PASSED: Elections and Assistance Act

[Glen-Rhodes]

Elections and Assistance Act

Category: Furtherment of Democracy - Strength: Significant

RECOGNIZING that free and fair elections are vital to the preservation and success of democratic institutions,

ACKNOWLEDGING that nations transitioning from a non-democratic system of government to a democratic system of government face special challenges in both forming an electoral system and ensuring the legitimacy of elections themselves,

RESOLVED that all nations who choose to have elections should comply with certain common expectations of what constitutes a free and fair election,

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following:

Article I - Definitions

Sec. 1. "Public office" shall herein mean any office of a government that is subject to an election, whether that election be direct or indirect, popular or otherwise.

Sec. 2. A "plebiscite vote" shall herein mean any vote put forth for the public to decide on an issue where the public’s vote is binding.

Article II - Principles of Free and Fair Elections

Sec. 1. Where all direct elections are held for public office, a secret ballot shall be used, whereby no person’s vote shall be involuntarily disclosed to the public.

Sec. 2. In all elections for public office, the aggregate results of the elections shall be made publicly available and open to scrutiny.

Sec. 3. Nations are encouraged to establish an independent body or bodies to monitor and officiate all elections for public office.

Sec. 4. Nations are encouraged to use a vote-counting methodology that does not provide a disproportionate advantage to any candidate or groups of candidates.

Article III – Assistance

Sec. 1. To assist nations transitioning from a non-democratic to a democratic form of government, hereinafter "transitioning nations," the Organization for Electoral Assistance (OEA) is established.

Sec. 2. The OEA shall assist creating electoral systems in transitioning nations when called upon by those nations for that purpose.

Sec. 3. As an advisory body, the OEA shall not have any binding authority on creating electoral systems, but shall strive to promote democratic principles, including universal suffrage and voting accessibility.

Sec. 4. The OEA shall monitor elections and plebiscite votes in transitioning nations, when asked to do so and only in the capacity agreed upon by the transitioning nations in question, excepting the mandatory provisions in Sections 5, 6, and 7 of this Article.

Sec. 5. The OEA must have access to voting locations without undue interference, to monitor possible fraud, voter intimidation, ballot tempering, and other unfair and fraudulent activities. The OEA shall make publicly available any all reports of the previous to the press and relevant institutions.

Sec. 6. The OEA must be allowed to either observe and monitor the tallying of votes or be a party therein.

Sec. 7. If the OEA serves in an observational capacity, OEA vote counts shall be nonbinding; however they should be conferred reasonable consideration in electoral disputes. If the OEA serves as a party in vote tallying, OEA vote counts shall be binding.

Sec. 8. Member nations are encouraged to assist in monitoring non-member transitioning nations’ elections and plebiscite votes, per consensual terms and conditions.

Article IV – Clarifications

Sec. 1. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require elections in nations where no elections are currently held.

Sec. 2. However, nothing in this Act shall be construed to deny the peoples' right to self-determination.

- Dr. B. Castro

Elections and Assistance Act

Category: Furtherment of Democracy - Strength: Significant

RECOGNIZING that free and fair elections are vital to the preservation and success of democratic institutions,

ACKNOWLEDGING that nations transitioning from a non-democratic system of government to a democratic system of government face special challenges both in the formation of an electoral system and in ensuring the legitimacy of elections themselves,

RESOLVED that all nations who choose to have elections should comply with certain common expectations of what constitutes a free and fair election,

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following:

Article I - Principles of Free and Fair Elections

Section 1. Where all elections are held for political office, a secret ballot shall be used, whereby no person's vote shall be involuntarily and publicly disclosed.

Section 2. Where all elections are held for political office, the aggregate results of elections shall be made publicly available and open to public scrutiny.

Section 3. Nations are encouraged to establish an independent body or bodies to monitor and officiate all elections for public office.

Section 4. Nations are encouraged to use a vote-counting methodology that does not provide a disproportionate advantage to any candidate or groups of candidates.

Article II – Electoral Assistance

Section 1. To assist nations transitioning from a non-democratic to a democratic form of government, hereinafter “transitioning nations,” the Organization for Electoral Assistance (OEA) is hereby established.

Section 2.The OEA shall assist in the creation of electoral systems in transitioning nations when called upon by those nations for that purpose.

Section 3. As an advisory body, the OEA shall not have any binding authority on the creation of electoral system, but shall strive to promote democratic and free and fair election principles, including universal suffrage and fully accessible voting options.

Section 4. The OEA shall monitor elections in transitioning nations, when asked to do so and only in the capacity agreed upon by the transitioning nations in question, excepting the mandatory provisions in Sections 5, 6, and 7 of this Article.

Section 5. The OEA must have access to voting locations without undue interference, to monitor possible fraud, voter intimidation, ballot tempering, and other unfair and fraudulent activities. The OEA shall make publicly available any all reports of the previous to relevant authorities, including the press and relevant international institutions.

Section 6. The OEA must be allowed to either observe and monitor the tallying of votes or be a party in the tallying of votes.

Section 7. If the OEA serves in a strictly observational capacity, OEA vote counts shall be nonbinding; however they should be conferred reasonable consideration in electoral disputes. If the OEA serves as a party in vote tallying, OEA vote counts shall be binding.

Section 8. Member nations are encouraged to assist in the monitoring of non-member transitioning nations’ elections, per agreed-upon terms and conditions that uphold the principles of free and fair elections.

Although the World Assembly has made significant strides to promote democracy and uphold democratic principles, we have for some reason stayed away from the subject of elections. We clearly cannot force elections to be held, but we should determine what constitutes free and fair elections, so that elections held by authoritarian regimes and elections held by liberal democracies are not equivalent in the eyes of the World Assembly.

This proposal does not mandate elections, but it does require that elections conform to certain universally agreed-upon standards. These are not wide-ranging or incredibly specific: secret ballots, public scrutiny, independent verification, and fair methodologies. The second half of the proposal deals with electoral assistance. It is common for elections in new democracies to be instable and subject to severe criticism and charges of illegitimacy. What the Organization for Electoral Assistance does is provides a neutral third-party that can monitor elections, which increases both the real and perceived legitimacy of those elections. It also can help in the formation of electoral systems, so that the system itself promotes democratic principles.

I don't think the proposal needs very much revision. If there are things that should be added and or things that need to be clarified, please say so. But I'm fairly comfortable with considering the current draft foundational.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Mousebumples]

I would figure that you probably need some sort of "Clarifying that this proposal will not force any member states not holding elections to become a transitioning nation" or ... whatever. (OOC: My head cold is messing with my ability to form legal-ese sentences.)

As I read it, it doesn't appear that you are requiring a nations/governments to hold elections, but another clause to make that especially clear would likely be helpful and avoid any claims of "ideological ban" for attempting to force elections on all nations - notably various dictatorships, etc.

Further, as this proposal wouldn't affect all member nations (due to the fact that not all nations hold elections), I'm not sure if "Significant" is the appropriate strength.

Not sure if I'd support this or not. (Again, the cold is making it hard for me to concentrate for an extended period of time.)

[Glen-Rhodes]

Further, as this proposal wouldn't affect all member nations (due to the fact that not all nations hold elections), I'm not sure if "Significant" is the appropriate strength.

I think the strength of Significant is justified because it creates requirements for the most fundamental aspect of democracies (elections). It also creates a foreseeable large and expansive committee. The only reason I did not list it as Strong (which would be the greatest strength) is because it doesn't mandate elections be held everywhere for political office. I think a Mild strength would be appropriate if this proposal only encouraged free and fair elections; but it does much more than that.

As for the clarifications, I will think about what to do with them. I'll certainly add them, but I need to figure out how to structure them into the format.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Darenjo]

I'd change the end of clause one to:

...involuntarily disclosed to the public.

Under the current wording it doesn't allow any public disclosure of votes. There will be those who wish to make their vote known.

If you mean voting officials cannot disclose other people's votes, I'd make that clearer.

[Mousebumples]

Follow-up question: Do you intend for this proposal to also cover referendums and the like? (i.e. voting on constitutional amendments, increases in taxes to pay for Item X, etc.)

It certainly doesn't need to be included, but I think the proposal may be stronger if it wasn't limited solely to elections of individuals to serve public office.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think referendums should be covered too in my opinion. After a turbulent chapter in the history of Minoa we could continue with voluntarily allowing international observers and all-secret ballots to maintain confidence in the country's rapidly recovering election system.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I've included clarifications and added plebiscite organization, monitoring, and verification. However, the proposal is now currently a few hundred characters over the general limit. If the language can't be simplified and some things merged, then the plebiscite assistance will have to be saved for a separate resolution...

- Dr. B. Castro

[Zarvarza]

Against - This act creates one more needless organization that will never be actually created, and its highly doubtful I am doing to go around in fear because some phantom organization will be watching my nation...

Be realistic, Maybe if you actually developed a coalition of nations who went around to everywhere, and inforced this, then yeah, it would be cool,

[Embolalia]

Will this actually do anything other than make the nations currently pretending to be democracies stop pretending? I mean, it's great to have fair elections, but there's nothing to say a nation has to have elections at all (nor could there be). I'd question whether a nation that doesn't want fair elections might simply not bother with elections at all. I'm not saying it's bad, but I, too, would question the strength of "significant".

Also, for what it's worth, I had to look up "plebiscite". I'd imagine the vast majority of the rest of the assembly would, too. Far be it from me to suggest dumbing down the language, but a word that obscure seems almost deliberately obtuse, and will most certainly discourage those few would-be lemmings who actually bother to read the proposal.

[Grays Harbor]

Against - This act creates one more needless organization that will never be actually created, and its highly doubtful I am doing to go around in fear because some phantom organization will be watching my nation...

Be realistic, Maybe if you actually developed a coalition of nations who went around to everywhere, and enforced this, then yeah, it would be cool,

You mean besides how the red highlighted portion is illegal under WA rules? To do that would be Roleplay, in the Nationstates or International Incidents forums. The GA cannot designate via resolution specific nations to do what you suggest, that is akin to the creation of prohibited WA military or police. Committees are created all the time, and to dismiss them all out of hand is not quite the recommended procedure here. It is the created WA committees (WA Gnomes) which do the "enforcing". The strength and category are what have an actual effect on WA member nations.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Will this actually do anything other than make the nations currently pretending to be democracies stop pretending? I mean, it's great to have fair elections, but there's nothing to say a nation has to have elections at all (nor could there be). I'd question whether a nation that doesn't want fair elections might simply not bother with elections at all. I'm not saying it's bad, but I, too, would question the strength of "significant".

Whether nations choose to change their government type has no bearing on the strength of the resolution. The requirements are significant for nations who do choose to have elections. There are many high-strength resolutions that require a certain scenario, and nations can get themselves out of that scenario if they don't want to have to deal with the resolutions. (Ex.: Freedom of Marriage regulates marriage law; nations can simply do away with marriage if they don't want to deal with the regulations in FOMA. The correlation is made even better when you consider that FOMA is also 'Significant.')

Also, for what it's worth, I had to look up "plebiscite". I'd imagine the vast majority of the rest of the assembly would, too. Far be it from me to suggest dumbing down the language, but a word that obscure seems almost deliberately obtuse, and will most certainly discourage those few would-be lemmings who actually bother to read the proposal.

A plebiscite covers referendums, initiatives, and all other laws put up for vote. Given the character count already, I don't feel inclined to get rid of the word and replace it with the numerous things it describes. Also, there shouldn't be any mystery as to what a plebiscite is; as far as I'm aware, there is only one definition.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Osthia]

We would support this legislation should it become a proposal.

[Bears Armed]

The requirements are significant for nations who do choose to have elections.

OOC: Proposal strengths are officially supposed to consider the proportion of people/nations in the WA's membership who would actually be affected, as well as how much those people/nations would be affected. I drafted a similar proposal back in NSUN days, and the Mods then said 'Mild'...

[Warzone Codger]

A resolution we like and quite willing to support. Although it would not affect us for now, as a settlement in a Warzone requires some concession for sake of survival in it is in line with where we want (and want others) to be.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: Proposal strengths are officially supposed to consider the proportion of people/nations in the WA's membership who would actually be affected, as well as how much those people/nations would be affected. I drafted a similar proposal back in NSUN days, and the Mods then said 'Mild'...

OOC: I don't think 'Mild' would be strong enough. There are a lot of nations that hold elections, and the requirements are significant. The Food Welfare Act was submitted under 'Strong,' as the effect of ending protectionism is food trade (among nations who traded food) was strong. I think requiring secret ballots and public scrutiny is pretty significant, regardless of the number of democracies there are. I believe the 'strength' of a category isn't about how many nations it affects, but rather the effect on the nations it does.

[Christian Democrats]

FOR.

I'd add provisions for:

• Clear ballot design
• Assistance for voters who are visually impaired or blind
• Allow disenfranchisement of criminals
• Allow disenfranchisement of those who are mentally incapable of voting

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'd add provisions for:

• Clear ballot design
• Assistance for voters who are visually impaired or blind
• Allow disenfranchisement of criminals
• Allow disenfranchisement of those who are mentally incapable of voting

Unfortunately, I do not plan on adding anything further; it is actually impossible to do, without removing existing language. In any case, the first two suggested provisions are part of the OEA's mandate to "strive to promote democratic and free and fair election principles, including universal suffrage and fully accessible voting options." The second two suggestions, dealing with disenfranchisement, are beyond the intended scope of this proposal. They also aren't banned, and likely won't be, so there is no real need to 'allow' them.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC: Proposal strengths are officially supposed to consider the proportion of people/nations in the WA's membership who would actually be affected, as well as how much those people/nations would be affected. I drafted a similar proposal back in NSUN days, and the Mods then said 'Mild'...

OOC: I don't think 'Mild' would be strong enough. There are a lot of nations that hold elections, and the requirements are significant. The Food Welfare Act was submitted under 'Strong,' as the effect of ending protectionism is food trade (among nations who traded food) was strong. I think requiring secret ballots and public scrutiny is pretty significant, regardless of the number of democracies there are. I believe the 'strength' of a category isn't about how many nations it affects, but rather the effect on the nations it does.

OOC: But remember that it would also have effects on the stats for those nations where it wouldn't have effects IC, and this factor needs to be balanced against the effective strength in those nations where there would be IC effects. Unfortunately the ruling was back on Jolt, so it might not have been saved, but it was definite. Ask the Mods now?

[The Associated Peoples]

I really like this and give it my support.In fact I would not mind a post on the OEA board once my services as Ambassador of The Associated Peoples has come to it's conclusion.I am well versed in the democratic process and would be more than happy to donate my time and services.As we say in The Associated Peoples...“Democracy...It's what's For Breakfast!!!Gobble,Gobble!”

[Airport Motor Lodge]

Section 1. Where all elections are held for political office, a secret ballot shall be used, whereby no person's vote shall be involuntarily disclosed to the public.

This should only apply to direct elections for public office. Suppose that an elected legislature elects its speaker and various committee chairs. Such votes should be made public so that elected legislators are accountable to their constituents for their choices of officers. As currently written, this would mandate secret ballots in such elections.

Additionally, it should apply only to public offices, not to offices of private political organizations. A party or political action committee should be free to determine whether or not to use secret ballots to elect its officers.

Section 2. Where all elections are held for political office, the aggregate results of elections shall be made publicly available and open to public scrutiny.

Again, this should only apply to elections for public office.

-Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the General Assembly
Airport Motor Lodge

[Darenjo]

OOC:(can't quote I'm on an iPod)
On your first point, in RL (still OOC), the elections for the President of the USA are not direct. Regardless of how the people vote, the Electoral College is the body who actually chooses the winner - it's just considered hood form to choose the one the people voted for.

The part about public vs. private elections I'm fine with.

[Airport Motor Lodge]

OOC:(can't quote I'm on an iPod)
On your first point, in RL (still OOC), the elections for the President of the USA are not direct. Regardless of how the people vote, the Electoral College is the body who actually chooses the winner - it's just considered hood form to choose the one the people voted for.

The part about public vs. private elections I'm fine with.

OOC: The members of the Electoral College should not be allowed to hide behind a secret ballot, rather they should be accountable to the voters for their presidential and vice presidential votes.

[Christian Democrats]

I agree that the strength of this proposal should be 'mild' since not all nations have elections.

When should we expect this to be submitted?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Changes have been made to limit the election rules to direct elections for public office. If a delegation can provide wording that broadens the scope of the rules while maintaining a reasonable level of transparency in indirect elections, please provide that language and I'll consider adding it.

When should we expect this to be submitted?

I'm going to wait until I feel there's no more substantive debate. Then I need to simplify some parts, so that the character count is within the general limit.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: But remember that it would also have effects on the stats for those nations where it wouldn't have effects IC, and this factor needs to be balanced against the effective strength in those nations where there would be IC effects. Unfortunately the ruling was back on Jolt, so it might not have been saved, but it was definite. Ask the Mods now?

OOC: There are many examples of resolutions submitted under 'Significant' that didn't affect all nations or even a majority of nations. (FOMA, the Food Welfare Act, A Ban on Forced Disappearances, to name a few.) It's not the number of nations that matters, but rather the scope of the resolution itself. The rules sticky also uses language that refers to policy scope and not number of nations affected. So, I feel no need to change the strength or ask mods what strength it should be; I'm pretty confident that Significant is justified. Establishing universal secret ballots, among other things, isn't 'Mild' in any sense of the word, and I don't think submitting it under that strength would do the proposal any justice.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Changes have been made to limit the election rules to direct elections for public office. If a delegation can provide wording that broadens the scope of the rules while maintaining a reasonable level of transparency in indirect elections, please provide that language and I'll consider adding it.

I was thinking "representative" or "proportionate".

-Ms. S. Harper.