NationStates Jolt Archive


DRAFT2: Assurance of Suffrage

Saturni
06-11-2008, 07:22
Description: The Adopted Nations of the World Assembly,

NOTING that there are no international resolutions that guarantee the right for voters in representative democratic countries.

BELIEVING that a right suffrage is the cornerstone for democratic countries with elected representatives.

FURTHER BELIEVING that any violation to this right would mean the undermining of the individuals power over it's country's path, thus it is a direct violation to the democratic process itself.

HEREBY

1.0. DEFINES non-democratic governments (henceforth NDG) as governments where no elections are held, and democratic governments (henceforth DG) where public officials are chosen by public elections.

1.1. DEFINES suffrage as the right of any civilian to vote.

1.2. DEFINES voting process the process where the right to suffrage is exercised by the mass.

1.3. DEFINES elector as the individual that exercises suffrage.

1.4. DEFINES voting urns as the physical place where suffrage takes place.

1.5. DEFINES voting fraud as any alteration to the vote, to the actual number of electors voting, and to the actual number of votes for any given political party or candidate.

2. MANDATES DG to warranty that suffrage will be held privately and without coercion. The disclosure of any elector vote will be illegal without his consent.

3. MANDATES DG to ensure the voting process to be held without delay, according to the country's own law, so that it may not create a delay that elongates the current representatives term.

4. MANDATES DG to keep the voting process open for all eligible citizens.

5. MANDATES DG to ensure all materials needed to carry out the suffrage be present in the required quantity at the moment of suffrage.

6. MANDATES DG to set appropriate quantity of voting urns where needed, to ensure the access to them to the majority of the electors. The voting urns need to be not only in sufficient quantity, but also appropriately distributed.

7. OBLIGES DG to impulse and advice the electors to exercise suffrage and to ensure there is no physical, psychological, economical or sexual retaliation by any political, religious or otherwise group for exercising suffrage.

8. URGES DG to ensure a way for citizens with impediments to reach the voting urns a way to exercise suffrage, be it via postal or any other method, ensuring that this will not allow for voting fraud.

9. ADVICES DG to make suffrage equal for everyone, with the same number of votes for every eligible citizen.

10. INCITES DG to maintain equality among electors, without discrimination by religion, wealth, social class, age, criminal record, residence, or occupation.

11.1. MANDATES both DG and NDG to facilitate the voting process for alien residents of WA countries that are experiencing voting process at the moment. That is, keep borders open for residents to travel and vote, ensuring them their return and the maintenance of their current state; if it is possible, enable fellow WA countries to set up voting urns and/or enable postal, digital or otherwise voting for alien residents of said country.

11.2. MANDATES both DG and NDG to avoid or stop any action caused by themselves or any of their citizens which would hinder the voting process in other countries. This includes, but is not limited to, threats, terrorist attacks, or modification or destruction of the votes.

12. ENCOURAGES DG to invite international electoral supervisors, not necessarily conferring them any political power, but on the spirit of improving the voting systems of both self and other nations.



-END-

How would this be optional? It applies for every government that falls under the umbrella. It deals with no optionality, save 8, 9, 10, as this would be neither necessary, possible, nor correct by some states. No ideological ban there, as some countries' religion ban some people to vote.
Also, all nations in the WA are affected by this, without an option. But, like "Neutrality of Nations" different nations are affected in a different way.

I would like help with any grammatical mistake this may have, as English is not my main language.
Urgench
06-11-2008, 11:44
It is highly likely that this resolution might not be legal since either it does not effect all nations of the w.a. or is a ban on Un-democratic government.

Definition 1.1. only applies to Civilians, is this intentional? Also it does not specify what kind's of vote civilians are being assured of rights to, and later articles make it unclear what kind of vote is being addressed in this law.

Article 9 should replace article 10 altogether since article ten is irrelevent and clumsy and article nine expresses the same thing, just make article nine non-optional.

We have other advice but we will wait untill the legality issue is settled before proceeding to regale the Honoured Ambassador for Saturni with it.


yours e.t.c. ,
Gobbannaen WA Mission
07-11-2008, 04:56
I think the Urgenchi delegation isn't on the right foot this time; this proposal doesn't apply to nations that don't hold elections in the same way that the national waters business doesn't apply to land-locked nations. I don't see it as being "optional" under the meaning of the act.

A few comments:
Description: The Adopted Nations of the World Assembly,
Adopted? Probably not the word you meant to use. Just saying "The Nations of the World Assembly" would work just as well, and would save you a few characters. That's important, because you're marginally over size by my count.

BELIEVING that a right suffrage is the cornerstone for democratic countries with elected representatives.
I do like this phrase. Very nice.

1.0. DEFINES non-democratic governments (henceforth NDG) as governments where no elections are held, and democratic governments (henceforth DG) where public officials are chosen by public elections.

1.1. DEFINES suffrage as the right of any civilian to vote.

1.2. DEFINES voting process the process where the right to suffrage is exercised by the mass.

1.3. DEFINES elector as the individual that exercises suffrage.

1.4. DEFINES voting urns as the physical place where suffrage takes place.

1.5. DEFINES voting fraud as any alteration to the vote, to the actual number of electors voting, and to the actual number of votes for any given political party or candidate.
I don't think you need all these definitions. Suffrage certainly, but surely you don't need to tell everyone what an elector is? "Voting urns" seem like a strange thing to define; the name suggests you're talking about what I'd call "ballot boxes", the physical boxes in which physical tokens of a vote (the ballot papers) are kept until they are counted if you don't do it all electronically, but the wording here and elsewhere implies that you're talking about what I'd call "polling stations", the building you go into in order to cast your vote. And finally, the definition of voting fraud is far too limited; it misses out personation and treating, for example. It's probably a better idea to define it a lot more vaguely if you have to define it at all, so that it can catch the full range of electoral offences.

2. MANDATES DG to warranty that suffrage will be held privately and without coercion. The disclosure of any elector vote will be illegal without his consent.
This is OK as long as a closed court session doesn't count as "disclosure", since an elector's vote may be at issue in a potential case of electoral fraud. It's a bit of a moot point at the moment, since you can't have closed sessions in criminal proceedings under WA law, but that can be fixed.

3. MANDATES DG to ensure the voting process to be held without delay, according to the country's own law, so that it may not create a delay that elongates the current representatives term.
I'm not sure this really does anything.

4. MANDATES DG to keep the voting process open for all eligible citizens.
Either this doesn't do anything or it never allows you to close the polls, I can't decide which. Either way, it's not right.

6. MANDATES DG to set appropriate quantity of voting urns where needed, to ensure the access to them to the majority of the electors. The voting urns need to be not only in sufficient quantity, but also appropriately distributed.
No, this isn't acceptable. You only have to make sure voting is accessible to a majority of electors? I'll have all my voting stations in the capital city where all my supporters are, and the 40% of the population in the countryside can just live with being disenfranchised. No, not a good plan.

7. OBLIGES DG to impulse and advice the electors to exercise suffrage and to ensure there is no physical, psychological, economical or sexual retaliation by any political, religious or otherwise group for exercising suffrage.
"Impulse and advice" are the wrong words. Maybe "encourage and advise"?

8. URGES DG to ensure a way for citizens with impediments to reach the voting urns a way to exercise suffrage, be it via postal or any other method, ensuring that this will not allow for voting fraud.
"Disabilities" rather than "impediments".

9. ADVICES DG to make suffrage equal for everyone, with the same number of votes for every eligible citizen.
"ADVISES" rather than "ADVICES". I'd prefer this to be much stronger, since to me it's the heart of any voting proposal. Not only is it just advice but that weasel word "eligible" is in there again, allowing any nation that wants to deprive a section of its population of sufferage to do so with impunity.

10. INCITES DG to maintain equality among electors, without discrimination by religion, wealth, social class, age, criminal record, residence, or occupation.
I'd use a different word from "INCITES", since I can't tell whether this is supposed to be compulsory or not. I also can't tell what you mean by "maintain equality." Are you trying to define eligibility? Are you just giving us another vague aspiration? Enquiring minds want to know.

11.1. MANDATES both DG and NDG to facilitate the voting process for alien residents of WA countries that are experiencing voting process at the moment. That is, keep borders open for residents to travel and vote, ensuring them their return and the maintenance of their current state; if it is possible, enable fellow WA countries to set up voting urns and/or enable postal, digital or otherwise voting for alien residents of said country.
You need to be much clearer about what you mean by "ensuring them their return and the maintenance of their current state." I think I know what you're on about, but it's really not clear.

12. ENCOURAGES DG to invite international electoral supervisors, not necessarily conferring them any political power, but on the spirit of improving the voting systems of both self and other nations.
The usual term is "observers" rather than "supervisors"; "supervisor" implies that they do have an active roll in managing the voting process, not just watching it happen. This is not necessarily useful, in any case; some nations' voting processes are fundamentally unobservable. It's OK to encourage this, but I wouldn't make it any stronger at all, and you'll still get a lot of resistance from nations who will take this as an insult to the integrity of the voting systems.
Urgench
07-11-2008, 12:21
I think the Urgenchi delegation isn't on the right foot this time; this proposal doesn't apply to nations that don't hold elections in the same way that the national waters business doesn't apply to land-locked nations. I don't see it as being "optional" under the meaning of the act.


As ever we are very glad of the clear insight of the incomparable Ambassador Coch. We only wondered if legality might be in question if this resolution specifically named those states it intended to make law for and did not do so by virtue of its provisions. Which thing it seemed to do. But no matter. We are certain the surpassing Ambassador Coch is correct.

yours sincerely,
Glen-Rhodes
07-11-2008, 17:22
Speaking as myself (i.e., not roleplaying), this reminds me of a law in the United States that (should, at least) prevent Congress from implementing any law for a single person, corporation, etc. I don't really see the necessity of this proposal, especially when it mandates only a portion of the World Assembly, and all World Assembly members receive numerous chances to grant or deny suffrage through daily issues. At least for me, I get that chance once per week. I know that there's not a rule against creating proposals that already exist via daily issues, but my opinion is that we leave it up to the people to decide for themselves.
Gobbannaen WA Mission
07-11-2008, 20:25
[snip]We are certain the surpassing Ambassador Coch is correct.
The surpassing Ambassador Cerys is flattered, but points out that she's only giving her opinion, not laying down the law.
Urgench
07-11-2008, 20:38
The surpassing Ambassador Cerys is flattered, but points out that she's only giving her opinion, not laying down the law.


Indeed and nor would we expect her to, but her advice is none the less worth creedence.

Yours sincerely,