NationStates Jolt Archive


The More-Direct Democracy Act

Werogzija
30-08-2005, 17:15
I've submitted the following proposal. I'd love to hear comments and suggestions.

•===•===•===•===•===•===•===•===•===•===•

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Resolution name:
The More-Direct Democracy Act

•===•===•===•

A resolution to empower the peoples of the nations of the world to be able to vote directly in their elections and to be able to hold referenda when they feel it is necessary.


This act will impose the following standards:


- I) That all UN-member nations will allow all their legal citizens over the age of 18, with the exception of criminals and the mentally-ill/-disabled, to participate in FREE, OPEN, UN-RIGGED, and DIRECT elections to elect the members of the EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIARY, and ALL OTHER major branches of their government.

-- A) That the governments of all UN-member nations will ensure that their voting process is as SIMPLE and efficient as possible.
-- B) That the governments of all UN-member nations will encourage all those who are allowed to vote to do so.
-- C) That ALL LEGAL VOTES ARE COUNTED EQUALLY; that ONLY THE POPULAR VOTE will decide the to-be members of the Executive, Legislative, Judiciary, and all other major branches of their government; and that ALL VOTES BE COUNTED NATIONALLY.
-- D) That, if the people are not pleased with the Executive and Judiciary candidates, they will be able to cast an “AZZAR” vote, which is a vote a political-party but not a vote for the candidate affiliated with that political-party. If the majority of the populace votes “AZZAR”, another election will proceed, in which there will be NEW CANDIDATES FOR THE THREE POLITICAL PARTIES WHICH RECEIVED THE MOST “AZZAR” VOTES. If the second election results in the majority of the populace again voting “azzar”, then there will be a third election in which there will be new candidates for the three political parties which received the most “azzar” votes in the just-previous election. If the same happens in the third election, this may be repeated again for a fourth and FINAL election were voting “azzar” will not be an option on the voting ballots.



- II) That the populace may hold a referendum to CREATE, AMEND, or REPEAL any LAW, BILL, ACT, or OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTION, when a petition with the agreement of at least 6.25% of the populace is presented to the government.

-- A) That the EXCEPTION TO THIS SECTION OF THIS ACT is when the government holds certain CLASSIFIED INFORMATION which the public does not, and arguably, should not, know; information which reveals that to create, amend, or repeal the law, bill, act, or other government action in question could/would be A THREAT TO THE NATION’S SECURITY, or it could/would bring about OTHER NEGATIVE, HARMFUL, DANGEROUS AND/OR DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES.

--- 1) That when the government feels this is the case, it will bring ALL members of the LEGISLATIVE Branch to SECRETLY vote if it is the OBLIGATION of the government to INFORM the public of the threat or consequences, or if it is best to WITHHOLD THE INFORMATION and make a PUBLIC DECLARATION that the REFERENDUM WILL BE CANCELED due to this classified information that the government holds.



- III) That governments will NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, abuse the power of Section II-A of this Act in a manner that is not in the interest of their people, but in the interest of their own agenda.

•===•===•===•===•===•===•===•===•===•===•
Turquoise Days
30-08-2005, 21:02
Right lets have a look...

With reference to: (trying to avoid a DLE style quote-a-thon here)
Article 1) Preamble: You want us to elect customs officials? I see what you are trying to do, but electing members of all major branches of the government seems to be going against the effiency bit of section A

Article 1) A: no prolems
Article 1) B: Ditto
Article 1) C: All votes are counted nationally? Eh? hows that work. Are we talking about no local representatives at all. More explanation required.
Article 1) D: Seems to go against Article 1)A ;) . Plus, it seems like going into too much detail for a resolution - what you are trying to do is impose one system of govt on the entire UN. This won't get the National Sovreingity types on board.

Article II): Why 6.25%? For a nation of a population of 3 billion+ this would be
*calculates frantically*
round about 187,500,000 people. One hell of a petition, I think you'll agree.

Article II) A: This should really be treated as a separate resolution.

Article III): Kinda superfluous. UN members must comply with UN resolutions (unless they think of a loophole).

Finally, I would like to commend you on a very well written resolution, and it is clearly one you have put a lot of effort into. If I have to summarise, I would say that the biggest problem is that you are trying to do too much in one resolution. If you focused on one aspect, Article II A for example, it would be a lot easier to write a workable resolution.