NationStates Jolt Archive

Since "The Voting Rights Act" has been submitted multiple times now, I think we should have a thread to improve it. I'm not the originator of it, though.


Description:
Fellow World Assembly members,

BELIEVING that voting be a right that all people should be allowed to engage in, hereby, establishes The Voting Rights Act.

ACKNOWLEDGING that not all member nations hold elections regularly, this implements these nations, that when elections are held, the following rules shall not be infringed upon by anyone of that member nation.

Article I.

-Establishes the right to vote for everyone, that no nation shall prohibit, infringe, or discrimnate against these people from voting based on race, sex, religion, disability(mentally and physically), age, class, sexual orientation, or marital status.

Article II.

-Establishes the legal voting age to be that of eighteen years, and that any person who achieves the age of eighteen, shall not be prohibited from voting.
-Establishes that no one person be prohibited from voting based on perceived, or actual, religion.
-Establishes that no one person be prohibited from voting based disability, or mental capacity, and when plausible, proper help and facilities be provided for these individuals if needed.
-Establishes that no one person be prohibited from voting based on perceived wealthiness, or lack thereof.
-Establishes that no one person be prohibited from voting based on perceived, or actual, sexual orientation.
-Establishes that no one person be prohibited from voting based on their sex. Males, females, and transgender shall be granted the right to vote regardless of which sex they currently are.
-Establishes that no one person be prohibited from voting based on their race, or ethnic background.
-Establishes that no one person be prohibited from voting based on their perceived, or actual, marital status, whether single, or married.

Article III.

-Establishes that no one person be prohibited from voting based on where that one person works, or whether that person is employed or unemployed.
-Establishes that no one person be prohibited from voting based on the non-payment of taxes.
-Establishes that no one person be forced or required to pay poll workers in order to vote.
-Establishes that no one person be prohibited from voting based on pending criminal charges against them.
-Establishes that any individual who currently resides in any prison in any World Assembly member nation be PROHIBITED from voting until that particular individual is released from prison.

With these Articles, the Voting Rights Act, is hereby, established and put into law in all World Assembly member nations.


Discuss.

Almost all of this is covered by the Charter of Civil Rights, making the vast majority of it totally pointless, and the part about the voting age being set at 18 is ridiculous, not all member states have citizens who are human or who have the same life spans as normal humans. Many don't even have electoral systems.



Yours,

I submitted a proposal called "The Voting Rights Act", and it was deleted. Not sure what I did wrong with it really, don't have a copy of it on this computer that I'm on. And I don't see it here. Just seeing if anyone else thought it was an illegal proposal...

Main reason (and this from memory, I went through a slew of proposals last night): it duplicated existing legislation. I don't mean that you plagiarised, but that you covered areas already covered.

Thanks for commenting. I went through past legislation, and seen nothing created before that(seemed to me) resembled what I wanted to put. Was it a piece of legislation passed during the UN days? If so, then I might of missed it, don't know if those still hold any ground in the WA...so it would probably be best to go after a different topic when/if I decide to submit another proposal? Yeah, I definitaley didn't plagarize, I actually wrote it in a Word document before I submitted it...

Ardchoille, I don't see anything the Voting Rights Act duplicated. There was contradiction ith The Charter of Civil Rights, in my interpretation, but that would easily be fixed. Also, I've created a thread for discussion of the Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588160). I move that discussion be moved to there.

Also, it arguably bans several ideologies (or, at least, systems of government) that inherently feature discrimination on various of the grounds that are listed here, although whether the Mods would consider any of those to be 'Ideology' enough for the prohibition on bans to be applicable is admittedly another matter.

Anyway, as it's currently written there's a MAJOR loophole whose details I'll refrain from pointing out here & now just in case anything like it ever gets passed with very similar wording... ;)

The votes don't have to have an actual effect?

Oh, it's MUCH better than that. :)

*(whistles innocently...)*

Imprison everyone?

I'm a monarchy, kind of want to keep it that way.
No votes.

... There was contradiction ith The Charter of Civil Rights, in my interpretation, but that would easily be fixed ...

Once a proposal's been submitted, nothing can be fixed. Even if the only thing wrong with it is a typo (as in the current Orphans' Act, which accidentally came out originally as the Orphans' Acr), the only way to "fix" it is for a mod to delete and the player to resubmit.

Apart from the duplications (and the contradiction(s)), the proposal-as-submitted attempted to limit its application to a specific group of WA nations, which I'd call metagaming, though I can see it would be possible to mount an argument for calling it a game mechanics violation.

Aside from the illegalities, have you considered that the proposal, as written, doesn't say what the election is for? Was it your intention that a nation holding only one election in its entire history, and that one for the position of Honorary Stamp-licker and National Scapegoat, or whatever, could still be completely in compliance, provided it met your voter eligibility standards?

(Yes, I know, the Reasonable Nation convention; but well-written proposals at least try to pin down the unreasonable ones, too. And the only "pin" you've got are the words in the proposal, not the good intentions behind them.)

Once a proposal's been submitted, nothing can be fixed. Even if the only thing wrong with it is a typo (as in the current Orphans' Act, which accidentally came out originally as the Orphans' Acr), the only way to "fix" it is for a mod to delete and the player to resubmit.

The original author (who isn't me) has already submitted it more than once. I created this thread because I like the idea, but recognised the issues with the implementation.

I created this thread after seeing this proposed multiple times, because the author seems highly intent on having it passed. I hoped that discussion would either decide that such resolutions could not be legal, or, preferably, to improve the resolution so it could pass.

Obviously, being the creator of this proposal, and after careful consideration have decided to NOT resubmit it. There's just too many rules and restrictions to actually get something like this passed and put through. Its basically almost impossible(I've come to realize) with the way NationStates is setup. I've reviewed the Charter of Civil Rights act, and from what I can see, I don't really know how that got through with the different ways our countries are set up, where some people STILL have no rights regardless of what that resolution entails, so in a way, it doesn't really apply to them at all, which would be kind of like mine here if you think about it. If mine is metagaming, or game mechanics, then that definitaly is as well.

I do, however, appreciate the support from those that showed it here and approved it while it was still up as a proposal.

But from the looks of it, and with the way the game is, I really don't plan on submitting it again, and there to be one small thing wrong and my nation being kicked out of the WA for something small and petty, and basically at this point, impossible to implement/put through.

If anyone feels free to discuss this further, with me, personally, send me a telegram on NationStates or a private message here on the forum.

... There's just too many rules and restrictions to actually get something like this passed and put through. Its basically almost impossible(I've come to realize) with the way NationStates is setup ...

I felt the same way when I started reading what was then the UN forum. You see people tossing around these obscure terms, arguing passionately about commas, and you feel you've fallen into some special version of hell populated solely by barrack-room lawyers.

Well, you have, but you can get a lot of enjoyment from it if you put a bit into it. The trick is to find someone to lead you through it a couple of times. If you join a WA-focussed region, go on their offsite forum and keep whining, "Why? But why?", people will eventually start explaining just to shut you up.

They'll also explain sometimes in this forum, but they're apt to be less kind, because this is, after all, the Festering Snakepit, and when you've got peer review, people become intent on proving that they are peers. Still, others do it and survive.

Things you can do: offer suggestions about other people's draft legislation; read the Silly Proposals thread religiously (no sacrifices required); read the stickies forwards, backwards and sideways; pick out a player whose explanations usually make sense to you and check what they write on different subjects -- then start writing proposals.

It also helps to get to know some of the other WA players. It's surprising what a difference it makes to feel you're not among hostile strangers.

If it turns out the WA's not your thing, no-one's going to yell at you (though they'll probably pinch your office) and there are plenty of other ways to play NS and enjoy it.

So have fun, whichever way you go.

And now that the author has publicly renounced this proposal, here's the MAJOR loophole that I mentioned earlier: Although the wording Establishes that no one person be prohibited from voting based on means that national governments wouldn't be able to prohibit people from voting on an individual basis, it would do absolutely nothing to keep them from applying such a prohibition to any entire category of people simultaneously... ;)

Thanks for the advice. I'll definitaley take that all into consideration. I read the proposals that are submitted, religiously, and the silly proposals thread on the forum here as well. I guess I just wanted to start out with a bang(only been a member nation for a few weeks now) I suppose.

Again, thank you for the advice. I really do appreciate it.



I felt the same way when I started reading what was then the UN forum. You see people tossing around these obscure terms, arguing passionately about commas, and you feel you've fallen into some special version of hell populated solely by barrack-room lawyers.

Well, you have, but you can get a lot of enjoyment from it if you put a bit into it. The trick is to find someone to lead you through it a couple of times. If you join a WA-focussed region, go on their offsite forum and keep whining, "Why? But why?", people will eventually start explaining just to shut you up.

They'll also explain sometimes in this forum, but they're apt to be less kind, because this is, after all, the Festering Snakepit, and when you've got peer review, people become intent on proving that they are peers. Still, others do it and survive.

Things you can do: offer suggestions about other people's draft legislation; read the Silly Proposals thread religiously (no sacrifices required); read the stickies forwards, backwards and sideways; pick out a player whose explanations usually make sense to you and check what they write on different subjects -- then start writing proposals.

It also helps to get to know some of the other WA players. It's surprising what a difference it makes to feel you're not among hostile strangers.

If it turns out the WA's not your thing, no-one's going to yell at you (though they'll probably pinch your office) and there are plenty of other ways to play NS and enjoy it.

So have fun, whichever way you go.

"Why? But why?", people will eventually start explaining just to shut you up

When though...when!? How much more annoying do I need to be...! :)

"Why? But why?", people will eventually start explaining just to shut you up.

And until that happens, just assume the answer is "because that's what the modictators say".

And until that happens, just assume the answer is "because that's what the modictators say".


Tch, tch, really! The proper term is modNazi, as you'd know if you'd read the forums as religiously as I'm recommending. You could at least make the effort to get it right!

Look, there are rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) for proposals. If a proposal breaks any of these rules, it's toast. That's why proposal writers are urged to post proposals here first. Mods don't, won't and can't oversee every draft of every proposal, but there are players who can and will if it's a subject that interests them, and some of them are very experienced in spotting flaws.

If it's strictly the legality of a draft that you're concerned about, make sure to say so. It won't stop people pointing out flaws (or just things they disagree with) in the content, but it should focus the answers a bit.

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=330452) thread gives you an idea of some of the reasons for killing proposals. It's old, so some of the categories have changed, but it's helpful, nonetheless, for understanding the more esoteric violations, like metagaming. It's like the Silly Proposals thread, but it's from the mods who did the deleting, and it's more detailed.

Whenever people get miffed about proposals being killed (which Qazwerty hasn't, bless 'im), I feel this is worth repeating:
While these rules are binding, we don't want players to feel like they will be hunted down in the middle of the night if they violate the rules. The hope is that players will continue to post drafts in this forum so that others can make sure a Proposal is legal. Also, remember that warnings for illegal Proposals do not count towards being deleted or anything like that. They're simply to keep people from flooding the queue with bad or improperly written proposals.