NationStates Jolt Archive

The Republic of the People of Neudegg requests the feedback, primarily on the issue of the legality and potential for deletion, of the proposed International Democratic Observation Act below:

The International Democratic Observation Act

BELIEVING that those nations that have a democracy should be checked to ensure process are carried out effectively and fairly

ENSURING that when national General Elections, or equivalents, are carried out, International Observers of that election are allowed

DEFINES representatives from democratic UN member’s Governments and/or Civil Services, or equivalents as International Observers

MANDATES the following:

1) This Act only applies to UN Members considered to be a democracy by the United Nations

2) When General Elections, or equivalents, are carried out, the said International Observers are allowed visas to access the said country holding elections when they are from democratic UN member nations in the same region

3) When General Elections, or equivalents, are carried out, the said International Observes are encouraged to be allowed visas to access the said country holding elections when they are from democratic UN member nations outside of the region

4) International Observers when in the country holding elections are given the right to view the democratic process without infringing on the confidentiality of any ballot

4) International Observers are given the right to publish their opinions on the way the elections were carried out in the country in question.

This is not a bad idea and similar things have been suggested in the past, but there seems something of a disjunct in your proposal. The UN can't force states to be democratic, yet it can force democratic states to have fair elections? Hmm. It might be better to make this a little weaker and simply allow states to call in observers: this would be especially useful to young democracies that have just come out of a period of non-democratic rule and want to win some degree of international confidence.

Also, it seems like you should make it clear just what effective and fair voting actually is. The secrecy of the ballot, prevention of intimidation of voters, prevention of gerrymandering...these all seem obvious, but what else?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

The proposal does not actually force those democratic nations to carry out fair elections, it merely provides that observers are allowed to publish what they find. There is nothing saying it has to acted on

The proposal does not actually force those democratic nations to carry out fair elections, it merely provides that observers are allowed to publish what they find. There is nothing saying it has to acted on
Ok, put it another way. The UN allows non-democracies to have totally closed borders, yet forces democratic states - which, arguably, deserve more of a pat on the back for being democratic - to admit observers, which includes people from any branch of the civil service or government of other democratic nations. What I'm suggesting is this proposal is low on carrot factor: at the moment, it simply reads as penalising states for having elections.

-- Samantha Benson

What do you suggest the carrot could be?

Good question, and I'm not sure; I'll try to think up something. In the meantime, what about the other half of the objection: that this proposal establishes no criteria on which the effectiveness and fairness of the elections will be judged?

-- Samantha Benson

Perhaps I should add before the articles:

DEFINES fair elections as those that have a secrecy of the ballot, no of intimidation of voters and are shown to be a reasonably accurate reflection of the views of the electorate

I think that "shown to be a reasonably accurate reflection of the views of the electorate" is too broad.

For example, you can get different results depending on which system of voting you use, yet first past the post, preferential and proportional voting are all methods used in democracies. Which one shows a reasonably accurate reflection?

Or there's the question of voting itself. Some states insist on compulsory voting, because it means everyone has to vote, so there's no point in intimidating voters to stay away from the polls. Others argue for optional voting, because that way only the people who take the trouble to vote have a say in the government, so people get the government they deserve. Which one shows a reasonably accurate reflection?

Then, too: as it stands, this proposal would have the UN providing a service for democracies only. It's not helping meritocracies choose the best qualified; it's not helping communards develop communes; it's strictly democratic voting.

So, okay, giving extra help to a particular ideology you support isn't the same as banning ideologies to which you're opposed, which the UN can't do; but it just feels dodgy.

I'm trying to think of a way the UN could help all citizens of all UN nations achieve their preferred form of government, but I can't.

(BTW, what do you think of adding "universal adult suffrage" to your list of things that make elections fair?)

How about I change the fair elections thing to

CONSIDERS elections of fair elections to include those that have a secrecy of the ballot, no of intimidation of voters and have universal adult suffrage

?

Now we're mandating universal suffrage, are we? Then you would have no problem if, say, in the Palentine, the dead have risen and they're voting Republican? You forgot about voter fraud, ballot stuffing, Diebold, Karl Rove, Richard Daley, Jimmy Hoffa, and the starting line-up of the 1976 Philadelphia Flyers. It's just so relieving to know that as long as we're not "intimidating" people, we can have all the fraudulent elections we want!

...and the starting line-up of the 1976 Philidelphia Flyers.

OOC: One of the few times I've ever actually laughed at The Simpsons. :D

You have to remember that this proposal does not actually force those democratic nations to carry out fair elections (whatever you consider those to be), it merely provides that observers are allowed to publish what they find. There is nothing saying it has to acted on.

Oh, good! And when they do publish all the grim details of massive voter fraud from OMGTKK's next election, they'll have to count the vote as completely "fair"! Sure, they did exhume the remains of corrupt labor boss Reddy "Kneecaps" Cleveland weeks later and found 8,564 uncounted ballots for Senator Thorne, but no one felt "intimidated"!

Sure, they did exhume the remains of corrupt labor boss Reddy "Kneecaps" Cleveland weeks later ...!

So he was part of the foundations of the Paradise City overpass, then?

Yeah ... as you can see, Neudegg, this has wider implications than you'd think at first glance. I think it would be easier for people to just RP inviting UN observers.

(But, for your people's sake, don't invite the Kennyites. Keep your electoral innocence a bit longer.)

Do you have to specify what fair elections are? You could keep the idea of UN-sponsored electoral observers -- the UN requests that interested nations provide qualified observers for nations that wish to validate their elections? -- and then tell them what sort of things to look out for (voter fraud, bribery, intimidation ... the OMGTKK delegation should really be able to help you there). So you wouldn't be defining what fair elections are, but what fair elections aren't.

All the same, that doesn't have much oomph. It'd be all so voluntary I can't see why you'd need a UN resolution on it. There are plenty of nations (see above) that couldn't care less whether the international community thinks their electoral processes are fair.

I think you've got a good idea in there somewhere, but I can't seem to pin it down. I'm living in hope that the Qoddite delegation comes up with a carrot.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

How about making those nations that are shown to hold fair elections to be becons for other nations to help to improve their democracy?

Also, what about electronic elections? Would observers who were invited into a nation be required to observe simply the voting process itself or would they also look over the programming and testing process of the e-vote machines/websites themselves to ensure that no potentially election-fixing bugs were overlooked and that the code itself was not tampered with?

In the occasional instance of a recount, would the observers be mandated to stay and observe those as well or would their observation require a second invitation by the nation in question?

How large must an election be to legitimately be considered for the invitation of observers? Can they observe elections for high school class president or must the office for election be a paid government office?

My only major concern at this point with what you have is that this would force democratic nations to open their borders to foreigners, whether they want to or not, simply because there is an election happening. The Quintessential suggestion that nations could instead volutarily open up to observers would find much more support.

Other than that, a suggestion: Instead of just allowing the observations to be published, allow the observations to be published within the observed nation. It would allow the people to see an outsiders perspective on how their government is screwing them, or whatever.

Those are just my two cents. Kenny has already begun weighing in on the definition of fair election and the like.

1) This Act only applies to UN Members considered to be a democracy by the United Nations

All UN resolutions apply equally to all UN member states. I don't see any way to include this line, and I don't see any way to exclude this line and still be in any way meaningful.

Sorry, this one's not gonna fly as written.

Sorry, this one's not gonna fly as written.
If that's a ruling, then the proposal is at 74 approvals and, expiring Sunday, looks like it has a good chance of making quorum.

If that's a ruling, then the proposal is at 74 approvals and, expiring Sunday, looks like it has a good chance of making quorum.

The version in the proposal queue lacks the line that made it illegal.

As much as I would like to support this proposal, I feel it does not adequately define what constitutes as a fair election. For instance, the definition of a fair election says nothing about vote tampering methods such as biased programming of electronic voting methods and the bribing of paper ballot counters to 'fix' the vote. If the proposal does not pass as is, I would like to see a tighter definition of 'fair election' before I decide to support it.

The Republic of the People of Neudegg requests the feedback, primarily on the issue of the legality and potential for deletion, of the proposed International Democratic Observation Act below:

The International Democratic Observation Act

4) International Observers when in the country holding elections are given the right to view the democratic process without infringing on the confidentiality of any ballot

4) International Observers are given the right to publish their opinions on the way the elections were carried out in the country in question.

Is the last point not an infringement upon the local governments right to hold their elections in a manner they see fit? Surely the word "fair" is quite arbitrary dependant on other factors such as culture, geography, population size etc.

What may go for one does not go for all or readily allow for a blanket definition of a fair election or at least it would seem that way to me. Where my elections to take place only within the most highly populaced cities within my nation becuase of geographical complications this may seem to be unfair to those who live in remote regions when it may just be thatn it is unfeasable for the alternative to happen. What if culture dictates only a certain % of populus are allowed to vote?

How does giving the observers the right to publish their opinions in any way infringe on the rights of the nation being observed? They're not forcing the nations to change the locations or methods of their elections. They're just telling people what they saw. I fail to see the logic in your inquiry.

Congatulations on reaching quorum. I won't be supporting this when it comes to vote. I am rather thankful that we do not hold elections in the Dominion of Kivisto. Our policies on who we allow into the nation and why will remain unaffected. I can only offer my advance apologies to those nations who will no longer be able to keep certain undesirable outside of their borders during election time, should this pass the vote of the GA.

It is my regret that we will have to not only oppose this proposal, but do so vigorously. We are a little disappointed it was rushed through, disregarding the advice on drafting.

Firstly, it is poorly drafted. There are inconsistencies and errors within it, ranging from the meangingless 'ENSURING that when national General Elections, or equivalents, are carried out, International Observers of that election are allowed' to those of simple sloppiness: 'no of intimidation of voters'. In some cases, these actively detract from the proposal's effectiveness; otherwise, they simply reflect insufficient attention to detail.

Secondly, there are numerous specific problems:
BELIEVING that those nations that have a democracy should be checked to ensure process are carried out effectively and fairly
1. Why single out democracies? Surely it should be the case that all nations should carry out effective and fair political processes.
2. To go the other way, there is no justification for the checking provided here. The sovereigntists will argue a nation's internal political processes are their own concern; and in conjunction with the first point, I am certainly lost as to why the processes of a democracy are of international concern, but not those of other nations.

I appreciate the spectre of an absolute dictatorship being checked to see that it is oppressing its citizens in a suitably totalitarian manner might seem a little silly, but there are certainly alternatives to the narrow conception of democracy presented here: meritocracy would be an obvious example.
ENSURING that when national General Elections, or equivalents, are carried out, International Observers of that election are allowed
As I've said, this clause is meaningless. But any meaning it would have is slightly worrrying and very injustified:
1. without any reason for international observation being provided, there is no reason why such functions cannot be carried out by national observers;
2. 'national General Elections, or equivalents' is a rather vague spectre, and it also colours the issue because now sub-national democratic processes are being assumed not worthy of concern. I'm confused!
CONSIDERING fair elections to include those that have a secrecy of the ballot, no of intimidation of voters and universal adult suffrage
This isn't a definition. This is both fortunate and unfortunate: the latter because it renders later mandates meaningless, the former because if it were, it would be deeply unsatisfactory. As has been pointed out, there are 1,001 ways in which an election could be unfair - not to mention we have now lost the idea of 'effectiveness' as lauded earlier - while meeting these criteria. When we earlier raised the issue, we didn't mean for it to be brushed aside so hastily: we need to stop and really think about what proper democratic criteria are. Presumably, only those qualified for suffrage should be allowed to vote: should representation be equal, and should selling ballots be allowed? Are competency requirements unfair? Or are only certain ones unfair? And regularity of elections is also a key issue.
DEFINES representatives from democratic UN member’s Governments and/or civil Services, or equivalents as International Observers
This is, forgive me my bluntness, totally hopeless, and not just because of the possible vagueness introduced by 'or equivalents'. Furthermore, the idea is deeply contradictory. This proposal is predicated on the notion that some states purporting to be democratic are in need of checking. Yet there are no vetting procedures to ensure that such officials - who would be of a vast range, given the general size of many nations' civil services - would conduct their duties appropriately.
1) When General Elections, or equivalents, are carried out, the said International Observers are allowed visas to access the said country holding elections when they are from democratic UN member nations in the same region
What this amounts to is the following: any member of the government of the civil service of any nominally democratic UN member nation in the same region as the first nation can claim an access visa. Without wishing to be alarmist, that arrangement would be best described as 'an invasion'. It is perfectly possible to allow the first state some say in who is allowed to enter their country without compromising the effectiveness of the mission.
3) International Observers when in the country holding elections are given the right to view the democratic process without infringing on the confidentiality of any ballot
This is probably the best part of the proposal, though it is obviously stranded by all that has come before it, but we can't help feel there should be a little more explanation. '[T]he democratic process' is rather vacuous.

Hence, this proposal is totally unworkable, and unsuitable for UN legislation. We strongly urge the representative of Neudegg to consider filing a request to have the proposal removed, such that it be redrafted into a much better proposal. We promise to assist with such drafting, and to demonstrate that is not simply an empty promise, make the following preliminary suggestions:
- if it is still only to apply to democracies (if it is indeed allowed to do so) then a much more rigorously thought-out set up criteria for a fair election needs to be established;
- while there will be complaints from those inclined against supporting committees, a much safer and fairer means of getting observers would be for there to be a UN committee - which would necessarily be impartial - that could appoint observers;
- the nation needs to be given some say in who is allowed into their nation, or else they simply will not comply;
- equally, there needs to be some vetting of such observers, or else the whole exercise will have no standing.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

The version in the proposal queue lacks the line that made it illegal.

Darn, and since it's already submtted, it's too late to add it right?

That was supposed to be a joke!

Darn, and since it's already submtted, it's too late to add it right?

That was supposed to be a joke!

Does the first page have the sumbitted version? That version on the first page looks tentatively fine, but it needs more copyedit.

How does giving the observers the right to publish their opinions in any way infringe on the rights of the nation being observed? They're not forcing the nations to change the locations or methods of their elections. They're just telling people what they saw. I fail to see the logic in your inquiry.

I'd say that publishing an report on the elections would give the impression that the was some wrong doing in the manner in which they hold their elections. No smoke without fire etc etc. Even without a forcing of change the mere fact that a report into the Elections would be published is the same s saying "we won't make you change but we will tell everyone that you hold "bad" elections". It's less a question of infringing the rights of the nations involved than a matter of how you define right. In my own opinion their should not be a body to investigate the manner in which a nation holds elections as the would seemingly not be a concensus as to the "right" way to hold them in the first place.

I may just be repeating what other delegates have said before but from the standpoint of the pride and reputation of the nation being "reported" on. How will young and growing nations take a verbal slap on the wrist from this Un body? Will it not sour them to life within the UN? Could it not, in fact, drive people away? Not all that illogical to me at least.... In the end we shall see what the vote decides on this issue.

#1) It says they may publish it, but it doesn't require the nation in question to release the report to its own public
#2) A report does not automatically say everything is bad. Indeed, most reports look at both the good things and the things that can be improved - giving recommendations on how such improvements can be made. Further, the report doesn't even have to give their own opinions on whether it's good or bad or even what improvements need to be made but could simply give some insight into how the system works. Your claim that Report = bad is little more than smoke - especially when EVERYONE could have a report published about them AND the observers have the ability to declare, in their reports, nations that they feel are doing an exemplary job.
#3) If this resolution drives a nation away from the UN, then it's an indication they haven't actually read all the crap that they are supposed to enforce.

#1) Further, the report doesn't even have to give their own opinions on whether it's good or bad or even what improvements need to be made but could simply give some insight into how the system works.


I didn't get that from the text of the draft but if you say so....

While I like the idea of enforcing/encouraging a fair Democratic process, the UN is an organization that by decree does not enforce a particular veiw of what a good government is. Given that we can't enforce anything on this topic, having observers seems rather pointless.

Personally I can't think of any compelling or useful legislation for this topic that wouldn't violate UN resolution. Given that this proposal isn't really illegal, I must say I don't find it terribly compelling or useful either.

Given the questions regarding the legality of this effort (which are being discussed elsewhere) and the problems with the text pointed out by the representative from Quintessence of Dust, we have no choice but to oppose it.

This is a worthwhile endeavour and an area which we feel appropriate for the UN to legislate in. Thus, we would encourage the delegation from Neudegg to petition for its removal from the queue so that the errors may be addressed and an improved text resubmitted.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire