[DEFEATED] Non-interference in Elections

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I fully appreciate DSR's arguments on behalf of the proposal. Their views are entirely in line with my own. In the absence of any further debate, the lack of which disappoints a lot, I might just throw this out for a test run in the coming weeks.

I still need to sort out the title though. I can see that perhaps a lot of people would automatically oppose the current title. I will have to think on it for a while.

[Divitaen]

Wait I'm confused, so does this Resolution force nations to adopt national elections or international election standards?

[Bananaistan]

Wait I'm confused, so does this Resolution force nations to adopt national elections or international election standards?

No it doesn't. This resolution does two things: It allows nations to choose, if they so wish, to get the OEA in to certify their elections, and it blocks any further international legislation on elections and how nations allow people to vote. It is specifically designed to prevent the WA from introducing processes and rules around elections through furtherment of democracy resolutions.

[Bananaistan]

I'd love to get more comments on this. I'd submit but I won't have much time to campaign. Hopefully there's a bit more activity around here now and we might get a better understanding of the chances of this passing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

'This delegation must oppose on principle. Namely, it is a principle having nothing to do with democracy, republicanism, liberalism, or any sort of the enlightened Western ideas which we seem to uphold around here. It has to deal with this government's absolute hatred of blockers. This government would only support if the blocking section were removed, which does not seem to be an option, as that is practically what the bill is for.

Parliamentary sovereignty should not be cast away under any circumstances. That includes one major check on Parliamentary power: the fact that Parliaments (in my opinion) should not be allowed to make any blocking bills (in fact, this government would support a bill which blocks further blockers, however hypocritical that sounds). However, the blocking section notwithstanding, the Foreign Office had a rather positive reaction towards your bill'.

[The Empire of Ebola]

Elections? Surely you jest! Like the unwashed rabble can be trusted with ANYTHING.

[Bananaistan]

Changed the title to reflect section 3. Hopefully it might generate some more comment than the rather dry previous title.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"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

[Bananaistan]

"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

We hope that this proposal is still legal in that it will only prevent any further WA legislation dealing with elections. I have rebranded again with a title which will just about fit and changed the preambulatory clauses and clause 3 to reflect this. I have also dropped the initialism as you have suggested.

Hopefully we might get some more comment on this? As it stands we have no idea whether this could pass or go down in a massive fire ball.

[Hanalia]

I do wonder to the cause of the Ambassador's change of heart given his opposition to my own proposal along similar lines?

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.

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]

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."

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]

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.

[The Dark Star Republic]

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."

OOC: I disagree. That rule only prevents making an entire category unusable. Furtherment of Democracy would still be a usable category after this: in fact virtually all of the active FoD resolutions could still be passed even with this in place. The FoD category is not only used to legislate on electoral laws: that's just one facet of it.

[Bananaistan]

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

At the risk of losing your support, we haven't changed our opinion at all. This proposal would block any further proposals regarding elections in member states rather than merely discouraging it. It is the fundamental reason behind the proposal and if I changed that, it just wouldn't be the same proposal nor would I find it all worthwhile to propose it.

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.

As pointed out by DSR, this would only block further proposals regarding elections and not the entire category. Your Disabled Voters Act and parts of the Elections and Assistance Act are the only two resolutions of the 11 in the category which would have been blocked had this proposal or similar been adopted prior to their implementation. Additionally there have been some proposals recently in the category which would not be at all affected by this; EG Sciongrad's Rule of Law draft and Alqania's Freedom of Conscience draft.

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.

Thanks for the support. Btw, the demonym is Bananamen.

[The Empire of Ebola]

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.

[Separatist Peoples]

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]

"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

[Bananaistan]

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."

We are going to pursue this. Thanks for wishing us luck.

I would point out to the Ebolans that this proposal does not proscribe any interference. If you don't want nor need the "rubber stamp of approval" then you simply wouldn't ask the OEA in. If you don't have any elections then it wouldn't even apply to your country.

"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

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?

[The Dark Star Republic]

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?

"My suggestion wasn't so much taking a firm line, as using that idea to 'package' the proposal. At present, you have people thinking this is trying to force everyone to become a democracy: that will only be amplified when it's presented to the WA as a whole. Yet you obviously can't pass it as a 'pure blocker' because such a thing is illegal. So by making it sound like you're trying to prevent states interfering in others' elections - even if you don't take any more affirmative steps than simply reaffirming Rights & Duties's prohibition - you'd have another approach."

~ Ms. Chinmusic

[Bananaistan]

I'm playing around with something like the following to add as the first operative clause:

"Mandates that no member state may directly interfere with another member state’s elections unless requested by the subject member state,"

It's hard to see how we can avoid duplication of clause 3 of Rights and Duties. Although hopefully this would only be a "minor overlap" and the "duplication is far from the majority of [this] proposal" (linky).

[Karolingia]

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?

[Separatist Peoples]

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?

"Despite the incredibly unlikely probability of GAR#2 being struck down, I believe that would create a House of Cards violation."

[Reich of Greater Germany]

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.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

"How wouldn't it? Having dictatorships able to vote on further rules regarding the purely domestic democratic elections of nations is patently unfair, as many of those requirements actually hinder fledgling democracies, discouraging nations from choosing that path. This is the most reasonable FoD draft I've ever seen."

[Bananaistan]

Bump.

I'm thinking submission over the next few days if we get no further comment.