PASSED: Elections and Assistance Act

[Jesoland]

Is it so that you can still get rid of secret ballots in votes on whether UNIONS are to be let in to monopolize a place of work? A long term objective of the American left.

For people who do not know what unions do when they get in - visit Detriot Michigan, or Gary Indiana (where the unions took control after the State Right to Work law was repealed in 1965).

People would have to be crazy to let unions into the factory or other such (because it dooms the place), so when the workers are given a free vote they normally vote AGAINST the unions comming in. Hence the long term desire on the American left to get rid of the secret ballot. If they have their way the whole of the United States (indeed the whole Western world) will look the post industrial wastelands that the left have already created.

We see your point but we don't understand how it is related to the proposal in discussion. Should WA legislate on not public election, too? It seems your Excellency does not want WA to widen its competence more and more...

In Jesoland's opinion, the purpose of this resolution is sensible but it may interfere with the dynamics (not always fully "democratic") of nations passing from autocracy to democracy.

[Ancient Nox]

Current WAGA vote EAA sounds and looks great- but as UN's watchdogs- simply can't work, just costs huge amounts of money.
Otherwise the following point is doubtful:

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

No one can do this job. No one has the capacity to monitor non-members. They are non-members because they wouldn't like to see WAGA's hands and nose in their country.

The Nox Empire voted against. Hope You and Your Government/Ruler will choose wisely.

Nox Ambassador to WAGA, Swagat M. Nagra

[Glen-Rhodes]

Current WAGA vote EAA sounds and looks great- but as UN's watchdogs- simply can't work, just costs huge amounts of money.

I think you exaggerate the costs. Helping nations form electoral systems requires, at best, a few WA specialists. Monitoring elections and important plebiscite votes -- at least, having monitors on the ground at polling locations -- lasts only a few days at most.

No one can do this job. No one has the capacity to monitor non-members. They are non-members because they wouldn't like to see WAGA's hands and nose in their country.

They wouldn't have the World Assembly's "hands and nose in their country."

Article IV's stipulation that the Act not apply to nations where elections are not held is unacceptable in a modern, democratic world. The right to self-determination should be universal.

The right to self-determination is universal, per Article IV. If we dictate forms of government, then we ourselves would be in violation of self-determination. The phrase does not mean that all nations naturally want to be democracies.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: What is B Castro a doctor of?

OOC: Ed.D.

[Numdia]

I wish I could see a clause in there saying that the agency implanted to aid nations in transitioning to democracy would leave if the situation stabilized. I see no reason for some beurocratic agency to act in a nation that's finished its reform.

Maybe after 10 years or so the agency determines whether or not they have completed their job in that nation.

Although here's the kicker, what if the agency overextends itself and ends up wrecking the democratic attempts?

[Port-du-sud]

Current WAGA vote EAA sounds and looks great- but as UN's watchdogs- simply can't work, just costs huge amounts of money.

I think you exaggerate the costs. Helping nations form electoral systems requires, at best, a few WA specialists. Monitoring elections and important plebiscite votes -- at least, having monitors on the ground at polling locations -- lasts only a few days at most.

The costs are maybe a problem. 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.

An organization like the OEA will be maybe expensive but Port-du-sud agrees not on the point " assist to ". Powerful countries of the OEA will benefit of the situation to install allies governments in this countries, and maybe interfere in the affairs of the countries.

[Anur-Sanur]

so basically this resolution punishes nations trying to achieve democracy by burdening them with foreign bureaucracy.

genius

not to mention it is completely reasonable to expect voter intimidation and such things in a new democracy, it may even be necessary.
the United States went through many periods of voter intimidation and corruption, and I believe democracies are strengthened by internal correction, rather than foreign intervention.


AGAINST

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

I can find no fault with this. It doesn't force nations to have elections but simply requires that if they do have them they are free and fair. Additionally it is far superior to the recent dreck which has plagued these halls, thus it is a breath of fresh air, of sorts. I have instructed an empty mop bucket to vote for.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I wish I could see a clause in there saying that the agency implanted to aid nations in transitioning to democracy would leave if the situation stabilized. I see no reason for some beurocratic agency to act in a nation that's finished its reform.

If the nation believes itself to be stable and no longer needs assistance, it can sever its relationships with the OEA. The Organization only helps nations if they ask for help, and only on the terms agreed to, excepting three mandatory provisions. Those provisions don't mandate permanent or unnecessary aid.

Although here's the kicker, what if the agency overextends itself and ends up wrecking the democratic attempts?

I can't see any situation where the Organization would over-extend itself. It's not fighting a war, mind you.

An organization like the OEA will be maybe expensive but Port-du-sud agrees not on the point " assist to ". Powerful countries of the OEA will benefit of the situation to install allies governments in this countries, and maybe interfere in the affairs of the countries.

Your worries can be satiated in knowing that neutral World Assembly agents would compose the OEA, rather than any agents tied by loyalty to any sovereign state.

so basically this resolution punishes nations trying to achieve democracy by burdening them with foreign bureaucracy.

It can hardly be punishment if the 'burden' is voluntary.

not to mention it is completely reasonable to expect voter intimidation and such things in a new democracy, it may even be necessary.

I, for one, do not find voter intimidation reasonable and certainly not in any way necessary.

I can find no fault with this. It doesn't force nations to have elections but simply requires that if they do have them they are free and fair. Additionally it is far superior to the recent dreck which has plagued these halls, thus it is a breath of fresh air, of sorts. I have instructed an empty mop bucket to vote for.

*Staring in near disbelief.*

- Dr. B .Castro

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

I can find no fault with this. It doesn't force nations to have elections but simply requires that if they do have them they are free and fair. Additionally it is far superior to the recent dreck which has plagued these halls, thus it is a breath of fresh air, of sorts. I have instructed an empty mop bucket to vote for.

*Staring in near disbelief.*

- Dr. B .Castro

IC explanation: Yes, yes, I realize that this is a 180 degree reversal from my previous stance. The simple explanation is that when I made my earlier statement I had not actually read your proposal, Dr. Castro. I saw the title and assumed you had hatched a nefarious plot of some sort.

OOC explanation: I meant to post with Franxico. About halfway through I realized I was using Arororugul but thought "eh, what the fuck".

[Green Port]

I don't think there should be any international organization to control votations in other countries, its up to each country to decide how their voting processes work, if there are problems with vote counting then it is an internal affairs problem, not something in which the international community should opine nor dictate

therefore i encourage people to vote AGAINST this resolution

[Glen-Rhodes]

I don't think there should be any international organization to control votations in other countries, its up to each country to decide how their voting processes work, if there are problems with vote counting then it is an internal affairs problem, not something in which the international community should opine nor dictate

And if a country decides that they want help with their 'votations' and voting processes? They should not be allowed to ask for it?

Yes, yes, I realize that this is a 180 degree reversal from my previous stance. The simple explanation is that when I made my earlier statement I had not actually read your proposal, Dr. Castro. I saw the title and assumed you had hatched a nefarious plot of some sort.

Perfectly understandable, I suppose. I mean, more often than not I seem to be planning nefarious plots against authoritarianism and sovereignty. My goals here just didn't require that. This time.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The Federal Republic is only too happy to rise in opposition to the Discrimination against Democracies Act of 2011. Right now there are unabashed dictators out there suppressing their people and their political rights with impunity, and we're suddenly bothered with vote-counting in countries enlightened enough to have overthrown such tyrants? Surely this imposition of new hardships on fledgling young democracies -- including unwanted incursions by meddling WA "observers" -- will send these nations crawling back to their deposed despots, begging them to retake power and excuse them from having to follow such unfair electoral regulations. A lot of good this resolution will do.

- Jack Riley, Secretary of State

[Green Port]

I don't think there should be any international organization to control votations in other countries, its up to each country to decide how their voting processes work, if there are problems with vote counting then it is an internal affairs problem, not something in which the international community should opine nor dictate

And if a country decides that they want help with their 'votations' and voting processes? They should not be allowed to ask for it?

Yes, yes, I realize that this is a 180 degree reversal from my previous stance. The simple explanation is that when I made my earlier statement I had not actually read your proposal, Dr. Castro. I saw the title and assumed you had hatched a nefarious plot of some sort.

Perfectly understandable, I suppose. I mean, more often than not I seem to be planning nefarious plots against authoritarianism and sovereignty. My goals here just didn't require that. This time.

- Dr. B. Castro

yes, if they want to, there should not be international rules and or parameters to dictate how each country democracy works

[Whiskey Hill]

From the correspondence of Foreign Minister D. Petrovic:

We initially cast our vote against this proposal on account of our belief that nations should be allowed cultural eccentricities such as allowing or disallowing a secret ballot in elections, but with further reading and thought, and having followed the debates on the proposal, we shall change our vote to in favor, despite our hesitance at allowing the creation of a new WA program without a funding mechanism. We are willing to increase our dues to the WA, but it would be nice to have funding for new bureaucracies explicitly explained in proposals.

[Tajpania]

We, the community of Tajpania would like to put in our insight on the resolution.

In our state, the political system consists of communities and in election or
any public affair we go for consensus instead of compromise. In order to enable
this every vote is public. We believe that if you do vote, you should be able to
give reasons for your vote. This encourages our people to vote more responsibly
and also leads them to opennes. While it is an unwritten rule in our society, we
understand some nations might need ( especially when starting to implement
such a system ) also want to achieve such a transparency and would need to
do it through putting a law in effect that would require members of the society
to disclose their votes. If you are a state transitionning between an autocratic
regime and a open society, the least you want to build your society on is secrecy.


Regards

The Community of Tajpania

[Anur-Sanur]

Glen-Rhodes is being dishonest.
Not only is the resolution naive, it is also insulting.

The OEA is not optional, the only thing the nation has control over is whether it wants help "creating electoral system".
The OEA will still be sticking its nose in the nation's voting locations. Seems to me that could be a source of intimidation right there, a bunch of foreigners crowding around the ballot area.

How can you be so naive about voter intimidation? If the idea is to promote democracy in new democracies, then some setbacks are to be expected. Its part of the process and evolution. People constantly have picturesque views about democracy, while forgetting the early complications. Most people couldn't vote in the United States until far after its founding, and Presidents and Senators were indirectly elected for much of the United State's history. Sovereignty must be respected, we can't go butting in at every problem. Nations have to sort themselves out, foreign intervention will lead to dependency and will only cause problems such as insurgency. If anything it will make the new democracy look like a OEA pawn.

If I were a new democracy I would be encouraged to leave the WA because of this. Why go through all the trouble of revolution and starting a democracy if some foreign organization is going to declare your election BS because some group in some town decided to intimidate some voters.

Get rid of any mandatory articles, both even then I don't think it will be good enough.
Consider the foolishness, you will help only "when called upon". Called upon by whom? [b]The election hasn't happened yet.[b/] Who are you authorizing to speak for the nation? The lack of common sense in this resolution makes it absurd.

[Whiskey Hill]

From the correspondence of Foreign Minister D. Petrovic:

We initially cast our vote against this proposal on account of our belief that nations should be allowed cultural eccentricities such as allowing or disallowing a secret ballot in elections, but with further reading and thought, and having followed the debates on the proposal, we shall change our vote to in favor, despite our hesitance at allowing the creation of a new WA program without a funding mechanism. We are willing to increase our dues to the WA, but it would be nice to have funding for new bureaucracies explicitly explained in proposals.

And upon further re-reading, we discover that many provisions are involuntary, and so withdraw our vote.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The OEA is not optional, the only thing the nation has control over is whether it wants help "creating electoral system".

The resolution very explicitly states that OEA assistance is optional:

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

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.

How can you be so naive about voter intimidation? If the idea is to promote democracy in new democracies, then some setbacks are to be expected.

The idea that voter intimidation is necessary to transition into democracy is absurd.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Coxnord]

The Holy Empire would like to raise a legality concern. We direct the assembly's attention to these clauses:

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

...

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.

We would like to question whether these clauses are in accordance with the rule prohibiting optionality. Has the Secretariat issued any statement pertaining thereto?

[Glen-Rhodes]

We would like to question whether these clauses are in accordance with the rule prohibiting optionality. Has the Secretariat issued any statement pertaining thereto?

The entirety of Article III is optional and was fully intended to be optional. Had the resolution been composed of only Article III, it would have been shaky legal grounds, and definitely would be illegal if it didn't include Section 8. However, the resolution does contain mandatory (not optional) provisions in Article II.

- Dr. B. Castro

We are willing to increase our dues to the WA, but it would be nice to have funding for new bureaucracies explicitly explained in proposals.

OOC: It would have been impossible to create a funding mechanism in this proposal, given the 3,500 character limit on resolutions. However, the World Assembly has a general funding mechanism already in place: the General Fund. It provides funds for "missions established by a vote of the World Assembly."

[Numdia]

Although here's the kicker, what if the agency overextends itself and ends up wrecking the democratic attempts?

I can't see any situation where the Organization would over-extend itself. It's not fighting a war, mind you.

It's hard to stabilize a nation. The agency could easily try handling more nations than it could hold normally and could likely become to beurocratic and begin to malfunction.

[Andorianus]

Andorianus votes for, expecially since this act does not enforce democracy.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The resolution very explicitly states that OEA assistance is optional:

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

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.

The resolution very explicitly states that OEA assistance is mandatory:

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

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.

[New Unsociety]

Will not vote,as NU is both against elections and so-called "representative" democracy,but also against corruption.

Also call upon all anarchist nations to boycott this vote.

Only true democracy is direct democracy.

[Formisia]

Every time you add an extra layer to government, you invite more opportunities for corruption.

Against...