[Proposal] Universal Voting System Act

[Endatopia]

Voting in countries can be very un-democratic due to high amounts of gerrymandering and general corruptness. The following terms will regulate this democratic procedure.


NOTING that democracy is a core part of the World Assembly.
BELIEVING that all countries should have a democratic system.
FURTHER BELIEVING that democracy should be administered in a fair system.


HEREBY:
DEFINES (for purpose of resolution) 'First Past The Post' as: 'A system of democracy that inaccurately gives the person with the most votes, the seat that is being contested' (Example: If 3 candidates got 20%. One got 19% and a fifth got 21% giving them the win, Therefore allowing minority to rule when majority disagree.)


FURTHER DEFINES (for purpose of resolution) 'Singe Transferable Vote' as: 'A system of voting that allows the country to be divided into voting areas and for voters to number their candidates in order of favor, A quota being established and any excess votes going towards the number 2 choice candidate, If no candidates have reached the quota the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated and the votes are transferred to the 2nd choice candidate. This continues until all seats are filled' (Note: A quota is calculated by dividing the number of votes by the number of seats available.')


FURTHER DEFINES (for purpose of resolution) 'Gerrymandering' as: 'A practice where the individual, who is responsible for drawing up the electoral boundaries (areas), bunches supporters of parties in areas to give the party more candidates from more areas , And therefore a majority in parliament.' (Note: this can give parties a majority in parliament even though they might have a minority amount of supporters)


PROHIBITS nations to use any system such as 'First Past The Post' that is not as democratic as possible.


REQUIRES all nations that are a member of the World Assembly to use a single transferable voting system.


MANDATES every nation that is switching to this system, to select a non-biased independent third party to define the voting areas and fairly bunch voters into areas.


LIMITS the amount of time that a country can take to switch to this new 'STV' system to 1 year maximum. (Within the approval of this resolution or one's entry into the World Assembly)


PROHIBITS the practice of gerrymandering and all other corrupt practices.

This will make every nation even more democratic.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum!

It's great to see new faces wanting to participate, and I can see you have some idea of how to write proposals, but I would still suggest taking a look through the Proposal rules, here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348 as well as the Passed Resolutions list, here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

I can see a few problems with the proposal as is, particularly that it should be the World Assembly, or at least the General Assembly - this particular branch of the WA - that does all the "noting" and "believing" and "defining", and I doubt you can convince most people that "the WA believes that all countries should have a democratic system". I know that's just a preamble, but as resolutions should be written from the perspective of the WA, and the WA is not allowed to favour any one ideology over another, it doesn't sound right.

Also, you need to put in the category and strength that you have chosen for this.

Next, you prohibit the first kind of voting "that is not as democratic as possible", yet offer no explanation of what would be "as democratic as possible". Secondly, the system you propose instead looks very confusing and convoluted. In my understanding the simplest form of voting would be to let everyone vote for one candidate, then tally up the votes to see which candidates got the most votes, and pick as many from the list starting from the top, as there are places to fill. Why is your system better? It certainly isn't clearer.

Also, your gerrymandering definition seems to assume such drawing of lines will automatically result in parliament majority, which isn't true. Rather than define that and then forbid it, you should outline how to fairly draw those lines.

And then we come to this:

REQUIRES all nations that are a member of the World Assembly to use a single transferable voting system.

That alone will make your proposal illegal (against the proposal rules), as you would be mandating democracy to all WA nations, which is not allowed. You could say that nations that allow elections, should use that system, but not all WA nations. You would still have to convince people why your system is better than the simpler "most votes list".

Also, what would be the "non-biased independent third party", and how would you ensure they're non-biased?

PROHIBITS the practice of gerrymandering and all other corrupt practices.

What does "all other corrupt practices" include? Because that sounds like it's anything and everything that involves corruption, not only things involving voting. If you tried to ban all corruption, you would likely run into proposal category problems.

I sort of understand what you're wanting to make happen, but right now this isn't a workable solution.

[Calladan]

Well - I can see one or two problems with this, so before we get to those can I just say that this is a well argued, well presented proposal. It makes your points very clearly, and does a good job of arguing them (which I know sounds patronising but I swear that was not my intent).

However there are one or two things you should know :-

First - The World Assembly does not require nations to be democratic. Dictatorships, Empires, Monarchies and so forth are all entirely legal, and The WA has no position on them. You can not require a nation to be democratic - I am pretty sure it is one of the first rules of The WA (other than YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE WA!) (just kidding).

Second - I suspect there will not be a very big appetite to change the nature of democracy within member nations. Calladan, for example, is very happy with our electoral system. Depending on the type of election (District, Regional, Archal and Tri-Arch) we have a varying system, but they do include first past the post.

Thirdly - we disagree that STV is more representative than other methods of Proportional Representation that are available, so why would we be required to accept that? Why, for example, could we not use AV? Or Party Lists?

Fourthly - One could argue gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder. Given population changes and the movement of people from one area to another, boundaries have to be redrawn occasionally, and if you redraw a boundary then you are going to piss someone off when you do it. The person you piss off is almost certainly going to accuse the person who pissed them off of gerrymandering. If it is banned, then it would be almost impossible to redraw boundaries, regardless of ANY population or demographic changes.

And while points two, three and four an be debated, I think that point one is going to be the one that sinks this proposal - if is against the rules of The WA, there is little you an do about it. Sorry.

But - as I said - it is very well written and well argued, so you can take some comfort and solace in that

[States of Glory WA Office]

Or Party Lists?

Fairburn: Of course, such a system tramples on the rights of independent candidates, so I wouldn't recommend it.

[Tinfect]

NOTING that democracy is a core part of the World Assembly.

"Only to the extent of the implementation of legislation."

BELIEVING that all countries should have a democratic system.

"A naive belief that you would best abandon."

FURTHER BELIEVING that democracy should be administered in a fair system.

"A contradiction in terms, Ambassador."

REQUIRES all nations that are a member of the World Assembly to use a single transferable voting system.

"The Imperium will do no such thing. Our superior system of governance has ensured the safety and advancement of the Imperial citizenry for centuries. We see little reason to implement a system in which corruption is an inextricable requirement of its function, nor one that would leave the Imperial citizenry at risk from the poorly managed bureaucracy and systemic failure that such a system represents.."

MANDATES every nation that is switching to this system, to select a non-biased independent third party to define the voting areas and fairly bunch voters into areas.

"The Imperium will allow no foreign force to redraw our borders for any reason whatsoever. The Unity of the Imperium is ensured through the removal of arbitrary distinctions between our citizens. We see little reason to allow a culture of tribalism to reemerge within our territories."

LIMITS the amount of time that a country can take to switch to this new 'STV' system to 1 year maximum. (Within the approval of this resolution or one's entry into the World Assembly)

"In that case, I am certain the Imperium will simply redefine a 'year' to be a measurement of time required for the universe to reach complete thermodynamic equilibrium. As the official timekeeping unit of the Imperium is the 'Standard Year', our timekeeping remains unaffected."

PROHIBITS the practice of gerrymandering and all other corrupt practices.

"This clause contradicts most previous clauses. One cannot implement an inherently corrupt system and simultaneously outlaw corrupt practices."

This will make every nation even more democratic.

"Except it will not, as it is illegal before the Secretariat. Do consider examining their various standards for legislation in the future."

[Endatopia]

This is my very first proposal, so thanks for the the tips.

I would argue that stv is very democratic, my country (ireland) uses it and we have a vast range of politicians in the parliament. In fact our current government is a minority led government consisting of the conservative Fine Gael and some independent candidates.

I tought I read in the law that democracy is a core part of the WA. I am not going to try to argue your points but I will take your ciritisism on board for future proposals.
Thanks.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Your definition of the quota used in PR-STV is incorrect. As used in Ireland, the quota is the number of valid votes (IE spoiled votes are excluded) divided by one plus the number of seats, with a further single one added, and then rounded up or down as appropriate. EG, in a four seat constituency, if there are 10,000 valid votes, the quota is 2,001, as follows:

(10,000/(4+1))+1 = 2,001

[Araraukar]

I would argue that stv is very democratic, my country (ireland) uses it and we have a vast range of politicians in the parliament. In fact our current government is a minority led government consisting of the conservative Fine Gael and some independent candidates.

OOC: I'm from Finland, our current parliament has 8 different parties (with 5-49 seats per party) and Wikipedia tells me the election type is called proportional D'Hondt method.

I tought I read in the law that democracy is a core part of the WA.

Only the OOC (out-of-character) part of it (and even that isn't direct democracy), but WA nations can be of any ideology.

[Merni]

I would argue that stv is very democratic, my country (ireland) uses it and we have a vast range of politicians in the parliament. In fact our current government is a minority led government consisting of the conservative Fine Gael and some independent candidates.

OOC: I'm from Finland, our current parliament has 8 different parties (with 5-49 seats per party) and Wikipedia tells me the election type is called proportional D'Hondt method.

I tought I read in the law that democracy is a core part of the WA.

Only the OOC (out-of-character) part of it (and even that isn't direct democracy), but WA nations can be of any ideology.

We have FPTP but we still have 36 parties (1-280 seats) in the lower house. (India, Lok Sabha.)

Apart from the criticism already given by the others,

DEFINES (for purpose of resolution) 'First Past The Post' as: 'A system of democracy that inaccurately gives the person with the most votes, the seat that is being contested' (Example: If 3 candidates got 20%. One got 19% and a fifth got 21% giving them the win, Therefore allowing minority to rule when majority disagree.)

So is there a way to accurately give the person with most votes the seat contested?

MANDATES every nation that is switching to this system, to select a non-biased independent third party to define the voting areas and fairly bunch voters into areas.

Including non-WA nations? Since you have already said that all WA nations have to switch, the 'every nation ...' part is useless.

[Calladan]

MANDATES every nation that is switching to this system, to select a non-biased independent third party to define the voting areas and fairly bunch voters into areas.

Including non-WA nations? Since you have already said that all WA nations have to switch, the 'every nation ...' part is useless.

This confusion is still going on? Wasn't there a ruling from on high about this? That if a proposal says "EVERY NATION" it can generally taken to be read as "EVERY NATION WITHIN THE WA" or "EVERY MEMBER NATION" so that text/paper/characters and so forth don't have to endlessly be wasted spelling out something that we all know and accept as fact by now - The WA can only write laws about member nations!

[Imperium Anglorum]

Including non-WA nations? Since you have already said that all WA nations have to switch, the 'every nation ...' part is useless.

This confusion is still going on? Wasn't there a ruling from on high about this? That if a proposal says "EVERY NATION" it can generally taken to be read as "EVERY NATION WITHIN THE WA" or "EVERY MEMBER NATION" so that text/paper/characters and so forth don't have to endlessly be wasted spelling out something that we all know and accept as fact by now - The WA can only write laws about member nations!

I'm going to have to agree with this. After more recent reconsideration on the topic, I've looked at the question rather in the light of 'what interpretation makes the most sense' rather than any hard and fast rule. One interpretation would immediately make a significant number of resolutions non-sensical. The other interpretation would make a different set of resolutions non-sensical. The only way to deal with the issue given that we want to keep past resolutions is to adopt a live-and-let live policy based on interpretation of the resolution standing alone.

[Calladan]

This confusion is still going on? Wasn't there a ruling from on high about this? That if a proposal says "EVERY NATION" it can generally taken to be read as "EVERY NATION WITHIN THE WA" or "EVERY MEMBER NATION" so that text/paper/characters and so forth don't have to endlessly be wasted spelling out something that we all know and accept as fact by now - The WA can only write laws about member nations!

I'm going to have to agree with this. After more recent reconsideration on the topic, I've looked at the question rather in the light of 'what interpretation makes the most sense' rather than any hard and fast rule. One interpretation would immediately make a significant number of resolutions non-sensical. The other interpretation would make a different set of resolutions non-sensical. The only way to deal with the issue given that we want to keep past resolutions is to adopt a live-and-let live policy based on interpretation of the resolution standing alone.

So - just because someone suggested this to me and I am randomly throwing it out there - you wouldn't support a single, one line proposal that read (more or less)

The WA hereby declares "nations" and "member nations" (within the context of future proposals) are synonyms, unless a proposal makes specific references to state otherwise

or something similar?

(I realise I am wandering off topic again, and hijacking the thread for a substantially different subject to the original proposal, and I will move this to a different thread if people object).

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm going to have to agree with this. After more recent reconsideration on the topic, I've looked at the question rather in the light of 'what interpretation makes the most sense' rather than any hard and fast rule. One interpretation would immediately make a significant number of resolutions non-sensical. The other interpretation would make a different set of resolutions non-sensical. The only way to deal with the issue given that we want to keep past resolutions is to adopt a live-and-let live policy based on interpretation of the resolution standing alone.

So - just because someone suggested this to me and I am randomly throwing it out there - you wouldn't support a single, one line proposal that read (more or less)

The WA hereby declares "nations" and "member nations" (within the context of future proposals) are synonyms, unless a proposal makes specific references to state otherwise

or something similar?

(I realise I am wandering off topic again, and hijacking the thread for a substantially different subject to the original proposal, and I will move this to a different thread if people object).

OOC: That wouldn't solve the problem, since proposals aren't necessarily binding on changing formatting for future proposals.

[Calladan]

So - just because someone suggested this to me and I am randomly throwing it out there - you wouldn't support a single, one line proposal that read (more or less)

The WA hereby declares "nations" and "member nations" (within the context of future proposals) are synonyms, unless a proposal makes specific references to state otherwise

or something similar?

(I realise I am wandering off topic again, and hijacking the thread for a substantially different subject to the original proposal, and I will move this to a different thread if people object).

OOC: That wouldn't solve the problem, since proposals aren't necessarily binding on changing formatting for future proposals.

Okay then - short of submitting a completely nonsense proposal that is utterly insane (The proposal to tax every member nation for eating chocolate), including the phrase "nations" (instead of "member nations"), then appealing to The Secretariat to rule in the illegality (or not) of such a phrase, is there any way to request a ruling from The Secretariat on the topic so that this can be settled? Or has a ruling been made and I just missed it? Because - as I said - it is getting somewhat ridiculous that proposals might be thrown out over a single word when 99% of the delegates know that if someone writes "The WA hereby declares that nations shall require a tax on all chocolate goods" the author means WA Member Nations because that is the only nations to which proposals/resolutions can apply.

(Or am I the only delegate who thinks like that?)

[Separatist Peoples]

Okay then - short of submitting a completely nonsense proposal that is utterly insane (The proposal to tax every member nation for eating chocolate), including the phrase "nations" (instead of "member nations"), then appealing to The Secretariat to rule in the illegality (or not) of such a phrase, is there any way to request a ruling from The Secretariat on the topic so that this can be settled? Or has a ruling been made and I just missed it? Because - as I said - it is getting somewhat ridiculous that proposals might be thrown out over a single word when 99% of the delegates know that if someone writes "The WA hereby declares that nations shall require a tax on all chocolate goods" the author means WA Member Nations because that is the only nations to which proposals/resolutions can apply.

(Or am I the only delegate who thinks like that?)

OOC: You could try that approach, but it isn't likely to work on us twice. I, at least, really don't want to have to rule on hypothetical situations, and only want to deal with proposals that realistically stand a chance of passing.

[Calladan]

Okay then - short of submitting a completely nonsense proposal that is utterly insane (The proposal to tax every member nation for eating chocolate), including the phrase "nations" (instead of "member nations"), then appealing to The Secretariat to rule in the illegality (or not) of such a phrase, is there any way to request a ruling from The Secretariat on the topic so that this can be settled? Or has a ruling been made and I just missed it? Because - as I said - it is getting somewhat ridiculous that proposals might be thrown out over a single word when 99% of the delegates know that if someone writes "The WA hereby declares that nations shall require a tax on all chocolate goods" the author means WA Member Nations because that is the only nations to which proposals/resolutions can apply.

(Or am I the only delegate who thinks like that?)

OOC: You could try that approach, but it isn't likely to work on us twice. I, at least, really don't want to have to rule on hypothetical situations, and only want to deal with proposals that realistically stand a chance of passing.

Well okay then - I am not going to submit such a proposal (I have more sense than that!) but I suspect this will come up again at some point in the future

And now - back to your regularly scheduled thread.....

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, our voting system is rather carefully structured to suit our nation. To force a new voting system on us would go so far as to require a total reconstruction of our legislature and, by extension, our constitution. And that is just the effect upon a democracy. Your proposal is extremely illegal for forcing democracy upon all member nations. That you don't appreciate other voting systems is not an acceptable basis for forcing your form of government upon us."

[Calladan]

Voting in countries can be very un-democratic due to high amounts of gerrymandering and general corruptness. The following terms will regulate this democratic procedure.


NOTING that democracy is a core part of the World Assembly.
BELIEVING that all countries should have a democratic system.
FURTHER BELIEVING that democracy should be administered in a fair system.


HEREBY:
DEFINES (for purpose of resolution) 'First Past The Post' as: 'A system of democracy that inaccurately gives the person with the most votes, the seat that is being contested' (Example: If 3 candidates got 20%. One got 19% and a fifth got 21% giving them the win, Therefore allowing minority to rule when majority disagree.)


FURTHER DEFINES (for purpose of resolution) 'Singe Transferable Vote' as: 'A system of voting that allows the country to be divided into voting areas and for voters to number their candidates in order of favor, A quota being established and any excess votes going towards the number 2 choice candidate, If no candidates have reached the quota the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated and the votes are transferred to the 2nd choice candidate. This continues until all seats are filled' (Note: A quota is calculated by dividing the number of votes by the number of seats available.')


FURTHER DEFINES (for purpose of resolution) 'Gerrymandering' as: 'A practice where the individual, who is responsible for drawing up the electoral boundaries (areas), bunches supporters of parties in areas to give the party more candidates from more areas , And therefore a majority in parliament.' (Note: this can give parties a majority in parliament even though they might have a minority amount of supporters)


PROHIBITS nations to use any system such as 'First Past The Post' that is not as democratic as possible.


REQUIRES all nations that are a member of the World Assembly to use a single transferable voting system.


MANDATES every nation that is switching to this system, to select a non-biased independent third party to define the voting areas and fairly bunch voters into areas.


LIMITS the amount of time that a country can take to switch to this new 'STV' system to 1 year maximum. (Within the approval of this resolution or one's entry into the World Assembly)


PROHIBITS the practice of gerrymandering and all other corrupt practices.

This will make every nation even more democratic.

Having given this more thought, I would take issue that First Past The Post is not democratic and allows the minority to rule.

In your example :-

Miss Romanov gets 19% Miss Hill gets 20%, Mr Banner gets 20%, Mr Stark gets 20% and Mr Barton gets 21%. So Mr Barton gets elected, because he won more votes than everyone else.

And yes - it is undeniably true that 79% of the electorate (that voted) for that District voted against him. Suggesting that the minority's voice was not heard. (Except clearly it was heard - they voted. Their votes were made, registered and counted. It's not like they were ignored, burned or spoiled - their voice was heard. But - setting that aside for a moment).

What you have failed to point out is this :-

Mr Stark, Mr Banner and Miss Hill had 80% of the electorate vote against them. MORE people voted against them than voted against Mr Barton. So clearly MORE People did not want them in power than did not want Mr Barton in power.

And 81% of the electorate voted against Miss Romanov. So even MORE people did not want her in power than did not want Mr Barton in power.

So if your argument is FPTP is undemocratic because it allows a "minority to rule when majority disagree" (which is what it seems to be) then, as I said, I have to take issue with that. Because the majority disagree with the other candidates - a larger majority at that.

Now - I admit "more people dislike Candidate A than Candidate B, so we should put Candidate B in power" is not exactly the perfect way to run a country - I think we deserve to be governed by the best. However democracy has never and will never be about electing the best and the brightest - if it were it would be a meritocracy and the people would have no say in it at all (and would either be a terrible system or a brilliant one - I can never quite decide).

But anyway - I would argue FPTP is perfectly democratic, and to suggest that nations that are governed by it are somehow corrupt and undemocratic is kind of insulting.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Especially since he didn't really describe FPTP. In his example, nobody reached the "post" (50%+1) so none of them went past it. You'd then have a runoff with the top X candidates.

[Calladan]

Especially since he didn't really describe FPTP. In his example, nobody reached the "post" (50%+1) so none of them went past it. You'd then have a runoff with the top X candidates.

(ooc - it's the system used in the UK for The House of Commons, and it is described as First Past The Post. That's why I assumed that that is what he meant. If it's not actually that, then I am not sure what it it's real name is!)

[Merni]

Especially since he didn't really describe FPTP. In his example, nobody reached the "post" (50%+1) so none of them went past it. You'd then have a runoff with the top X candidates.

OOC: I think the actual 50%+1 thing only applies to having that many seats in Parliament to form a government, not for the seats themselves. That's why coalitions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Especially since he didn't really describe FPTP. In his example, nobody reached the "post" (50%+1) so none of them went past it. You'd then have a runoff with the top X candidates.

OOC: I think the actual 50%+1 thing only applies to having that many seats in Parliament to form a government, not for the seats themselves. That's why coalitions.

OOC: Well, the question about Parliaments is the ability to supply the government with funds. You can only do that if you have a majority to pass a budget.

[Excidium Planetis]

In my purely OOC opinion, Single Transferable Vote is a superior system to First Past the Post because it allows voters to go with the candidates they like the most rather than the candidate they feel is most likely to win and still not be as bad some other candidate who is likely to win.

This opinion is pretty colored by my experience as an American, where every 4 years I am given an option between two more or less disappointing candidates, one of whom will inevitably win, and another two or three potentially preferable candidates who stand no chance, and I can only vote for one of them. In an STV system, I could choose the other candidates and still have my vote count towards helping a less bad candidate win in case my preferred candidate is eliminated.

All that said, this proposal is not something I can support either ICly or OOCly. It infringes on the rights of nations for no reason of international merit.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

"We don't support this, for three reasons.

"First, we generally oppose all laws that try to force particular rules on democracies, given that the World Assembly permits completely non-democratic nations equality of membership. We will not have dictatorships voting to adjust our own laws while they deny their own citizens the right to have any say at all in their own country's governance.

"Second, it is far too arbitrary. Whether or not there is some compelling international interest in micromanaging domestic voting systems - there most certainly is not in choosing STV over other systems of proportional representation, and this proposal does nothing to specifically establish that STV is preferable to all other voting systems.

"Third, the definition of gerrymandering is wayward, and really should be fodder for a wholly separate proposal.

"There's likely no edit to the proposal that could secure our vote."

~ Katinka von Ausserkundszell
Second Deputy Under-Secretary to the Foreign and Colonial Office

[Bears Armed Mission]

"In addition to the problematical details in this proposal that several of my colleagues here have already already pointed out, there is also the potential problem that this proposal would effectively require all nations affected to divide their electorate on the basis of geographical areas, whereas some might consider division on some other basis-- such as, as is the case in Bears Armed, inherited membership of various Clans and Septs whose members might sometimes live geographically alongside members of other Clans and Septs rather than living entirely on a more segregated basis -- instead."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.