Advertisement
by Bananaistan » Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:12 pm
by Divitaen » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:28 pm
by Bananaistan » Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:50 pm
Divitaen wrote:Wait I'm confused, so does this Resolution force nations to adopt national elections or international election standards?
by Bananaistan » Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:55 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:57 pm
by The Empire of Ebola » Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:42 am
by Bananaistan » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:36 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:19 pm
by Bananaistan » Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:47 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:"I think the rebranding is a mistake. I would, ironically, suspect it would lead to this being voted down amidst a hail of "national sovereignty!" cries. Making it clear this is safeguarding national sovereignty would make this more, not less, politically appealing.
"Given you only refer to the OEA once I don't think you actually need to provide the initialism. " Organization for Electoral Assistance (OEA)" is only needed where you subsequently refer to the "OEA", but you don't.
"We fear the Disabled Voters proposal will pass, so we think this is DOA, but should it fail we will enthusiastically support this."
~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern
by Hanalia » Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:14 pm
Bananaistan wrote:We are strongly opposed to this proposal, not because it would introduce any onerous provision of law on us, we already have checks and balances and constitutional and judicial protections in place to protect the freeness and fairness of our elections anyway, but because we refuse to allow totalitarian and non-democratic member states dictate to us who or how we allow people to vote. As a matter of principle we will vote against similar proposals detailing voting rights only applicable to us and our fellow democratic member states until the day that we can vote in favour of a proposal abolishing fascism and totalitarianism and thereby extending proposals like this and the abominable Elections and Assistance Act to all nations.
Also, gtfo with a WA committee to oversee our elections. Never would we agree to this. We already allow voluntary NGOs in (OOC let's say the NS equivalent of the likes of Jimmy Carter), we don't need any bloody civil servants as well.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:40 pm
Bananaistan wrote:2) Reserves to individual member states, within the requirements of existing international law, the power to create, implement, amend and repeal electoral laws, rules, regulations and guidelines regarding elections held within member states
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Karolingia » Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:45 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:48 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Bananaistan wrote:2) Reserves to individual member states, within the requirements of existing international law, the power to create, implement, amend and repeal electoral laws, rules, regulations and guidelines regarding elections held within member states
This would be illegal under the absolute blocker rule, which prohibits "closing off an entire area of WA legislation."
by Bananaistan » Fri Jan 23, 2015 3:05 pm
Hanalia wrote:I do wonder to the cause of the Ambassador's change of heart given his opposition to my own proposal along similar lines?
I do beieve this split may be good though for both pieces of legislation however I would have to discourage the Ambassador from putting forward this proposal with the clause which discourages further legislation on the democratic process included. I believe that not only should further legislation pass but also believe that it can be passed by this body in the future. The Ambassador can count on my support on this proposaln
Christian Democrats wrote:This would be illegal under the absolute blocker rule, which prohibits "closing off an entire area of WA legislation."
The GA Rules on the furtherment of democracy category say:[T]hese freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Political policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to grant more or less say in the operations of their government? Who makes the decisions? Whether or not you even get to vote on anything (or anyone) is a Political Freedoms issue. Total Political Freedoms represent something akin to pure democracies, where every single citizen has a direct vote in every single matter. Zero Political Freedoms means that the citizens (or subjects, or slaves) have no say in the operations of government whatsoever.
Karolingia wrote:This delegation is pleased to read a proposal that reinforces Karolingia's right to constantly reform its fledgling and oft-confused democracy in whatever ways its constituents desire at any given moment. As others have argued, any kind of stipulation regarding the democratic process should be handled internally by those nations taking part rather than being imposed by outside forces, whether those stipulations be additional regulations placed on the government or restrictions placed on the electorate. While it is unfortunate to know that this proposal will not supersede previous legislation on this matter, Karolingia fully supports the proposal's intent. One hopes that the Bananaistani delegation's argument regarding the continued legality of this proposal is upheld.
by The Empire of Ebola » Fri Jan 23, 2015 3:53 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:20 pm
The Empire of Ebola wrote:No.
I do not need nor want the WA giving me rubber stamp of approval on anything I do because of some scrap of paper.
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:30 pm
by Bananaistan » Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:39 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:The Empire of Ebola wrote:No.
I do not need nor want the WA giving me rubber stamp of approval on anything I do because of some scrap of paper.
"The way you ramble, I doubt any self-respecting author gives a damn what the Elbow Empire does.
"To the Bananamen, is this still being pursued, then, despite the voter's unfortunate shortsightedness on the topic? I wish you luck, especially if this-" Bell gestures with disgust at the Ebolan representative, "is the sort of misunderstanding you're likely to run into, I'm afraid."
The Dark Star Republic wrote:"Looking at the new title, it occurred to me: what about states interfering with other states' elections? This is already implicitly covered by Article 3 of Rights & Duties but given the other language in your proposal it arguably wouldn't be duplication. And it might help 'package' the proposal to avoid confusion about what its real aim is."
~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:06 am
Bananaistan wrote:We will consider this but are leaning against. Article 3 of Rights and Duties is qualified by "...subject to the immunities recognized by international law." We could establish a firm principle here. However, there could be issues around propaganda between hostile governments, EG if country A deliberately reems out a pile of propaganda against the government party in country B while firmly supporting the opposition in that country, is that interference? Is this already illegal under the unrequested intervention terminology in Rights and Duties?
by Bananaistan » Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:08 am
by Karolingia » Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:49 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:18 pm
Karolingia wrote:Perhaps something as simple as:
"Affirms the prohibition against unrequested interference of one nation in the political procedures of another, as stated in GAR #2..."
Would a citation such as this be struck down as duplication?
by Reich of Greater Germany » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:37 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:26 pm
Reich of Greater Germany wrote:My biggest concern here is, is this piece of legislation necessary? Is it really going to better the situation?
I have doubts it will.
Currently, Against.
by Bananaistan » Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:58 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement