracy with its capital city outside of a federally recognized province/state/republic/et al. This proposal will have no effect on the vast majority of UN member nations.

Secondly, in the case that there is a UN member nation that is modeled after the American system of government closely enough that those conditions do apply, Tekania's logic holds true. In such a case, the capital city is a district, not a state, and therefore is not represented in a republic of states.

--Nikolai Korjev
--Minister of Foreign Affairs

The "equal" in the line "equal voting rights" is intended, in my mind, to mean proportionally equal voting rights. For example, if based on population, the capital should receive voting rights equal to those jurisdictions that have similar popluations. The same goes for those systems based on land size. if based on PR, then they should have equal access to the elections of those who would represent them.

Yes - which is why I said "equal voting rights" was an acceptable phrase, whilst "representation for capital cities" is not - because the former can work equally for constituency-based and other systems, whilst the latter phrase doesn't.

People living in democracies should not pay federal taxes and not receive representation in their national legislature. This proposal aims to prevent that from ever occurring.

First, PLEASE begin to recognise that talking about things like federal taxes is MEANINGLESS for a very large number of nations - because not all nations are federations like the USA.

Second, demanding that democracies follow more closely the principle of no taxation without representation is absurd when thousands of totalitarian states pay it no notice whatsoever. If democracies are so desperate to preach to totalitarian states, then they are free to clean up their own hypocrisies on their own. If they judge it not worth the cost, then the UN can hardly demand it if it isn't going to demand any change of non-democracies.

As far as _Myopia_ is concerned, it is less important how governments are selected than that they properly protect the people's freedoms. If they fulfil what we see as the duties of a government, we are not particularly bothered who voted for them.

If you want to start regulating voting rights then you need to start by mandating that all member nations have voting rights! This is an unfair piece of legislation that discriminates against democracies.

If you want to start regulating voting rights then you need to start by mandating that all member nations have voting rights.

Which is illegal under the game rules, because the UN is not allowed to dictate to nations their form of government. So really, it'd be best if we didn't start regulating voting rights at all.

What about cities that aren't the capital? Are they undeserving of having voting rights guaranteed by the UN?

In our nation, the citizens of the Kenny Memorial District haven't the right even to elect their local government, because our constitution (OOC: just like the U.S. Constitution) gives the Congress the right to govern the district. They are to do as they're told.

Sadly, they do not. Our capital, Paradise City, is overrun with thugs and criminals and strangely powerful street gangs -- many of which have their own corporate sponsors (as the corporations govern practically everything, so why not curry favor with those who hold the actual power in the city?). Ever seen any version of "Grand Theft Auto"? It is far worse than that. Dueling gangs have transformed our city streets into warzones. Martial law is in effect sometimes for weeks at a time. Members of Congress must travel to work in armored vehicles; the president is advised to take up residence in a nonconspicuous apartment. The rest of the nation is mostly quiet, civil and orderly, and we do not understand how all the nation's corruption and greed have descended on one town.

And you would have us extend to these animals "one man, one vote" -- when in fact they would be sure to slaughter as many men as possible to guarantee their success at the ballot box? By God, sir, you are a madman.

"By God, sir, you are a madman."

You're annoying and missing the point. No matter how poorly some people act, it is never bad enough to disenfranchise everyone. If anything, voting rights would probably bring more stability to your capital, allowing people to obtain power through the vote as opposed to power through street gangs.

"the RL UN has not issued a condemnation of the US about this issue"

That's true, but the Organization of American States found the US to be in violation of international law for failing to meet its human rights commitments br providing everyone in the country equal voting rights in its national legislature.

(http://www.dcvote.org/media/release.cfm?releaseID=109&keywords=OAS )

In addition, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in July of 2005 passed a resolution demanding that the US grant equal voting rights to the residents of DC.

(http://www.dcvote.org/events/event.cfm?eventID=142 )

It's only a matter of time before the UN follows the same course. Why won't we do the same?

OOC:
It's only a matter of time before the UN follows the same course. Why won't we do the same?
Only a matter of time? It certainly won't happen through the Security Council. And it is highly unlikely to happen through the General Assembly.

IC: The Triumvirate of Enn is unlikely to support any such proposal. We regard it as being a matter for individual nations to decide. As such, we play our card.
http://img112.echo.cx/img112/1306/natsovcard7yg.jpg

I must agree that this is really not something for the UN to worry about. As I said in my last post, if people are living in a democracy, don't have the vote for any reason and the majority decide they want it, then they can demand it themselves. Living in a democratic nation I would think their government will listen to their complaints and go with what the majority want.

You're annoying and missing the point. No matter how poorly some people act, it is never bad enough to disenfranchise everyone. If anything, voting rights would probably bring more stability to your capital, allowing people to obtain power through the vote as opposed to power through street gangs.Oh, I see. Our society would pacify itself, if only your values were imposed upon it. They tried that in Iraq; how's that working out?

Oh, I see. Our society would pacify itself, if only your values were imposed upon it. They tried that in Iraq; how's that working out?

It's working out better than it is in the US - they're shooting soldiers and policemen instead of blacks on the streets :p.

"the RL UN has not issued a condemnation of the US about this issue"

That's true, but the Organization of American States found the US to be in violation of international law for failing to meet its human rights commitments br providing everyone in the country equal voting rights in its national legislature.

(http://www.dcvote.org/media/release.cfm?releaseID=109&keywords=OAS )

In addition, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in July of 2005 passed a resolution demanding that the US grant equal voting rights to the residents of DC.

(http://www.dcvote.org/events/event.cfm?eventID=142 )

It's only a matter of time before the UN follows the same course. Why won't we do the same?

Because, the argument of those bodies, as well as your own, demonstrate an inability to deal with how things actually operate. D.C. residents vote for the president, and they vote for their local offices..... They are not a state, and therefore have no representation in congress... And as long as they are not a state, they will not have representation in congress.... They have no right to it, because they have no right as a state... Nor can they be given one; since they would have to be technicaly returned back to Virginia and Maryland. (and then enjoy representation there). If they want voting rights, they can move 10 miles, and have them (in Maryland or Virginia)... It's not my fault a load of nut-jobs, pandering to the retarded panel members of international oranizations, are too fucking stupid to figure out they have choosen to live in a district, when there is easy availability to vote by changing residence to elsewhere. Either that, or we can find a new Capitol, move everything, hand them back to Virginia and MAryland, and watch them economically collapse, and starve to death, like they deserve.

IIn all.... This is a national-soveregnty issue... It is my decision on how I rule on this issue.... Your resolution violated the R&D resolution, and therefore your proposal is ILLEGAL!

OOC: this UN doesn't guarantee anyone a vote, so why on Earth choose the residents of a capital city as a starting point. So the US has a bloody stupid interpretation of democracy? Tell me something I didn't already know.

Please, enough of the Amerocentrism; what if I were to draft a proposal based on the Lothian Question? This is such a marginal issue.

This is a somewhat obscure issue, presumably based on the grossly unfair denial of proper representation, to the citizens of the District of Columbia, I believe that symbolically it is a sensible step. It could possibly engender greater national pride and respect for ones national capital.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live capital-vote permitting Compadria!

P.S. With regards to Ecopoeia's comments on the West Lothians Issue, could I just say that I would enjoy such a debate on such a proposal a great deal!

Because, the argument of those bodies, as well as your own, demonstrate an inability to deal with how things actually operate. D.C. residents vote for the president, and they vote for their local offices..... They are not a state, and therefore have no representation in congress... And as long as they are not a state, they will not have representation in congress.... They have no right to it, because they have no right as a state... Nor can they be given one; since they would have to be technicaly returned back to Virginia and Maryland. (and then enjoy representation there). If they want voting rights, they can move 10 miles, and have them (in Maryland or Virginia)... It's not my fault a load of nut-jobs, pandering to the retarded panel members of international oranizations, are too fucking stupid to figure out they have choosen to live in a district, when there is easy availability to vote by changing residence to elsewhere. Either that, or we can find a new Capitol, move everything, hand them back to Virginia and MAryland, and watch them economically collapse, and starve to death, like they deserve.

IIn all.... This is a national-soveregnty issue... It is my decision on how I rule on this issue.... Your resolution violated the R&D resolution, and therefore your proposal is ILLEGAL!Excellent; we absolutely concur with Tekania.

No more "Amerocentrism," please, and while we're at it, let's 86 the European snobbery, too.

No more "Amerocentrism," please, and while we're at it, let's 86 the European snobbery, too.
'86'? I've only ever heard Tom Waits use that term (in 'Eggs & Sausage') and I never worked it out. And I agree - Europe isn't short of its own absurd political systems.

'86'? I've only ever heard Tom Waits use that term (in 'Eggs & Sausage') and I never worked it out.Hmm. It's a popular expression in America. Oh, well.used as a verb, to "eighty-six (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/86+(number))" means to "ignore" or "get rid of". This may originally be Cockney rhyming slang (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Cockney+rhyming+slang) for the word "nix".

Hmm. It's a popular expression in America. Oh, well.
Ah. Cheers. The song makes a little more sense now... though, being a Tom Waits number, it still has a long way to go.