[DRAFT] Free and Fair Elections

[Hanalia]

"Some of you may recall the previous version of this draft in its previous iteration however after a few minor edits I have decided to reintroduce this legislation for debate with intention of submitting it again. I wish also to draw your attention to GAR # 130: Elections and Assistance Act the powers of which this resolution would extend."

---

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL

Free and Fair Elections
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

---

Proposed by: Hanalia

Category: Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Significant

---

Description: The General Assembly,

CLARIFIES that this resolution shall apply only to member nations which have democratic processes and does not require any member nation to establish them;

RECALLS the previous work of this Assembly in aiding the establishment of a democratic process in member nations during a period of transition;

NOTING the unique position of this Assembly, as an international organization independent of national governments and other political institutions, to be able to monitor and validate the electoral processes within member nations impartially,

DEFINES a free and fair election as a public vote by secret ballot to select individuals for public office the outcome of which is conclusive and binding, where voters have unhindered access to voting methods and have not been coerced into their vote, and of which the results are made accessible to the public;

ALLOWS for a voter to be denied their vote if there is evidence to suggest their intention to defraud the electoral process;

UNDERSTANDING the integral role of free and fair elections in a democratic society, the results of which must be valid, as a true representation of the voters viewpoint,

MANDATES that all elections in member nations are free and fair in nature;

EXPANDS the mandate of the Organization for Electoral Assistance, henceforth the OEA, to cover the following:

1. The OEA shall compile and make available a "Code of Best Practice for the Organization and Implementation of Elections" so that member nations may review their own electoral process in relation to this international standard.
   
2. The OEA shall send a delegation of OEA representatives to observe and report on the electoral process, where one is established, in member nations
   -at least once every ten years, or
   -every other election cycle if the time between elections exceeds five years, or
   -at the request of a member nation.
   
3. During the observation the subject nation may request that the OEA delegation focuses on one or more particular aspects of the election or the electoral process. The OEA delegation shall then compile a report on its findings, including, where appropriate, comments on the following:
   -issues to be addressed as requested by the subject nation, or
   -recommendations for improvement, or
   -commendation on successes, or
   -validity of the result, or
   -extent of any fraud or vote rigging, or
   -overall condition of the electoral process;

INSTRUCTS member nations to allow full and transparent access to all areas of the electoral process to an OEA delegation to ensure its findings are accurate;

REQUIRES public availability and accessibility to the report made by an OEA delegation, including access to the press;

RECOMMENDS that member nations take appropriate action, should an election be deemed to not be free and fair by an OEA delegation's report, this may require a rerun of the election.

PREVIOUS DRAFTS

---

DRAFT GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL

Free and Fair Elections
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

---

Proposed by: Hanalia

Category: Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Significant

---

Description: The General Assembly,

RECALLING the previous work and resolutions of this Assembly, and its institutions, in aiding the establishment of a democratic process in member nations when transitioning to democracy,

CLARIFIES that this resolution applies only to member nations which hold elections and does not require any member nation to institute a democratic process in their nation;

DEFINES an election, for the purposes of this resolution, as a public vote to select an individual for public office the outcome of which is conclusive and binding;

RECOGNIZING the integral role that elections play in the functioning of a truly democratic society,

BELIEVING that provisions should be made for member nations to validate the result of elections in their nation to ensure the election's transparency and that the best provision for this can be supplied through an independent body ensuring impartiality from national governments and other political institutions,

FURTHER NOTING the unique position of the World Assembly, as an international organization, to provide this impartial viewpoint on elections in member nations,

UNDERSTANDING that an election is of little consequence if it is not free and fair in nature or a true representation of electors’ viewpoints,

DEFINES a free and fair election is an election by secret ballot, where the voters have unhindered access to voting methods and not been coerced into their vote, and of which the results are made accessible to the public. This ensures individuals votes are not involuntarily disclosed and allows for scrutiny of the result by voters and the public;

MANDATES that all elections in member nations are free and fair in nature;

EXPANDS the mandate of the Organization for Electoral Assistance, henceforth the OEA, to cover the following:

1. The OEA shall compile a "Code of Best Practice for the Organization and Implementation of Elections" so that member nations may review their own electoral process in relation to this international standard.
   
2. The OEA shall send a delegation of OEA representatives to observe and report on the electoral process, where one is established, in member nations
   -at least once every ten years, or
   -every other election cycle if the time between elections exceeds five years, or
   -at the request of a member nation.
   
3. During the observation the subject nation may request that the OEA delegation focuses on one or more particular aspects of the election or the electoral process. The OEA delegation shall then compile a report on its findings, including, where appropriate, comments on the following:
   -issues to be addressed as requested by the subject nation, or
   -recommendations for improvement, or
   -commendation on successes, or
   -validity of the result, or
   -extent of any fraud or vote rigging, or
   -overall condition of the electoral process.

INSTRUCTS member nations to allow full and transparent access to all areas of the electoral process to an OEA delegation to ensure its findings are accurate;

REQUIRES public availability and accessibility to the report made by an OEA delegation, including access to the press;

RECOMMENDS that member nations take appropriate action, should an election be deemed to not be free and fair by an OEA delegation's report, this may require a rerun of the election.

Located here

[The Dark Star Republic]

"My predecessor in office was supportive of this effort, and we remain generally supportive, but we still oppose the elimination of non-secret ballots. There are non-traditional democracies in the WA, such as direct democracies, which may not have a secret ballot tradition. Requiring secret ballots is too particular to one specific kind of democratic action."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

[Hakio]

"I support this legislation, though it does seem a bit bloated to me," Sia states while smoking from a bong. "Perhaps you could shorten some of the nonoperative clauses and add some together to make it a bit shorter and more... streamlined. You know, like a fish."

[Normlpeople]

Clover spoke up after reading this draft "I vaguely remember the previous one, it was around the time I was first assigned to this assembly. Ahh, memories. As to the draft, I have two concerns. I will start with the usual disclaimer that we are not democratic, and as such, would not be affected by this. The first concern, would requirements of producing identification/proof of citizenship, and the denial of the vote based on the inability to produce it, fall afoul of 'unhindered access'?

The second concern is where the OEA is permitted access to all aspects of an election, this could read as having access to the individual voters, thus jeopardizing a secret ballot. Perhaps this could be altered?"

OOC: Is it under character count?

[Hanalia]

"make it a bit shorter and more... streamlined. You know, like a fish."

OOC: Is it under character count?

"Making it more "streamlined" and "fish-like" is certainly my intention as it is heading towards the upper length limit.

"would requirements of producing identification/proof of citizenship, and the denial of the vote based on the inability to produce it, fall afoul of 'unhindered access'?

"This is a valid concern and something worth working into the resolution, initial thoughts would be to add a phrase along the lines of "unhindered access beyond any necessary steps to prevent fraudulent activity", however this raises an important point about voter identity. An operative clause could be added making sure voters identity be proven before casting a vote and governmental provision to carry out background checks and issue identity free at the point of use to citizens with no other form of ID."

The second concern is where the OEA is permitted access to all aspects of an election, this could read as having access to the individual voters, thus jeopardizing a secret ballot. Perhaps this could be altered?"

I understand your point of view, however a secret ballot implies that only the individual knows how they have voted. If an OEA delegation were to observe this the ballot is no longer secret and thus the election would not constitute a free and fair election causing "appropriate action" to be taken which would be next time not having the OEA delegation observe the individual voters. I hope that makes sense.

"oppose the elimination of non-secret ballots. There are non-traditional democracies in the WA, such as direct democracies, which may not have a secret ballot tradition."

You continued support is much appreciated, as to your concerns this resolution would have no effect on direct democracies due to the definition of an election as selection process for public office. This is only a continuation of the precedence set by GAR #130 which requires a secret ballot in the same circumstances.

[Hanalia]

New draft in OP and spoiler below

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL

Free and Fair Elections
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

---

Proposed by: Hanalia

Category: Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Significant

---

Description: The General Assembly,

CLARIFIES that this resolution shall apply only to member nations which have democratic processes and does not require any member nation to establish them;

RECALLS the previous work of this Assembly in aiding the establishment of a democratic process in member nations during a period of transition;

NOTING the unique position of this Assembly, as an international organization independent of national governments and other political institutions, to be able to monitor and validate the electoral processes within member nations impartially,

DEFINES a free and fair election as a public vote by secret ballot to select individuals for public office the outcome of which is conclusive and binding, where voters have unhindered access to voting methods and have not been coerced into their vote, and of which the results are made accessible to the public,

ALLOWS for a voter to be denied their vote if there is evidence to suggest their intention to defraud the electoral process,

UNDERSTANDING the integral role of free and fair elections in a democratic society, the results of which must be valid, as a true representation of the voters viewpoint,

MANDATES that all elections in member nations are free and fair in nature;

EXPANDS the mandate of the Organization for Electoral Assistance, henceforth the OEA, to cover the following:

1. The OEA shall compile and make available a "Code of Best Practice for the Organization and Implementation of Elections" so that member nations may review their own electoral process in relation to this international standard.
   
2. The OEA shall send a delegation of OEA representatives to observe and report on the electoral process, where one is established, in member nations
   -at least once every ten years, or
   -every other election cycle if the time between elections exceeds five years, or
   -at the request of a member nation.
   
3. During the observation the subject nation may request that the OEA delegation focuses on one or more particular aspects of the election or the electoral process. The OEA delegation shall then compile a report on its findings, including, where appropriate, comments on the following:
   -issues to be addressed as requested by the subject nation, or
   -recommendations for improvement, or
   -commendation on successes, or
   -validity of the result, or
   -extent of any fraud or vote rigging, or
   -overall condition of the electoral process.

INSTRUCTS member nations to allow full and transparent access to all areas of the electoral process to an OEA delegation to ensure its findings are accurate;

REQUIRES public availability and accessibility to the report made by an OEA delegation, including access to the press;

RECOMMENDS that member nations take appropriate action, should an election be deemed to not be free and fair by an OEA delegation's report, this may require a rerun of the election.

[Jarish Inyo]

I can not support this. Even for the WA this is more then micromanagement. Nations shouldn't have to conform to an international standard or have international watchdogs overseeing their elections.

[Hakio]

I can not support this. Even for the WA this is more then micromanagement. Nations shouldn't have to conform to an international standard or have international watchdogs overseeing their elections.

"So your objection basically boils down to a NatSov argument then?" Sia asks raising her eyebrow inquisitively, doubting the legitimacy of such an argument.

[Bananaistan]

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.

[Yukonastan]

Don't get me wrong, it looks like a good draft and a good idea.

However, sovereignty comes into question, especially with all the nondemocratic member states of the WA.
Why should a particular dictatorship hold fair and unbiased elections if there's going to be a 147% voter turnout anyway?
Fake edit: I only now saw the clause only requiring democratic nations to follow this.

UNDERSTANDING the integral role of free and fair elections in a democratic society, the results of which must be valid, as a true representation of the voters viewpoint,

MANDATES that all elections in member nations are free and fair in nature;

Who says I'm not really giving people the choice of voting for me or against my opponent? It'd still be a fair vote, I'm not coercing anyone to vote FOR me... I'm not falsifying elections with 147% voter turnout. I'm still going to win, even if I entirely follow this proposal's rules.

It's really hard to implement, is what I'm sayong

I personally will be voting FOR it, however, but I don't see this ever getting passed, that's IF it gets to a vote. Simply because of how it intrudes on sovereignty.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Totally and completely opposed. Whether or not it is actually a violation of category/strength the resolution doesn't really do anything but makes a committee that makes recommendations. I am not sure how yet another useless report by yet another useless committee is going to further anything, even if everyone was made aware of it. I am not sure how this actually helps either the nations in question or the people of the nations in question. Generally speaking, when there are un-free and no-fair elections, the people already realize this. Having the WA tell them what they already know doesn't help.

[Hakio]

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.

"What? Do you expect the international community to just take your word for it?" Sia asks laughing a little at the absurd overreaction she has just witnessed. " For all we know your elections could be entirely rigged, but wait! We can't allow any legislation to oversee elections because the World Assembly is apparently contributed by 'totalitarian and and nondemocratic' member states!"

[Bananaistan]

"What? Do you expect the international community to just take your word for it?" Sia asks laughing a little at the absurd overreaction she has just witnessed. " For all we know your elections could be entirely rigged, but wait! We can't allow any legislation to oversee elections because the World Assembly is apparently contributed by 'totalitarian and and nondemocratic' member states!"

We don't particularly care if the international community believes us or not, but we would be more than willing to accept a team of observers from Hakio, if your government wishes to send them (or a team from any other nation should they unilaterally wish to observe our elections).

Leaving that aside, the point is that any and all WA legislation affecting elections are only actionable on democratic nations anyway, which is seriously a serious flaw in the rulings of the secretariat*. Yet all the dictatorships get to vote and contribute in the debates. We simply cannot accept being told to have free and fair elections by leaders of nations which have never had a democratic election.

*OOC: I don't understand this carry on at all really. That other elections act is legal because it only affects democratic nations and, snigger, you can't have optional resolutions. Yet, there's nothing stopping anyone from exercising the option of abolishing elections to avoid compliance with that act. Yeah, that's not optional at all and is a great example of joined up thinking.

[The Dark Star Republic]

We don't particularly care if the international community believes us or not

"You should do. Functional democracy correlates to political stability. Proving that a nation can hold fair, free elections absent from corruption makes that nation a more attractive target for foreign nations in diplomatic ventures, trade relations, even military partnerships. That, perhaps, is the value of this? A kind of certification process: getting a WA-approved stamp of electoral best practice."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

*OOC: I don't understand this carry on at all really. That other elections act is legal because it only affects democratic nations and, snigger, you can't have optional resolutions. Yet, there's nothing stopping anyone from exercising the option of abolishing elections to avoid compliance with that act. Yeah, that's not optional at all and is a great example of joined up thinking.

OOC: But that's exactly how the Optionality rule works. A game-mechanics literal interpretation of it makes no sense. A resolution about nuclear weapons only applies to nations with nuclear weapons, yet it's not considered optional. Same goes for nations with elections. An excessively literal interpretation of the "all resolutions must apply equally to all nations" rule would make virtually all legislation impossible. A resolution to legalise abortion would have no impact on our nation, because abortion is already legal, but would have a huge impact on a nation where it was illegal.

I guess the only way to think about it is that it means a resolution has to be able to apply to all nations. So if all nations had nuclear weapons, a resolution about nuclear weapons would apply to all of them. And in this case, if all nations had elections, then this would apply to all of them. But taking the Optionality rule at face value just doesn't work.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Since the OEA's role is limited to "observe and report" and to make recommendations based on its reporting; and since the definition of a "free and fair election" actually seems to reflect ordinary and accurate meanings of "free," "fair," and "election;" we don't see an issue with permitting the World Assembly, even though it is indeed a body organized and funded partly by ludicrous and godawful dictatorships, to observe and report on our elections in the ways described in this draft.

Should the ideological influence of such dictatorships somehow find its way into the OEA's slate of recommendations, or its Code of Best Practice, well, as long as our elections comply with the "free and fair" standard defined in this resolution, we would remain just as free (and indeed, probably at least as inclined) to wipe our asses with the Code as the Bananamen would. We won't need to rerun any of our elections. And we are not worried about the creep of antidemocratic tendencies into democratic societies through electoral recommendations; we are fully capable of simply ignoring any "recommendations" that would reduce the freedom, fairness, strength, or objectivity of our elections.

Then as to the observations themselves, the burden this resolution would place on even the busiest Lyrical electoral workers and polling places is minor to trivial.

Therefore we support this resolution for the increased assistance it would render to governments that think (or want to think) that they're trying to instill democracy in their citizenry, but may still have a thing or two to learn about stemming public corruption and the like.


All that said, the Hanalian Ambassador may wish to have another look at Expanded Mandate #3: the presence of all those instances of the word "or" might be contrued as limiting the OEA report to one small area; even if that isn't held to be the case in a legal challenge, it's still pretty awkward stylistically. "Where appropriate" covers the cases where not all of those topics are required; you can therefore just drop each "or" entirely and not harm or weaken the mandate in any way.

Also, it should be made explicit in the RECOMMENDS clause that compliance with the OEA report may require the election to be rerun; but no external government, power, WA agency, or gross malfeasance of reading comprehension may compel it to be rerun except on the authority of the subject nation itself.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I wasn't aware that the WA was so interested in elections within private organizations. Shall Boy Scout troops have to comply when electing patrol leaders, then? You define free and fair elections, and then neglect to use it in your Mandates clause, which doesn't specify what kind of elections this focuses on. Since I doubt anybody will support a measure that requires nation oversight of Student Council elections, I'd say that needs addressing.

"Though I'm hardly in as strong an opposition to this as the Bananaistanian delegation, I share their amusement. This doesn't ensure that the results of an election are acted upon. Leaders could simply stage a vote and toss the results in the bin. Pursuing free and fair democratic systems in an Assembly incapable of enshrining democratic systems of any kind seems...well, futile. It's no reason not to try, but there's a black humor to it, I suppose."

[Bananaistan]

We don't particularly care if the international community believes us or not

"You should do. Functional democracy correlates to political stability. Proving that a nation can hold fair, free elections absent from corruption makes that nation a more attractive target for foreign nations in diplomatic ventures, trade relations, even military partnerships. That, perhaps, is the value of this? A kind of certification process: getting a WA-approved stamp of electoral best practice."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

That would be reasonable Vice-Colonel Bilgewater, and perhaps in my fit of pique, I understated the government's opinion of how we view other's opinions of our elections *(Theodorus valiantly tries to hide his reddened wrist underneath his jacket sleeve. The President hadn't taken kindly to his previous outburst. He still shudders, thinking of the verbal lashing he received).

OOC: Thanks for that reasonable opinion on the optionality rule.

However, we still won't accept an association telling us that our elections must be free and fair when that association harbours some of the least democratic and most authoritarian regimes in existence.

Regarding your point about setting up a certification process. This would seem to us to be a reasonable proposition, once it would omit mandating free and fair elections. In fact, a proposal containing such a certification process could be excellent blocking legislation on this topic, IE set up a committee to look at the elections, any member nation holding elections should let them in, they issue a report which doesn’t have to be acted on, and the decision as to whether or not to hold elections, what form those elections might take or to implement the recommendations of the committee are left to the nation’s government. Perhaps merely urging member states to hold free and fair elections for public office would be a sufficient requirement in a mild strength resolution?

Ofc we don’t wish to hijack the proposer’s debate, the above is only a suggestion and if the proposer is not in favour, I might very well introduce said blocking legislation myself.

A very fair point has been posited by Ambassador Bell. The proposal as currently stated applies to all elections of any kind, not just those to public office. We doubt that this is the intention of the proposing delegation yet it is a trap that this type of proposal often falls into.

Btw Ambassador Bell, the demonym is “Bananamen”.

[Hanalia]

OOC: This perhaps shall be quite lengthy though I do wish to address each of your concerns individually and seek clarification on some points raised also I will make some stylistic edits to the proposal. Also written previous to the immediately preceding Bananaistan comment and it will be included when I next have time to address any more concerns

I can not support this. Even for the WA this is more then micromanagement. Nations shouldn't have to conform to an international standard or have international watchdogs overseeing their elections.

"As has already been pointed out by the Honourable Ambassador of Hakio this essentially amounts to a National Soverereignty opinion and from my point of view does not amount to a substantial case against this proposal going before the wider Assembly for their decision on the matter. From a brief, and far from in-depth, inquiry as to your view on other matters of this Assembly I can see that you take a NatSov stance with relative frequency and question whether I, in your shoes, would wish to continue as a member of the WA.W (OOC: Striking statement, I know, however this is Ms Bell's IC view on NatSov nations)

"So your objection basically boils down to a NatSov argument then?" Sia asks raising her eyebrow inquisitively, doubting the legitimacy of such an argument.

"Ms Hedishi, your continued support is very much appreciated."

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.

"What? Do you expect the international community to just take your word for it?" Sia asks laughing a little at the absurd overreaction she has just witnessed. " For all we know your elections could be entirely rigged, but wait! We can't allow any legislation to oversee elections because the World Assembly is apparently contributed by 'totalitarian and and nondemocratic' member states!"

We don't particularly care if the international community believes us or not, but we would be more than willing to accept a team of observers from Hakio, if your government wishes to send them (or a team from any other nation should they unilaterally wish to observe our elections).

Leaving that aside, the point is that any and all WA legislation affecting elections are only actionable on democratic nations anyway, which is seriously a serious flaw in the rulings of the secretariat*. Yet all the dictatorships get to vote and contribute in the debates. We simply cannot accept being told to have free and fair elections by leaders of nations which have never had a democratic election.

*OOC: I don't understand this carry on at all really. That other elections act is legal because it only affects democratic nations and, snigger, you can't have optional resolutions. Yet, there's nothing stopping anyone from exercising the option of abolishing elections to avoid compliance with that act. Yeah, that's not optional at all and is a great example of joined up thinking.

"Ambassador Hornwood while I believe you when you say Bananaistan already has a free and fair electoral process, your view that this resolution would impose the views of non-democratic member nations is preposterous. Firstly nothing in this resolution conforms with a dictatorial point of view and you claim that it will "dictate to us who or how we allow people to vote" therefore no "totalitarian and non-democratic" nation is imposing anything on you."

"Secondly the reason we cannot vote on a proposal "abolishing fascism and totalitarianism" is the same reason that this proposal only extends to democratic nations such as our own, if this mandated elections in all member states it would constitute an ideological ban. While it is my own belief that it is only right to allow citizens a say in their governing banning totalitarianism and other non-democratic systems is disallowed by this Assembly. I hope that you will eventually agree with me and support this resolution in an attempt to improve the already existing democracies out there and getting rid of any false democratic front to oppressive regimes."

"Honourable Ambassador may also inquire your reasons for openness to NGOs and individual national governments, such as Hakio or "a team from any other nation" sending observers to your elections and opposition to WA observers. I wish to note at this point committees of the WA, such as the OEA, are not staffed by representatives of member nations but by the "mystical WA gnomes (OOC: see section on committees) and as such no member of a dictatorship will be present at your election."

"And finally while we do appreciate the certain degree of optionality that this proposal constitutes with regard to nations without a democratic process, as you have mentioned, this has been ruled as appropriate in previous circumstances by the secretariat as well as in a previous iteration of [/url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=257319&sid=e83c47b7cf17c41355290fd998c15b01#p16097393]this proposal[/url]. As outlined in that argument about trade provisions, I suggest that GAR #257 Reducing Automobile Emissions could be considered optional under the argument that all automobiles could be banned to avoid the provisions of this resolution." (OOC: admittedly this would have a similar effect as intended by the resolution but the argument still stands)

Don't get me wrong, it looks like a good draft and a good idea.

However, sovereignty comes into question, especially with all the nondemocratic member states of the WA.
Why should a particular dictatorship hold fair and unbiased elections if there's going to be a 147% voter turnout anyway?
Fake edit: I only now saw the clause only requiring democratic nations to follow this.

UNDERSTANDING the integral role of free and fair elections in a democratic society, the results of which must be valid, as a true representation of the voters viewpoint,

MANDATES that all elections in member nations are free and fair in nature;

Who says I'm not really giving people the choice of voting for me or against my opponent? It'd still be a fair vote, I'm not coercing anyone to vote FOR me... I'm not falsifying elections with 147% voter turnout. I'm still going to win, even if I entirely follow this proposal's rules.

It's really hard to implement, is what I'm sayong

I personally will be voting FOR it, however, but I don't see this ever getting passed, that's IF it gets to a vote. Simply because of how it intrudes on sovereignty.

"I think this may be partly due to some misunderstanding on my behalf however they way I see it this argument is based upon the assumption that this proposal will require non-democratic nations to become democratic. I wish to reiterate that this is not the case. The clause clarifying this point originally was at the very end however I have since moved it to be more prominent within the proposal."

"As for options of "for me or against my opponent" and a turnout of greater than 100% would be considered fraud and as such would be highlighted in the details of an OEA report and recommendation for improvements would be made to eliminate this from the election. If present in an election I believe that they fall afoul of the meaning of 'fair' despite not contradicting the terms of this proposal and perhaps this is something to think about when looking at the definition again by adding something along the lines of one ballot per person, thus allowing for systems where more than one 'vote' may be cast but each person gets only one ballot."

"If I have misunderstood your argument please do correct me, however your support even without your optimism is much appreciated."

Totally and completely opposed. Whether or not it is actually a violation of category/strength the resolution doesn't really do anything but makes a committee that makes recommendations. I am not sure how yet another useless report by yet another useless committee is going to further anything, even if everyone was made aware of it. I am not sure how this actually helps either the nations in question or the people of the nations in question. Generally speaking, when there are un-free and no-fair elections, the people already realize this. Having the WA tell them what they already know doesn't help.

"My dear Ambassador what makes you believe that this has some category or strength violations? I have considered that if much more is required of nations a Strong category may be required however in its current state I believe Significant to be, well, quite significant."

"May I draw your attention to arguably the only active clause of the whole resolution which begins with MANDATES. This in itself is a huge step for this Assembly in my opinion and warrants the current strength."

"The other clauses, while yes only furthering the mandate of a committee, also have huge implications on member nations by requiring them to open their electoral process to outside observers. In many cases the report may be "useless" as it is my belief that the vast majority of democratic nations already preform to a high standard there will be many marginal cases where the report will contain vital information on improving the democratic process for the citizens in such nations. These marginal cases where elements of the democratic process are "un-free and no-fair" are why this proposal is a vital piece of legislation despite the people realizing this they may not have a vehicle to improve the situation which is what this resolution aims to do."

We don't particularly care if the international community believes us or not

"You should do. Functional democracy correlates to political stability. Proving that a nation can hold fair, free elections absent from corruption makes that nation a more attractive target for foreign nations in diplomatic ventures, trade relations, even military partnerships. That, perhaps, is the value of this? A kind of certification process: getting a WA-approved stamp of electoral best practice."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

"Vice-Colonel you are quite right with the points you make, I guess those are a spin-off of the main reasons for this proposal as helping nations with difficulty in their electoral processes. I wish to thank you in your support as well as that of your predecessor who greatly assisted in the drafting process before the previous submission."

Since the OEA's role is limited to "observe and report" and to make recommendations based on its reporting; and since the definition of a "free and fair election" actually seems to reflect ordinary and accurate meanings of "free," "fair," and "election;" we don't see an issue with permitting the World Assembly, even though it is indeed a body organized and funded partly by ludicrous and godawful dictatorships, to observe and report on our elections in the ways described in this draft.

Should the ideological influence of such dictatorships somehow find its way into the OEA's slate of recommendations, or its Code of Best Practice, well, as long as our elections comply with the "free and fair" standard defined in this resolution, we would remain just as free (and indeed, probably at least as inclined) to wipe our asses with the Code as the Bananamen would. We won't need to rerun any of our elections. And we are not worried about the creep of antidemocratic tendencies into democratic societies through electoral recommendations; we are fully capable of simply ignoring any "recommendations" that would reduce the freedom, fairness, strength, or objectivity of our elections.

Then as to the observations themselves, the burden this resolution would place on even the busiest Lyrical electoral workers and polling places is minor to trivial.

Therefore we support this resolution for the increased assistance it would render to governments that think (or want to think) that they're trying to instill democracy in their citizenry, but may still have a thing or two to learn about stemming public corruption and the like.


All that said, the Hanalian Ambassador may wish to have another look at Expanded Mandate #3: the presence of all those instances of the word "or" might be contrued as limiting the OEA report to one small area; even if that isn't held to be the case in a legal challenge, it's still pretty awkward stylistically. "Where appropriate" covers the cases where not all of those topics are required; you can therefore just drop each "or" entirely and not harm or weaken the mandate in any way.

Also, it should be made explicit in the RECOMMENDS clause that compliance with the OEA report may require the election to be rerun; but no external government, power, WA agency, or gross malfeasance of reading comprehension may compel it to be rerun except on the authority of the subject nation itself.

"Your somewhat negative reaction to this proposal cannot be taken as unexpected as Sierra Lyricalia position as one of the majority of democratic nations of this Assembly to which this resolution has little or effect beyond the "minimal to trivial" nuisance whcih accommodation an OEA delegation will have."

"That said, you appear to appreciate the need for this resolution in the marginal cases it was designed to combat and for that I can only be very grateful. You do raise valid points with regard to the what maybe an excessive use of the word or and also to instill clarity as to the recommendations not being requirements."

"I wasn't aware that the WA was so interested in elections within private organizations. Shall Boy Scout troops have to comply when electing patrol leaders, then? You define free and fair elections, and then neglect to use it in your Mandates clause, which doesn't specify what kind of elections this focuses on. Since I doubt anybody will support a measure that requires nation oversight of Student Council elections, I'd say that needs addressing.

"Though I'm hardly in as strong an opposition to this as the Bananaistanian delegation, I share their amusement. This doesn't ensure that the results of an election are acted upon. Leaders could simply stage a vote and toss the results in the bin. Pursuing free and fair democratic systems in an Assembly incapable of enshrining democratic systems of any kind seems...well, futile. It's no reason not to try, but there's a black humor to it, I suppose."

"Ambassador Bell, an by this resolution an election may not be held in a member nation and the results merely tossed in the bin as, by this proposal, any election must be "conclusive and binding". Perhaps this confusion arises out of your lack of clarity with the MANDATES clause, in its current form it does requires elections to be free and fair in nature however to eliminate this uncertainty a better way of wording it would be "MANDATES that all elections in member nations are free and fair elections" with the possible addition of "according to this resolution;".

"As for your legitimate concern regarding elections in non-governmental bodies I would think that replacing the term "public office" in the definition with "national or sub-national governmental office" would suffice. I hope that these alterations may sway you into supporting this proposal."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador Bell...[snip] "As for your legitimate concern regarding elections in non-governmental bodies I would think that replacing the term "public office" in the definition with "national or sub-national governmental office" would suffice. I hope that these alterations may sway you into supporting this proposal."

On the contrary, Ambassador: upon further review, we find the CDSP's concerns about overreach compelling. The culprit is precisely the sentence beginning "MANDATES..." It doesn't say "MANDATES that all elections for public office are free and fair;" it doesn't MANDATE that all elections for national or subnational governmental office are free and fair; and it won't do either of those things even if you make the definition up above even plainer than it already is. As written, the draft MANDATES that all elections, from General Secretary of the Rickey Rat Fan Club, West Podunk Chapter, to Midprovince Office Supply 3rd Floor Party Planning Committee Assistant Treasurer, to Get Rid Of Slimy girlS (G.R.O.S.S.) Under-7 Team's Water Balloon and Squirt Gun Quartermaster, are all now going to be the business of the World Assembly. The definition is fine, as "public office" is pretty self explanatory and entirely within the realm of Expansion of Democracy - it's the mandate that is the issue.

Sorry if that was a little overboard, I got carried away by the spirit of the thing. No hard feelings

[Jarish Inyo]

Yes, I argue national sovereignty when there are proposals are made that are not of international concern.

So, how is this an actual international issue? Why should the WA send in 'observes' ehen none is requested? Why should the WA tell governments how to run their elections? Why shall the WA soend funds producing reports that next to no one is going to read?

[Normlpeople]

"Ambassador Bell...[snip] "As for your legitimate concern regarding elections in non-governmental bodies I would think that replacing the term "public office" in the definition with "national or sub-national governmental office" would suffice. I hope that these alterations may sway you into supporting this proposal."

On the contrary, Ambassador: upon further review, we find the CDSP's concerns about overreach compelling. The culprit is precisely the sentence beginning "MANDATES..." It doesn't say "MANDATES that all elections for public office are free and fair;" it doesn't MANDATE that all elections for national or subnational governmental office are free and fair; and it won't do either of those things even if you make the definition up above even plainer than it already is. As written, the draft MANDATES that all elections, from General Secretary of the Rickey Rat Fan Club, West Podunk Chapter, to Midprovince Office Supply 3rd Floor Party Planning Committee Assistant Treasurer, to Get Rid Of Slimy girlS (G.R.O.S.S.) Under-7 Team's Water Balloon and Squirt Gun Quartermaster, are all now going to be the business of the World Assembly. The definition is fine, as "public office" is pretty self explanatory and entirely within the realm of Expansion of Democracy - it's the mandate that is the issue.

Sorry if that was a little overboard, I got carried away by the spirit of the thing. No hard feelings

OOC: I missed that... But SP didn't. He was more amusing than I would be anyway.

IC: "Re-reading this, what is to stop us from declaring a democracy" Clover visibly blanched in disgust at the thought of this "And simply running a 'free and fair' election with a single candidate on the ballot? Now that I think of it, would mandatory voting, which exists in many democracies, be considered coercing voters? Heck, combining the two could be interesting, as the OEA would certify the victory of a dictator that receives %100 of the vote every election...."

[BattleWorld]

I don't like this, I prefer the more oppressive mindset.

[Infinite Freedom]

Very good, I like it.

[Hakio]

Yes, I argue national sovereignty when there are proposals are made that are not of international concern.

So, how is this an actual international issue? Why should the WA send in 'observes' ehen none is requested? Why should the WA tell governments how to run their elections? Why shall the WA soend funds producing reports that next to no one is going to read?

"So basically, 'Fuck all you other countries civilians as long as it doesn't affect me.' then?"

[Separatist Peoples]

Yes, I argue national sovereignty when there are proposals are made that are not of international concern.

So, how is this an actual international issue? Why should the WA send in 'observes' ehen none is requested? Why should the WA tell governments how to run their elections? Why shall the WA soend funds producing reports that next to no one is going to read?

"So basically, 'Fuck all you other countries civilians as long as it doesn't affect me.' then?"

"Apropos of nothing whatsoever, it's a similar position the C.D.S.P. often takes: our citizens are the priority, and their concerns will always come before the others' needs, even in representation within the WA. That is not really the point I believe the Jaresh Inyo delegation is making, though. I can see the offense Ambassador Nameless is reacting to. Implying we need WA observers to partake, without request or cause, in our democratic system is a bit galling. Perhaps some mechanism of request or reasonable cause should be included."