[DEFEATED](GA#130 Complement) Universal Suffrage Act

[Elke and Elba]

Category: Human Rights/(Significant or Strong)

I just realised Elections and Assistance Act didn't force universal suffrage!

ACKNOWLEDGING that the legitimacy of the government of each and every member state is determined by the will of all of its constituents citizens,

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that an acknowledgement of such will is largely only possible through elections - of which results are determined by the votes of all of its citizens,

The World Assembly,

MANDATES that all citizens are allowed to vote in elections held in their respective states provided that the said citizen has:
a) not been certified to be mentally incompetent to give any form of informed consent,
b) attained the minimum age of voting,
c) not been disenfranchised due to conviction of a criminal offence, and;

CLARIFIES that,
a) nothing in this resolution forces member nations to hold elections where no elections are held,
b) nothing in this resolution disallows member nations to extend suffrage to citizens and inhabitants not covered under this resolution, and,
c) nothing in this resolution forcibly sets a minimum age of voting on member states, which are free to set one as the respective member states deem fit.

ACKNOWLEDGING that the legitimacy of the government of each and every member state is determined by the will of all of its constituents citizens,

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that an acknowledgement of such will is largely only possible through elections - of which results are determined by the votes of all of its citizens,

The World Assembly,

MANDATES that all citizens of sound mind and attaining the minimum age of voting and are allowed to vote in elections, and;

CLARIFIES that,
1. nothing in this resolution forces member nations to hold elections where no elections are held,
2. nothing in this resolution disallows member nations to extend suffrage to citizens and inhabitants not covered under this resolution, and,
3. nothing in this resolution forcibly sets a minimum age of voting on member states, which are free to set one as member states deem fit.

Also, I've used the same definition as found in CoCR. It's borderlining on plaglarism (sadly), but I wish to ensure that people who get their rights in CoCR get theirs here too. I need advice though - preferably from long time dels and mods.

EDIT: YAY. NO ELECTIONS FORCED ON But wait - if you want to hold them, you have to let EVERYONE vote. A nice complement to GA#130.

[Gruenberg]

OOC: This is so obviously an Ideological Ban that I suggest the mods link to this thread in the rules as an example for that particular rule.

[Elke and Elba]

OOC: This is so obviously an Ideological Ban that I suggest the mods link to this thread in the rules as an example for that particular rule.

Uhm, it doesn't ban ideologies?

OOC: Are there actually countries without elections? I mean, Vatican has one every X years, and China (and even NK) has the rubber-stamp too.

OOC2: If you were thinking this would ban things like communism or fascism, oh no, it doesn't.

EDIT: AH I SEE IT. WAIT MONSEIUR, CHANGES COMING

[Elke and Elba]

Edited!

Changes:

Elections now not forced.
Scope reduced to ensuring universal suffrage that was not covered in GA#130.

[Gruenberg]

OOC: This is so obviously an Ideological Ban that I suggest the mods link to this thread in the rules as an example for that particular rule.

Uhm, it doesn't ban ideologies?

OOC: Of course it does. Any government system without elections - a dictatorship, an absolute monarchy, a one party system, an oligarchy, a theocracy, to name just a few - would be prohibited by this. It is well established that the WA cannot ban political ideologies by mandating democracy.

OOC: Are there actually countries without elections? I mean, Vatican has one every X years, and China (and even NK) has the rubber-stamp too.

There are thousands of nations without elections in NS. Banning elections is an option in one of the very first issues every new nation receives.

[Elke and Elba]

Uhm, it doesn't ban ideologies?

OOC: Of course it does. Any government system without elections - a dictatorship, an absolute monarchy, a one party system, an oligarchy, a theocracy, to name just a few - would be prohibited by this. It is well established that the WA cannot ban political ideologies by mandating democracy.

OOC: Are there actually countries without elections? I mean, Vatican has one every X years, and China (and even NK) has the rubber-stamp too.

There are thousands of nations without elections in NS. Banning elections is an option in one of the very first issues every new nation receives.

Issues =/= WA. That has been talked about before.

Anyway... read the above posts. They have been edited.

[Gruenberg]

Issues =/= WA. That has been talked about before.

OOC: Yes, so has the Ideological Ban rule.

Anyway... read the above posts. They have been edited.

The other day, you brushed me off when I suggested you calm down. Forgive me, but I'm going to suggest, again, that you do so. It is impossible to write good legislation at the speed you are going at: you completely changed your mind on your proposal within 5 minutes, to judge by the edit tags. I wrote a two line response to you and in that time, the proposal had been significantly altered. It's hubris to think you can solve problems so quickly. I say this not to criticise, but to encourage: I'm sure if you settled down on one idea, you would find your endeavours more fruitful.

Anyway, I do not really see the point of the proposal as it stands. It's legal to completely ban people from any vote whatsoever, yet if you allow anyone the right to vote, you have to extend it to everyone, even those whose mental incapacity renders them unable to exercise their competence in any other regard?

[Elke and Elba]

Issues =/= WA. That has been talked about before.

OOC: Yes, so has the Ideological Ban rule.

Anyway... read the above posts. They have been edited.

The other day, you brushed me off when I suggested you calm down. Forgive me, but I'm going to suggest, again, that you do so. It is impossible to write good legislation at the speed you are going at: you completely changed your mind on your proposal within 5 minutes, to judge by the edit tags. I wrote a two line response to you and in that time, the proposal had been significantly altered. It's hubris to think you can solve problems so quickly. I say this not to criticise, but to encourage: I'm sure if you settled down on one idea, you would find your endeavours more fruitful.

Anyway, I do not really see the point of the proposal as it stands. It's legal to completely ban people from any vote whatsoever, yet if you allow anyone the right to vote, you have to extend it to everyone, even those whose mental incapacity renders them unable to exercise their competence in any other regard?

Well, I'm not going to sink in water having a rule violation stand like that. The proposal had two points previously, 1. to allow masses to vote in all member states, and 2. to ensure that universal suffrage.

Since you have proven the first to be illegal, why not, then just change to cover only the second?

As for saying that it is hubris to think I can solve problems so quickly - it's a matter of judgment so I can't really reply. I've seen people able to solve larger problems in shorter periods of time, and why can't it be possible?

Lastly, good point on the mental incapacity area. I might have to look into age of majority etc etc too.

And to reiterate: this is a draft. Things can change quickly as the situation commands. I don't see why it shouldn't be...?

[Gruenberg]

Well, I'm not going to sink in water having a rule violation stand like that. The proposal had two points previously, 1. to allow masses to vote in all member states, and 2. to ensure that universal suffrage.

Since you have proven the first to be illegal, why not, then just change to cover only the second?

OOC: I guess I just don't see the point. The CoCR covers discrimination, and requires equal treatment and protection for all inhabitants. There are undoubtedly some potentially worthy efforts to address the promotion of democracy, but this is just a piece of paper, really. Voters can still be harassed or intimidated or coerced, or prevented from voting altogether; except if there is a free suffrage, when it has to be universal? It seems so arbitrary.

There is even a case for it being actively harmful. A transitioning democracy that permits its landed gentry to vote has the potential to evolve into a democratic state in due course: suffrage is something that, when granted to even a minority, tends to spread. Such a nation might actually revoke all democratic elections rather than extend to them the masses in compliance with this.

[Elke and Elba]

Well, I'm not going to sink in water having a rule violation stand like that. The proposal had two points previously, 1. to allow masses to vote in all member states, and 2. to ensure that universal suffrage.

Since you have proven the first to be illegal, why not, then just change to cover only the second?

OOC: I guess I just don't see the point. The CoCR covers discrimination, and requires equal treatment and protection for all inhabitants. There are undoubtedly some potentially worthy efforts to address the promotion of democracy, but this is just a piece of paper, really. Voters can still be harassed or intimidated or coerced, or prevented from voting altogether; except if there is a free suffrage, when it has to be universal? It seems so arbitrary.

There is even a case for it being actively harmful. A transitioning democracy that permits its landed gentry to vote has the potential to evolve into a democratic state in due course: suffrage is something that, when granted to even a minority, tends to spread. Such a nation might actually revoke all democratic elections rather than extend to them the masses in compliance with this.

I'm not sure if I see your point.

CoCR fails to cover political rights - of which universal suffrage is one of them. I find your line of argument quite contradictory too - you tell me at first that it doesn't make sense to let people not in a sound mind to vote, and the next try to use CoCR to deflect this proposal which allows /everyone/ to vote. It's a point DOA, CoCR covers only civil rights IMHO.

Point 2: The fact you have brought up harrassment, intimidation etc etc, shows quite clearly you haven't read GA#130. Even if you aren't happy about GA#130 - fact remains there can be another resolution covering it, albeit mayhaps repeating what GA#130 proposes.

Point 3: You haven't explained how it is harmful.

[Gruenberg]

I'm not sure if I see your point.

CoCR fails to cover political rights - of which universal suffrage is one of them. I find your line of argument quite contradictory too - you tell me at first that it doesn't make sense to let people not in a sound mind to vote, and the next try to use CoCR to deflect this proposal which allows /everyone/ to vote. It's a point DOA, CoCR covers only civil rights IMHO.

OOC: Fair enough, I thought it was self-evident.

Let's say a country only permits men to vote. There might be a concern that they would pass laws oppressing women, and that therefore universal suffrage should be promoted to redress this. But, thanks The Charter of Civil Rights, there's really no need: such laws would be illegal. I agree that it only applies to civil rights, but it does prevent unequal suffrage from restricting civil rights.

My argument sees universal suffrage as a means to an end, of course, which it has to; if universal suffrage were the end itself, then this would be a non-starter because, as we've already discussed, the WA can't impose that because of its own internal self-restrictions (OOCly, the Ideological Ban rule, ICly, the self-determination provision of Rights & Duties...).

Point 2: The fact you have brought up harrassment, intimidation etc etc, shows quite clearly you haven't read GA#130. Even if you aren't happy about GA#130 - fact remains there can be another resolution covering it, albeit mayhaps repeating what GA#130 proposes.

The Elections and Assistance Act only applies to "transitioning democracies", which it defines as "nations transitioning from a non-democratic to a democratic form of government". It does nothing to address nations that already have a democractic form of government. Have you read it?

Point 3: You haven't explained how it is harmful.

...I just did.

There is even a case for it being actively harmful. A transitioning democracy that permits its landed gentry to vote has the potential to evolve into a democratic state in due course: suffrage is something that, when granted to even a minority, tends to spread. Such a nation might actually revoke all democratic elections rather than extend to them the masses in compliance with this.

Democratic reform is something that needs to be organic.

[Elke and Elba]

I'm not sure if I see your point.

CoCR fails to cover political rights - of which universal suffrage is one of them. I find your line of argument quite contradictory too - you tell me at first that it doesn't make sense to let people not in a sound mind to vote, and the next try to use CoCR to deflect this proposal which allows /everyone/ to vote. It's a point DOA, CoCR covers only civil rights IMHO.

OOC: Fair enough, I thought it was self-evident.

Let's say a country only permits men to vote. There might be a concern that they would pass laws oppressing women, and that therefore universal suffrage should be promoted to redress this. But, thanks The Charter of Civil Rights, there's really no need: such laws would be illegal. I agree that it only applies to civil rights, but it does prevent unequal suffrage from restricting civil rights.

My argument sees universal suffrage as a means to an end, of course, which it has to; if universal suffrage were the end itself, then this would be a non-starter because, as we've already discussed, the WA can't impose that because of its own internal self-restrictions (OOCly, the Ideological Ban rule, ICly, the self-determination provision of Rights & Duties...).

Point 2: The fact you have brought up harrassment, intimidation etc etc, shows quite clearly you haven't read GA#130. Even if you aren't happy about GA#130 - fact remains there can be another resolution covering it, albeit mayhaps repeating what GA#130 proposes.

The Elections and Assistance Act only applies to "transitioning democracies", which it defines as "nations transitioning from a non-democratic to a democratic form of government". It does nothing to address nations that already have a democractic form of government. Have you read it?

Point 3: You haven't explained how it is harmful.

...I just did.

There is even a case for it being actively harmful. A transitioning democracy that permits its landed gentry to vote has the potential to evolve into a democratic state in due course: suffrage is something that, when granted to even a minority, tends to spread. Such a nation might actually revoke all democratic elections rather than extend to them the masses in compliance with this.

Democratic reform is something that needs to be organic.

Point 1: I've been brought around in circles, and therefore I probably need more time to look into it. I'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't understand that at the moment.

Point 2: I did. GA#130 did itself in. While Section 4 demanded transitioning nations to have Sections 5, 6, 7 enforced by OEA - the fact it wasn't a sub-clause, opened Sections 5, 6 and 7 to many interpretations.

Sec. 5. The OEA must have access to voting locations without undue interference, to monitor possible fraud, voter intimidation, ballot tempering, and other unfair and fraudulent activities. The OEA shall make publicly available any all reports of the previous to the press and relevant institutions.

Sec. 6. The OEA must be allowed to either observe and monitor the tallying of votes or be a party therein.

Sec. 7. If the OEA serves in an observational capacity, OEA vote counts shall be nonbinding; however they should be conferred reasonable consideration in electoral disputes. If the OEA serves as a party in vote tallying, OEA vote counts shall be binding.

Indeed, one can assert that the three clauses are applicable to all member states even though it has stated explicitly that some sections are reserved for transitioning nations. Not to mention: there is no definition of transitioning nation (maybe sans the implied in the preambulatories). It's a matter of interpretation here.

Point 3: While possible, that is, indeed, a rather outlandish thought.

[Gruenberg]

Point 2: I did. GA#130 did itself in. While Section 4 demanded transitioning nations to have Sections 5, 6, 7 enforced by OEA - the fact it wasn't a sub-clause, opened Sections 5, 6 and 7 to many interpretations.

OOC: The OEA's mission is explicitly:

To assist nations transitioning from a non-democratic to a democratic form of government, hereinafter "transitioning nations,"

This is specified in its authorising article. The OEA could be tasked to help democractic nations - as in the proposal I linked - but it would need a separate resolution, as there is no grounds for that contained within the original resolution.

Indeed, one can assert that the three clauses are applicable to all member states even though it has stated explicitly that some sections are reserved for transitioning nations. Not to mention: there is no definition of transitioning nation (maybe sans the implied in the preambulatories). It's a matter of interpretation here.

You are wrong, on both counts. Transitioning nations are defined in III.1, the article which also, as stated above, specifically limits the OEA's mandate to such nations.

Point 3: While possible, that is, indeed, a rather outlandish thought.

I don't believe it's outlandish at all, but I suppose there's no objective way of settling that.

[Elke and Elba]

Point 2: I did. GA#130 did itself in. While Section 4 demanded transitioning nations to have Sections 5, 6, 7 enforced by OEA - the fact it wasn't a sub-clause, opened Sections 5, 6 and 7 to many interpretations.

OOC: The OEA's mission is explicitly:

To assist nations transitioning from a non-democratic to a democratic form of government, hereinafter "transitioning nations,"

This is specified in its authorising article. The OEA could be tasked to help democractic nations - as in the proposal I linked - but it would need a separate resolution, as there is no grounds for that contained within the original resolution.

Indeed, one can assert that the three clauses are applicable to all member states even though it has stated explicitly that some sections are reserved for transitioning nations. Not to mention: there is no definition of transitioning nation (maybe sans the implied in the preambulatories). It's a matter of interpretation here.

You are wrong, on both counts. Transitioning nations are defined in III.1, the article which also, as stated above, specifically limits the OEA's mandate to such nations.

Point 3: While possible, that is, indeed, a rather outlandish thought.

I don't believe it's outlandish at all, but I suppose there's no objective way of settling that.

OEA's potential has been fleshed out in GA#130. In essence, it starts by creating OEA for that purpose you have quoted, which I agree. However, the resolution goes to task OEA beyond that. This is seen in III.3

Sec. 3. As an advisory body, the OEA shall not have any binding authority on creating electoral systems, but shall strive to promote democratic principles, including universal suffrage and voting accessibility.

Are you insinuating, that the OEA only promotes democratic principles to transitioning countries...?

[Gruenberg]

Are you insinuating, that the OEA only promotes democratic principles to transitioning countries...?

OOC: No, I am not insinuating it. I am explicitly stating it to be the case.

"The OEA only affects transitioning nations." ~ Gruenberg, 2014 (c)

[Elke and Elba]

Are you insinuating, that the OEA only promotes democratic principles to transitioning countries...?

OOC: No, I am not insinuating it. I am explicitly stating it to be the case.

"The OEA only affects transitioning nations." ~ Gruenberg, 2014 (c)

This is getting off-topic for reasons I don't even remember.

Get back to topic.

[Hakio]

Category: Human Rights/(Significant or Strong)

I just realised Elections and Assistance Act didn't force universal suffrage!

ACKNOWLEDGING that the legitimacy of the government of each and every member state is determined by the will of all of its constituents citizens,

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that an acknowledgement of such will is largely only possible through elections - of which results are determined by the votes of all of its citizens,

The World Assembly,

MANDATES that all citizens of sound mind and attaining the minimum age of voting and are allowed to vote in elections, and;

CLARIFIES that,
1. nothing in this resolution forces member nations to hold elections where no elections are held,
2. nothing in this resolution disallows member nations to extend suffrage to citizens and inhabitants not covered under this resolution, and,
3. nothing in this resolution forcibly sets a minimum age of voting on member states, which are free to set one as member states deem fit.

Also, I've used the same definition as found in CoCR. It's borderlining on plaglarism (sadly), but I wish to ensure that people who get their rights in CoCR get theirs here too. I need advice though - preferably from long time dels and mods.

EDIT: YAY. NO ELECTIONS FORCED ON But wait - if you want to hold them, you have to let EVERYONE vote. A nice complement to GA#130.

Well, when I attempted to legalize LGBT adoption, it was brought up to me that CoCR already covers it. I think it may work the same for this. We appreciate your ethusiasm for drafting though.

[Bananaistan]

We note comments about dictatorships. In effect, the only member states which have non-democratic forms of government are those wherein the majority of the populace of the country are not dissatisfied enough to get up and change the system of government. There are so many freedoms guaranteed to an individual whose country is a member of this body; IE absence of torture, freedom of speech, freedom of association, equality of treatment based on race, gender, etc; that it would be impossible for any government, democratic or otherwise, to outlast any significant level of public opposition. Therefore, we must assume that the government of every single member state adequately represents the opinions of a majority of its populace on any given issue. Any government which does not, whether that government is democratically elected or not, would be toppled as the inhabitants of every country have significant enumerated rights under WA resolutions that give them the power to do so. So, any suggestion that any government is not adequately representing its citizens is highly insulting to us all.

We made the above comment a few weeks ago in a different debate. We don't understand how, on the one hand, mandating free and fair elections is a breach of the ideological ban rule as it forces, say, a totalitarian dictatorship to have elections, yet, on the other hand, forcing all these undemocratic states to respect people's freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to organise and withdraw labour, and so on, isn't a breach of the ideological ban rule? If there has been discussion of this "contradiction" in the past, I would be very grateful if someone could apprise us of its content.

[Separatist Peoples]

We note comments about dictatorships. In effect, the only member states which have non-democratic forms of government are those wherein the majority of the populace of the country are not dissatisfied enough to get up and change the system of government. There are so many freedoms guaranteed to an individual whose country is a member of this body; IE absence of torture, freedom of speech, freedom of association, equality of treatment based on race, gender, etc; that it would be impossible for any government, democratic or otherwise, to outlast any significant level of public opposition. Therefore, we must assume that the government of every single member state adequately represents the opinions of a majority of its populace on any given issue. Any government which does not, whether that government is democratically elected or not, would be toppled as the inhabitants of every country have significant enumerated rights under WA resolutions that give them the power to do so. So, any suggestion that any government is not adequately representing its citizens is highly insulting to us all.

We made the above comment a few weeks ago in a different debate. We don't understand how, on the one hand, mandating free and fair elections is a breach of the ideological ban rule as it forces, say, a totalitarian dictatorship to have elections, yet, on the other hand, forcing all these undemocratic states to respect people's freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to organise and withdraw labour, and so on, isn't a breach of the ideological ban rule? If there has been discussion of this "contradiction" in the past, I would be very grateful if someone could apprise us of its content.

"Not necessarily, ambassador. Its possible, I suppose, to have an open, free society that is presided over by a benevolent dictator or regent. For security, well-being, or even tradition's sake, many would tolerate such a figure. However, why is irrelevant. Since personal freedoms are not exclusive to political freedoms, there is no ideological ban."

[Elke and Elba]

To Hakio: I've mentioned above that Universal Suffrage is not covered in CoCR, as it is a political right and not a civil one. Arguing contrary to that would posit that voting is available to all - including the mentally incapable and the young.

[Elke and Elba]

BUMP!

This is probably connnntentious but yeah, I guess I've to persevere.

[Elke and Elba]

Submitted, at the peril of the Ambassador's life as the Ambassador from Sciongrad comes hacking with a knife.

[Bears Armed]

You're confusing the terms 'nationals' and 'citizens', either by assuming them to be synonymous (which is not necessarily the case, [OOC] even in RL) or by taking the latter term to have the former's meaning. Technically speaking "citizens" are those "nationals" who are (if old enough, and not ruled out on the grounds of mental incompetence) entitled to vote, so in fact all that this proposal effectively says is that "Everybody who is entitled to vote is entitled to vote", and it sets no limits at all on how member nations define -- or restrict -- citizenship.

[Linux and the X]

We offer some minor amendments.

ACKNOWLEDGING that the legitimacy of the government of each and every member state is determined by the will of all of its constituents citizens,

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that an acknowledgement of such will is largely only possible through elections - of which results are determined by the votes of all of its citizens,

The World Assembly,

MANDATES that all citizens are allowed to vote in elections held in their respective states provided that the said citizen has:
a) not been certified to be mentally incompetent to give any form of informed consent,
b) attained the minimum age of voting,
c) not been disenfranchised due to conviction of a criminal offence, and; No, no, and no.

CLARIFIES that,
a) nothing in this resolution forces member nations to hold elections where no elections are held,
b) nothing in this resolution disallows member nations to extend suffrage to citizens and inhabitants not covered under this resolution, and,
c) nothing in this resolution forcibly sets a minimum age of voting on member states, which are free to set one as the respective member states deem fit. Also no.

[Sciongrad]

Submitted, at the peril of the Ambassador's life as the Ambassador from Sciongrad comes hacking with a knife.

The charging octogenarian, who began to foam from the mouth before releasing a primal howl, was restrained by her deputy ambassador, Ricardo, and was admonished softly by him before he returned to his seat. Regaining her composure, the aged emissary began to speak. "While I'm confident that his Excellency ambassador Norrland of Elke and Elba has nothing but the most magnanimous and commendable of intentions, I am unsure as to how this is not already covered under GAR#35. The Charter of Civil Rights states, in relevant part, that 'all inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination...' Surely, permitting only land owning men (or any other such qualifier) to vote is a direct violation of this clause?"

"In the event this is deemed legal, aside from other issues which remain in the draft as currently written, I would strongly suggest you ignore everything suggest by his Excellency of Linux and the X."