[DRAFT] Independent Candidate Rights

[Bananaistan]

O'Donnel: "For one thing, because allocating seats based on a party list system is a lot more representative of voting results than first-past-the-post."

Fairburn: Yes, because a party list system is clearly the only alternative to first-past-the-post.

"To be fair, it is the only sensible alternative to FPTP."

- Ted Hornwood

[Calladan]

Fairburn: Yes, because a party list system is clearly the only alternative to first-past-the-post.

"To be fair, it is the only sensible alternative to FPTP."

- Ted Hornwood

The alternative vote system appears to work pretty well in some nations - it is used in some elections in Calladan as well. It is not a list system, because there are still independent candidates on the ballot, but it is still more of a representative system than first past the post because a candidate must get more than 50% (well - 50% or more, but rarely does it work out to exactly 50%) of the vote to get elected.

So I wouldn't say the ONLY sensible alternative

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Yes, because a party list system is clearly the only alternative to first-past-the-post.

"To be fair, it is the only sensible alternative to FPTP."

Fairburn: We'll just ignore Single Transferable Vote, Alternative Vote and Mixed Member Proportional Representation, then. Isn't wilful ignorance amazing?

[Dooom35796821595]

And I see no specific inclusion of the right to form political parties so nations can still outlaw them.

"All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate...No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights". This resolution guarantees freedom of association. Political parties are a form of association, and so neither the WA nor any member nations may prohibit the development or continuation of political parties."

Well, That depends how each nation decides to interpret the resolution, we don't see political parties as a right, since it infers interference with the running of a nation. My point is that this could be avoided simply by modifying the resolutions to say some nation should have the right to form political parties.

[United Irish Counties]

O'Donnel: "For one thing, because allocating seats based on a party list system is a lot more representative of voting results than first-past-the-post."

Fairburn: Yes, because a party list system is clearly the only alternative to first-past-the-post.

O'Donnel: "Please do not put words in my mouth."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Yes, because a party list system is clearly the only alternative to first-past-the-post.

O'Donnel: "Please do not put words in my mouth."

Fairburn: In that case, you haven't answered my question. If you wish to acknowledge that there are other alternatives to first-past-the-post, that means that you have yet to provide a proper explanation for Bananananananananananananananananananananaistan's list fetish.

OOC: According to my spellchecker, that should be 'Banananananananananananananana Nananananana Stan's'. Where did that even come from?

[AtlantisB]

It is dead wrong for WA to impose "democracy" on sovereign states. We don't tell "democratic" states how to run themselves and likewise we don't want our sovereignty violated by others.

[States of Glory WA Office]

It is dead wrong for WA to impose "democracy" on sovereign states.

Neville: It's a good thing that this proposal doesn't do that, then.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I will submit this in exactly one second if no-one else has any further comments to make.

[United Irish Counties]

O'Donnel: "Please do not put words in my mouth."

Fairburn: In that case, you haven't answered my question. If you wish to acknowledge that there are other alternatives to first-past-the-post, that means that you have yet to provide a proper explanation for Bananananananananananananananananananananaistan's list fetish.

O'Donnel: "Actually, I have. Unlike you, I don't think it is wise to forbid nations from following a certain system of voting, so I am all for keeping one's options open. You asked for a reason why some nations think list voting is a good idea and the answer is: It produces better results than FPTP. I didn't say it was the best one. If you insist on forbidding voting systems, at least start with FPTP."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: In that case, you haven't answered my question. If you wish to acknowledge that there are other alternatives to first-past-the-post, that means that you have yet to provide a proper explanation for Bananananananananananananananananananananaistan's list fetish.

O'Donnel: "Actually, I have. Unlike you, I don't think it is wise to forbid nations from following a certain system of voting, so I am all for keeping one's options open. You asked for a reason why some nations think list voting is a good idea and the answer is: It produces better results than FPTP. I didn't say it was the best one. If you insist on forbidding voting systems, at least start with FPTP."

Fairburn: I didn't ask why some nations think it's a good idea, I asked you why the nation of Bananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananaistan has a fetish for it.

OOC: I've probably messed up the 'nanas' somewhere.

[Wallenburg]

"All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate...No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights". This resolution guarantees freedom of association. Political parties are a form of association, and so neither the WA nor any member nations may prohibit the development or continuation of political parties."

Well, That depends how each nation decides to interpret the resolution, we don't see political parties as a right, since it infers interference with the running of a nation. My point is that this could be avoided simply by modifying the resolutions to say some nation should have the right to form political parties.

"Well, that's just too bad for you, Ambassador. 'Freedom of Assembly' sees them as a right, and therefore your nation is required to permit them."

[United Irish Counties]

O'Donnel: "Actually, I have. Unlike you, I don't think it is wise to forbid nations from following a certain system of voting, so I am all for keeping one's options open. You asked for a reason why some nations think list voting is a good idea and the answer is: It produces better results than FPTP. I didn't say it was the best one. If you insist on forbidding voting systems, at least start with FPTP."

Fairburn: I didn't ask why some nations think it's a good idea, I asked you why the nation of Bananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananaistan has a fetish for it.

OOC: I've probably messed up the 'nanas' somewhere.

O'Donnel: Then go and ask them yourself, Ambassador.

[Dooom35796821595]

Well, That depends how each nation decides to interpret the resolution, we don't see political parties as a right, since it infers interference with the running of a nation. My point is that this could be avoided simply by modifying the resolutions to say some nation should have the right to form political parties.

"Well, that's just too bad for you, Ambassador. 'Freedom of Assembly' sees them as a right, and therefore your nation is required to permit them."

I didn't realise these resolutions were sentient and had the ability to interpret their meaning beyond what's written in them. Wouldn't that make repealing a resolution murder? Or do they just hang around in the WA bar?

Right to assemble, OK.
Right to associate, also acceptable.

Right to form terrorist organisations? No.
Right to form lynch mobs? Also no.
Right to form political parties, not in our nation. Just as the right to associate can be restricted if such association involves criminal acts, like associating with a terrorist organisation engaged in acts of terror, or the right to assemble can be restricted in certain areas, like private land, secure locations, disbanded in the event of a public safety risk, that resolution has no explicit right to form political parties, and as such is something that can, and has been outlawed.

[Whovian Tardisia]

Right to form terrorist organisations? No. Right to form lynch mobs? Also no.

"Quite right, as neither terrorist organizations nor lynch mobs are peaceful groups." Pink comments, pulling out a copy of Freedom of Assembly. "The resolution in question clearly states:"

All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

"That last bit sounds like a political party to me, and therefore, your nation is in violation of WA legislation by prohibiting their existence." Pink concludes, folding his arms and expecting an explanation.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Well, that's just too bad for you, Ambassador. 'Freedom of Assembly' sees them as a right, and therefore your nation is required to permit them."

I didn't realise these resolutions were sentient and had the ability to interpret their meaning beyond what's written in them. Wouldn't that make repealing a resolution murder? Or do they just hang around in the WA bar?

Right to assemble, OK.
Right to associate, also acceptable.

Right to form terrorist organisations? No.
Right to form lynch mobs? Also no.
Right to form political parties, not in our nation. Just as the right to associate can be restricted if such association involves criminal acts, like associating with a terrorist organisation engaged in acts of terror, or the right to assemble can be restricted in certain areas, like private land, secure locations, disbanded in the event of a public safety risk, that resolution has no explicit right to form political parties, and as such is something that can, and has been outlawed.

Neville: Do political parties trespass on private property? No. Do they call for violence? Not necessarily. Do they call for rioting? Once again, not necessarily. Do they perform actions that would cause harm to innocent people? Not by their very existence, no.

Fairburn: In other words, your nation is in violation of extant WA law and for that reason, all diplomatic relations between our two states have been terminated. We are also going to recommend, or demand, or beg, or require, or even request other member states to do the same. Good day.

[Excidium Planetis]

"For once, Mister Hornwood's dictionary is correct." Blackbourne says. "And this resolution's ban on party list systems, disincentivization of democracy, and complete absence of international utility make more than enough reason for my nation to stand against it. Even if you should succeed in passing it, I will personally make sure it gets repealed."

Blackbourne is aware that probably no one in the authoring delegation is even paying attention, however, he felt the need to speak anyways.

[Wallenburg]

"Well, that's just too bad for you, Ambassador. 'Freedom of Assembly' sees them as a right, and therefore your nation is required to permit them."

I didn't realise these resolutions were sentient and had the ability to interpret their meaning beyond what's written in them. Wouldn't that make repealing a resolution murder? Or do they just hang around in the WA bar?

"Ambassador, I did not realize you were completely incapable of actually addressing what I say, and instead were limited to responding in petulant strawmen. No wonder your nation does not comply with WA legislation. If even your top statesmen cannot understand basic vocabulary, your politicians most certainly must be totally illiterate with regard to law."

[Dooom35796821595]

Right to form terrorist organisations? No. Right to form lynch mobs? Also no.

"Quite right, as neither terrorist organizations nor lynch mobs are peaceful groups." Pink comments, pulling out a copy of Freedom of Assembly. "The resolution in question clearly states:"

All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

"That last bit sounds like a political party to me, and therefore, your nation is in violation of WA legislation by prohibiting their existence." Pink concludes, folding his arms and expecting an explanation.

I must admit some confusion, since forcing nations to allow political parties would seem to constitute an ideological ban against one party nations, yet that's exactly what is being suggested.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Quite right, as neither terrorist organizations nor lynch mobs are peaceful groups." Pink comments, pulling out a copy of Freedom of Assembly. "The resolution in question clearly states:"



"That last bit sounds like a political party to me, and therefore, your nation is in violation of WA legislation by prohibiting their existence." Pink concludes, folding his arms and expecting an explanation.

I must admit some confusion, since forcing nations to allow political parties would seem to constitute an ideological ban against one party nations, yet that's exactly what is being suggested.

All passed resolutions are legal.

[Excidium Planetis]

I must admit some confusion, since forcing nations to allow political parties would seem to constitute an ideological ban against one party nations, yet that's exactly what is being suggested.

"I don't believe 'one party nations' is an ideology." Blackbourne replies. "It doesn't form the base of economic or political policy."

[Bears Armed]

I must admit some confusion, since forcing nations to allow political parties would seem to constitute an ideological ban against one party nations, yet that's exactly what is being suggested.

OOC
It only says that they have to be allowed to exist, not that they have to be allowed into government: You can retain your "one party" status in the latter respect, and that's enough to stop it being an ideological ban.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: In most modern democracies, all political parties have a strong track record of harming innocent people. In fact, I can't think of any political manifesto that wouldn't cause harm to some innocent party. I think it would not be unreasonable for a single party state to outlaw all other parties on the basis that they will cause harm to innocent people and that only the official state ideology and its proponents can be trusted to care for everyone's interests and not cause harm.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: In most modern democracies, all political parties have a strong track record of harming innocent people. In fact, I can't think of any political manifesto that wouldn't cause harm to some innocent party. I think it would not be unreasonable for a single party state to outlaw all other parties on the basis that they will cause harm to innocent people and that only the official state ideology and its proponents can be trusted to care for everyone's interests and not cause harm.

OOC
How does Anarcho-capitalism harm innocent people?

[Tinfect]

How does Anarcho-capitalism harm innocent people?

OOC:
It contains both Anarchism, and Capitalism.
The problem here should be obvious.