NationStates Jolt Archive

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY
UNDERSTANDING that not every nation holds regular elections as a part of their political system,

NOTING that these governments, so long as they do not practice powers that have been forbidden to them by the WA, have a right to continue as such,

ALSO NOTING that in some cases where elections are held, the can be actually harmful to the safety of the citizens,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

The function of all governments, democratic or non, is to protect the rights and freedom of the governed. Therefore, all functions of that government must work toward that same goal. In the cases of elections, it is the right of the people to know that their vote has been cast anonymously and that they can receive no punishment or reward for said vote. It is the duty of the government to assure that all candidates and issues for which a significant portion of voters have expressed interest in are allowed to be voted fairly on a ballot; and it is the mandate of the WA to see that all governments, democratic or non, protect the interest of their people.

Section I
All persons who meet the requirements given by the state to register to vote must be allowed to register as candidates for any elected office providing a petition signed by at least ten percent of the registered voters for that office. Neither the signers of said petition nor the potential candidate shall be in anyway punished or rewarded for their actions. In all elected offices, the process for registering as a candidate shall not include any unreasonable charges, nor require any affiliation with any political party, nor affirmation of any political or religious view. Upon decision of a new office holder, the powers of that office may not be changed based upon the views of the official.

Section II
The candidate elected or the laws passed must be determined by a majority of votes. In cases of tie or no majority reached, the election shall either be determined by the representative body, if any, or by a new election.

Section III
The state cannot, for any reason, deny voting rights on the basis of gender, race, religion, ethnicity (when naturalized), religious beliefs, political views, sexual orientation, physical ability, or economic status. In no case is a poll tax to be collected. Nor can laws be passed to directly or indirectly bar any member of any subset of any of these groups from the right to vote.

Section IV
Citizens meeting all voting requirements cannot be prevented in any way from being allowed to register to vote. Citizens must also be allowed to abstain from voting if it is their wish. All eligible citizens can register exactly one time, either with a political party or independently, and can in no way receive punishment or reward for registering under a specific party. Each registered voter may fill out one ballot which must be counted exactly one time anonymously. The state must make an earnest effort to prevent fraud in elections.

Section V
Once again reaffirming the right of all sovereign nations to choose whether or not to hold elections and the duty or the WA to protect the interests of all people, the WA mandates that all measures be taken to uphold this resolution and to assure that in any nation which chooses to hold democratic elections, that they be held fairly and for the purpose of furthering the common good of the people governed.



Tell me what you think. You can also PM my nation, Raz-Griz. Thanks.

Are you Nistraph, or just a plagiarist (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=589027)?

I have Nistraph's permission to edit and repost as my own. i have the telegram if your like

Section I
All persons who meet the requirements given by the state to register to vote must be allowed to register as candidates for any elected office providing a petition signed by at least ten percent of the registered voters for that office. Neither the signers of said petition nor the potential candidate shall be in anyway punished or rewarded for their actions. In all elected offices, the process for registering as a candidate shall not include any unreasonable charges, nor require any affiliation with any political party, nor affirmation of any political or religious view. Upon decision of a new office holder, the powers of that office may not be changed based upon the views of the official.

What about theocratic republics, where the government and the state religion are both the same thing but people are still allowed to elect people? I would think having it required that people actually be of the religion they're being elected to run wouldn't be unreasonable.

Also, not all republics have senates.

Section III
The state cannot, for any reason, deny voting rights on the basis of gender, race, religion, ethnicity (when naturalized), religious beliefs, political views, sexual orientation, physical ability, or economic status. In no case is a poll tax to be collected. Nor can laws be passed to directly or indirectly bar any member of any subset of any of these groups from the right to vote.

It can't deny on physical ability even if voting is limited to the military and there's a set of standards for physical ability to serve in the military?

Section IV
Citizens meeting all voting requirements cannot be prevented in any way from being allowed to register to vote. Citizens must also be allowed to abstain from voting if it is their wish. All eligible citizens can register exactly one time, either with a political party or independently, and can in no way receive punishment or reward for registering under a specific party. Each registered voter may fill out one ballot which must be counted exactly one time anonymously. The state must make an earnest effort to prevent fraud in elections.

So recounts in cases of suspected error in counting or suspicions of fraud are not allowed? Or is it that those are allowed, as long as they're not anonymous?

I think it still needs editting.

What about theocratic republics, where the government and the state religion are both the same thing but people are still allowed to elect people? I would think having it required that people actually be of the religion they're being elected to run wouldn't be unreasonable.

Also, not all republics have senates.

Where in there does it say "Senator"? It just says "elected office". that could be anything.

It can't deny on physical ability even if voting is limited to the military and there's a set of standards for physical ability to serve in the military?

Not understanding what youre asking here. Please elaborate.

So recounts in cases of suspected error in counting or suspicions of fraud are not allowed? Or is it that those are allowed, as long as they're not anonymous?
It is allowed, however in order to make sure everybody has voted only once; the ballots must not be anonymous in that particular case.

I think it still needs editting.
I concur

Where in there does it say "Senator"? It just says "elected office". that could be anything.

It doesn't. My bad.

Not understanding what youre asking here. Please elaborate.

Some nations might restrict the right to vote to those who serve in the military, then set standards for who can be accepted in military service to keep an effective military. The standards for military service could easily contradict the standards for being allowed to vote that this sets.

It is allowed, however in order to make sure everybody has voted only once; the ballots must not be anonymous in that particular case.

But is not allowed in cases where suspicions of inaccuracy in the vote count itself occur?

Some nations might restrict the right to vote to those who serve in the military, then set standards for who can be accepted in military service to keep an effective military. The standards for military service could easily contradict the standards for being allowed to vote that this sets.
Ah, I understand now. Then that is within the Nation's rights and the WA can do nothing, unfortunatly.

But is not allowed in cases where suspicions of inaccuracy in the vote count itself occur? Example please? (I'm kinda slow today sorry)

Ah, I understand now. Then that is within the Nation's rights and the WA can do nothing, unfortunatly.

Okay. Just trying to ask questions. Look at it this way: If you get all of these now, you'll be better prepared later ^_^

Example please? (I'm kinda slow today sorry)

Bush-Gore Election of 2000. Bush-Kerry election of 2004. Or a dozen others.

I'd get you examples from NS, but I refuse to search II for them.

Bush-Gore Election of 2000. Bush-Kerry election of 2004. Or a dozen others.

As long as there is a clear majority (even by one vote) of votes for one person, that person must now take on that office. If there is suspicion by a candidate that there is inaccuracy it will most likely be the losing candidate and therefore, more than likely, it would be frivolous to have a recount. If the suspicion comes from anyone else, then a specialized "Board of Elections" would have to meet and decide. (which probably now means i must edit my proposal lol >.< )

We note that the honoured ambassador has taken on board none of the comments from the previous discussion of this matter. We suggest that he directs himself towards them, since we have no intention of repeating ourself at length.

::the noise emerging from the Gobbannaen delegation that might be mistaken for uproarious laughter at that comment is a form of appreciation. Honest. :)::

And where can this be found

And where can this be found

At this point (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=589027) in the preceeding week's minutes of discussions.

(OOC: you weren't seeing the old thread because it was last posted to more than a week ago, which is Jolt's slightly conservative default setting on the forum view.)

As long as there is a clear majority (even by one vote) of votes for one person, that person must now take on that office. If there is suspicion by a candidate that there is inaccuracy it will most likely be the losing candidate and therefore, more than likely, it would be frivolous to have a recount. If the suspicion comes from anyone else, then a specialized "Board of Elections" would have to meet and decide. (which probably now means i must edit my proposal lol >.< )

We must disagree with our esteemed college that a single vote would constitute a clear majority. We also disagree that a recall requested by a losing candidate is a frivolous exercise.

Let the democratic nations of the world decide on their own election policies.

Nigel S Youlkin.
WA Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

There can be too many loopholes made in this and too many exceptions would have to be made that such a proposal could never come to vote in the WA. Any proposal that doesn't have an HoC violation or doesn't fall outside the wordcount limit could not have the necessary exceptions, exceptions to exceptions, and other clauses that it would need for nontraditional republics, such as theocratic republics, military-governed nations, mixed entitlement-selection systems, and others.

It also prevents entirely a system similar to how a corporation does votes. Let's say you own 10 shares in a company and I own a hundred. My vote is worth ten times yours because I own ten times the stock and have ten times the liability in the company as you. In a government it could work like, if I pay $10k a year in taxes and you only pay $5k, since I fund the government twice as much as you I should have twice as much say in what they do with my money.

I'll have to oppose this and press for everyone else to oppose this too, and veto it if it actually comes to the floor.

Hr'rmm, let's see...

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY
UNDERSTANDING that not every nation holds regular elections as a part of their political system,True.

NOTING that these governments, so long as they do not practice powers that have been forbidden to them by the WA, have a right to continue as such,Noting that if they do practice powers that have been forbidden to them by the WA then (although the theoreticially mandatory nature of compliance means that they might have to leave this organisation) they can still "continue as such", because the WA lacks any means of enforcing regime-change...

ALSO NOTING that in some cases where elections are held, the can be actually harmful to the safety of the citizens,Show me a harmful "the"...

ENACTS the following Resolution:

The function of all governments, democratic or non, is to protect the rights and freedom of the governed. Therefore, all functions of that government must work toward that same goal.Some of the non-democratic governments might disagree with this assessment...

In the cases of elections, it is the right of the people to know that their vote has been cast anonymously and that they can receive no punishment or reward for said vote.No objection personally.

It is the duty of the government to assure that all candidates and issues for which a significant portion of voters have expressed interest in are allowed to be voted fairly on a ballot;But it's still up to those governments to define "significant", yes?
*(pauses)*
Wait a minute! What happens if "a significant proportion" of the voters are interested in an issue but none of the declared candidates in a particular constituency share that view? Wouldn't this clause effectively require the government to find & field a "suitable" candidate, regardless of its own declared views on the matter in question? I think that this definitely goes rather too far...
In fact, as it also means that governments that allow any ballots at all must allow ballots about everything, it is quite arguably a ban on certain ideologies... which would be illegal. At the very least, you would need to insert a "relevant" before the "issues", so that they could only insist on voting on a matter if it legitimately falls within the scope of that level of government. Hr'rmm, and you would also need to insert a "legitimate" before the "candidates" so that people can't insist on any candidates whom the current laws actually say should be ineligible to stand for that office...

and it is the mandate of the WA to see that all governments, democratic or non, protect the interest of their people.How? You might as well just drop this clause.

Section I
All persons who meet the requirements given by the state to register to vote must be allowed to register as candidates for any elected office providing a petition signed by at least ten percent of the registered voters for that office. Neither the signers of said petition nor the potential candidate shall be in anyway punished or rewarded for their actions.So nations can't, for example, set any minimum ages for holding office in order to require that candidates for office have at least a few more years of life-experience than the youngest voters?
Or set 'term-limits', to restrict the number of times that a person can hold any particular office?
Or require that candidates actually be resident within the constituencies that they seek to represent?
Or to set aside a number of seats in their legislatures, or other public ofices, that can only be held by members of certain specific minorities who might otherwise lack an effective voice?
Or have any elective positions whose holders are elected by & from the members of an elected council, rather than directly by the whole electorate?
Most definitely 'Opposed'.

Hr'rmm, as written, this clause would actually allow any 'voter' to run for any "elected office" whatsoever in those nations, not just political ones, which would make it impossible for private organisations to have both membership-lists and elected officials: You would need to insert "relevant" before "elected".
In all elected offices, the process for registering as a candidate shall not include any unreasonable charges, nor require any affiliation with any political party, nor affirmation of any political or religious view.As has already been pointed out, the separation of church & state that this would enforce on nations is an 'ideological ban' and therefore illegal. And, again, its application to "all elected offices", rather than just to 'government' ones, seems highly inappropriate...
Upon decision of a new office holder, the powers of that office may not be changed based upon the views of the official.Regardless of whether the nation in question's established constitution would have allowed them to do this? Opposed.

Section II
The candidate elected or the laws passed must be determined by a majority of votes. In cases of tie or no majority reached, the election shall either be determined by the representative body, if any, or by a new election.
Rules out any forms of 'proportional representation' that include multi-member constituencies, although some of these have supporters who claim them to be more democratic than 'single-member' systems. Rules out any systems in which fair processess for resolving ties -- that neither give power over them to 'the representative body' , which might [after all] make the decision on a partisan basis, nor require the expenditure of resources & time that a new election would -- already exist. Opposed.

Section III
The state cannot, for any reason, deny voting rights on the basis of gender, race, religion, ethnicity (when naturalized), religious beliefs, political views, sexual orientation, physical ability, or economic status. In no case is a poll tax to be collected. Nor can laws be passed to directly or indirectly bar any member of any subset of any of these groups from the right to vote.
As already noted, some nations are -- and have the right to remain -- run by specific religions. (OOC: I'm not going to attempt an IC defence of Apartheid, or of any other 'race'-based political systems, but technically speaking the rules do say that you can't ban those either...)
Also, any of a religious or political view's supporters who engage in terrorist activities to try & force it on everybody would logically count as a "subset" of these groups, but I consider leaving nations with the right to exclude proven terrorists from having any say in the democratic process -- at least unless & until they convincingly renounce violence -- as perfectly reasonable.
Also, forbidding the use of any economic criteria for voting arguably falls under the rule against ideological bans again: Have you never heard of 'plutocracy'?
Oh, and talking of economic criteria, there's also the point that the ambassdor of Divinen has just raised about voting rights based on share holdings in 'corporate' nations.

Section IV
Citizens meeting all voting requirements cannot be prevented in any way from being allowed to register to vote.This is stating the furless obvious! If they meet all of the requirements then that clearly includes the requirement that nobody who's in a position to do so feels like preventing them... If you mean what I think you mean then you would need to add either "legal" before "voting" or "arbitrarily" after "prevented"...
Citizens must also be allowed to abstain from voting if it is their wish.No personal objection, but quite a few of the nations that hold elections seem to regard requiring complusory voting as more democratic than leaving it optional.
All eligible citizens can register exactly one time,So if they ever get dropped from the list, whether deliberately or accidentaly, then they can never re-register?either with a political party or independently, and can in no way receive punishment or reward for registering under a specific party.Forces all nations that have elections to allow the existence of organised political parties, even if they have traditionally (and perhaps with good reason) been opposed to this concept as "potentially too divisive"...
Each registered voter may fill out one ballotOne per life-time? Per year? I suppose you mean "per election", but you need to say so. which must be counted exactly one time anonymously.Opposed, on the basis that in the event of disputed results recounting the existing ballots is easier/cheaper/quicker than holding fresh elections.The state must make an earnest effort to prevent fraud in elections.Hokay.

Section V
Once again reaffirming the right of all sovereign nations to choose whether or not to hold electionsWhich is guaranteed by Resolution #2, anyway. and the duty or the WA to protect the interests of all people,"of all people"? And different groups' interests may clash, anyway, which makes this impossible! the WA mandates that all measures be taken to uphold this resolutionThis is superfluous.and to assure that in any nation which chooses to hold democratic elections, that they be held fairly and for the purpose of furthering the common good of the people governed.And now for the BIG question: What effect would this proposed resolution have in those nations that do not choose to hold democratic elections? You do know that there's a rule against selectively applicable resolutions, no?


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

USoP Presidential Compound

The USoP Deputy runs into the Communcations Director's Office...

"Toby come quick... Bears Armed is kicking the crap out of the Fairness In Elections Debate!"

The communcations director drops his pen on the desk "Ginger!"

His assistant pokes her head in the office. "Yea"

"Get the popcorn!" He gets up and jogs over the deputies office...

And now for the BIG question: What effect would this proposed resolution have in those nations that do not choose to hold democratic elections? You do know that there's a rule against selectively applicable resolutions, no?

It would have no effect whatsoever, we imagine, in exactly the same way that maritime resolutions have no effect on land-locked nations.