[DEFEATED] Non-interference in Elections

[Bananaistan]

Draft 4

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly

Acknowledging the great strides made by this body and individual member states in furthering democracy,

Noting that it is not within the power of this body to extend the right to vote to citizens of all member states,

However concerned that any further WA legislation regarding elections will discourage further democratisation,

Also noting the indivisible right of sovereign nations to choose their own form of government,

And wishing to establish a method by which international election monitors can review and report upon a member state’s elections to further encourage dialogue and commerce between member states,

Hereby

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

2) Expands the role of the Organization for Electoral Assistance to:

(a) Establish a methodology on certification of elections and electoral systems based upon how free, fair, transparent and regular the elections and electoral systems are,

(b) Upon the request of the government of a member state, to monitor that member state’s election(s) and electoral process, and to certify the election(s) and electoral system pursuant to the criteria above,

3) 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.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly

Noting that it is not within the power of this body to extend the right to vote to citizens of all member states,

Acknowledging the great strides made by this body and individual member states in furthering democracy,

However concerned that any further WA legislation regarding elections will disencourage further democratisation,

Also noting the indivisible right of sovereign nations to choose their own form of government,

And wishing to establish a method by which international election monitors can review and report upon a member state’s elections to further encourage dialogue and commerce between member states,

Hereby

1) Expands the role of the Organization for Electoral Assistance to:

(a) Establish a methodology on certification of elections and electoral systems based upon how free, fair, transparent and regular the elections and electoral systems are,

(b) Upon the request of the government of a member state, to monitor that member state’s election(s) and electoral process, and to certify the election(s) and electoral system pursuant to the criteria above,

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,

3) Urges all member states to hold free and fair elections for national and subnational government positions and legislatures within the context of their own electoral system and form of government.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly

Regretting that it is not within the power of this body to extend the right to vote to citizens of all member states,

Acknowledging the great strides made by this body and individual member states in furthering democracy,

Wishing to establish a method by which international election monitors can review and report upon a member state’s elections,

Hereby

1) Expands the role of the Organization for Electoral Assistance (OEA) to:

(a) Establish a methodology on certification of elections and electoral systems based upon how free, fair, transparent and regular the elections and electoral systems are,

(b) Upon the request of the government of a member state, to monitor that member state’s election(s) and electoral process, and to certify the election(s) and electoral system pursuant to the criteria above,

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,

3) Urges all member nations to hold free and fair elections for national and subnational government positions and legislatures.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly

Regretting that it is not within the power of this body to extend the right to vote to citizens of all member states,

Acknowledging the great strides made by this body and individual member nations in furthering democracy,

Wishing to establish a method by which international election monitors can review and report upon a member state’s elections,

Hereby

1) Expands the role of the Organization for Electoral Assistance (OEA) to:

(a) Establish a methodology on certification of elections and electoral systems based upon how free, fair, transparent and regular the elections and electoral systems are,

(b) Upon the request of a member state to monitor that member state’s election(s) and electoral process, and to certify the election(s) and electoral system pursuant to the criteria above,

2) Reserves the power to create, implement, amend and repeal electoral laws, rules, regulations and guidelines to individual member states

3) Urges all member nations to hold free and fair elections for national and subnational government positions and legislatures

OOC: Firstly, the title is up in the air. Secondly, the whole thing is IMO perilously close to being in breach of the rule about blocking a whole category and thirdly, the whole thing is perilously close to breaching the committee only rule. Though hopefully we can make something of it if there is some support for the idea.

The problem I wish to address here is the various proposals we have seen in recent times which seek to either impose restrictions on nations on how they run their own internal democracy. We have had proposals regarding the ex-cons voting, free and fair elections and the current debate regarding compulsory voting. I find it objectionable that the WA would even consider any of these things when it has not yet even established a right to vote. While I well realise that the WA cannot do so due to the ideological ban rule, within an RP mode, I would say that until we address such an issue we should not be skirting around the edges. I hope the above can be turned into an effective blocker on the issue.

Also, I really don't like the fact that any such proposal restricting or instructing democratic member nations on their own internal democracy can be voted on by the non-democratic nations, IE if you are a totalitarian dictatorship, please don't tell us how to run our elections.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I like the idea, it makes a lot of sense. No idea if it's legal as the blocker rules are too opaque for players to comprehend. But it's not taking out a whole category: there are plenty of Furtherment of Democracy resolutions possible not to do with voting, assuming a reasonably expansive view of "political rights".

[Louisistan]

"This seems to create a completely optional and probably heavily bureaucratic certification process, in which nobody has to participate if he doesn't want to. I love it."

[Grays Harbor]

We honestly do not give two figs how other nations choose to conduct their elections.

[Louisistan]

We honestly do not give two figs how other nations choose to conduct their elections.

And this proposal does absolutely nothing that requires even the slightest interest in other nations. If you want (for example) ro export weapons only to truly democratic nations, you can have a look at the certified elections. If not, you just ignore it.

[Bears Armed]

Firstly, does this do anything that wouldn't involve the committee?

Secondly, doesn't this clause

2) Reserves the power to create, implement, amend and repeal electoral laws, rules, regulations and guidelines to individual member states

effectively give the committee a free hand not only to re-write member nations' entire electoral processes but also to introduce elections where they currently aren't held at all?

[Louisistan]

Firstly, does this do anything that wouldn't involve the committee?

Secondly, doesn't this clause

2) Reserves the power to create, implement, amend and repeal electoral laws, rules, regulations and guidelines to individual member states

effectively give the committee a free hand not only to re-write member nations' entire electoral processes but also to introduce elections where they currently aren't held at all?

How? "Reserves ... to individual member states"!

[Bananaistan]

We honestly do not give two figs how other nations choose to conduct their elections.

Neither do we which is why we are proposing this. It's a blocker on account of clause 2 and we hope that clause 3 is a sufficient requirement given the mild strength to avoid breaking the committee only rule.

Firstly, does this do anything that wouldn't involve the committee?

Secondly, doesn't this clause

2) Reserves the power to create, implement, amend and repeal electoral laws, rules, regulations and guidelines to individual member states

effectively give the committee a free hand not only to re-write member nations' entire electoral processes but also to introduce elections where they currently aren't held at all?

No, only clause 1 refers to the committee.

Perhaps rearranging clause 2 as follows might make it clearer?

"Reserves to individual member states the power to create, implement, amend and repeal electoral laws, rules, regulations and guidelines".

A further thought I had on this clause is that the Elections and Assistance Act makes two requirements on member states: a secret ballot and published results. If we were to add "within the requirements of existing international law" to the end of clause 2, does it remain a blocker on future proposals?

And a nod to DSR and Louisistan for their support (or at least for liking it!).

[Bears Armed]

Firstly, does this do anything that wouldn't involve the committee?

Secondly, doesn't this clause

2) Reserves the power to create, implement, amend and repeal electoral laws, rules, regulations and guidelines to individual member states

effectively give the committee a free hand not only to re-write member nations' entire electoral processes but also to introduce elections where they currently aren't held at all?

How? "Reserves ... to individual member states"!

OOC; Oops!
Serves me right for posting in a hurry, but I knew that I'd have to log off very shortly and wasn't sure whether I'd be able to get back here for a few days...

[Bananaistan]

I had hoped there would be more interest in this given the opposition to those other proposals around voting rights. We'll see how it goes now, hopefully there might be more debate.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"The blocking clause might need to be clarified a bit. It should only apply to purely 'internal' laws, as per the title. And it can't contradict Elections and Assistance Act.

"The OEA clause needs to clarify the mechanism for the 'request': who, within that member state, can actually request it? Only the head of state, or head of government, or Ambassador to the WA?

"We continue to think though that this is a much fairer and better option than some of the alternatives being proposed."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Bananaistan]

"The blocking clause might need to be clarified a bit. It should only apply to purely 'internal' laws, as per the title. And it can't contradict Elections and Assistance Act.

"The OEA clause needs to clarify the mechanism for the 'request': who, within that member state, can actually request it? Only the head of state, or head of government, or Ambassador to the WA?

"We continue to think though that this is a much fairer and better option than some of the alternatives being proposed."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

Thanks for the suggestions. I have updated clause 1(b) to state that the government makes the request. After that, it's up to member state to decide who from the government makes the request or how. As it would apply to Bananaistan, this would make it a cabinet decision to make the request. Also, updated clause 2 to reflect the "within existing international legislation" idea to avoid contradiction with the Elections and Assistance Act and added a bit about the internal elections as per Daisy's suggestion.

Hopefully a few more might comment!

[Jackonia]

I think that it is up to individual Nations to decide how their Governments are elected. If the majority of people support Monarchy (as the majority of my population does) then surely it is wrong to impose a set of rules for a Nation to elect a a Government in a certain way contrary to how the people in the Nation want their Government to be elected. I do not want certain Election rules imposed on all Nations by the World Assembly. Therefore I am against the proposal and stand up for the right of Monarchs to rule their own countries with their own Election rules.

[Bananaistan]

I think that it is up to individual Nations to decide how their Governments are elected. If the majority of people support Monarchy (as the majority of my population does) then surely it is wrong to impose a set of rules for a Nation to elect a a Government in a certain way contrary to how the people in the Nation want their Government to be elected. I do not want certain Election rules imposed on all Nations by the World Assembly. Therefore I am against the proposal and stand up for the right of Monarchs to rule their own countries with their own Election rules.

This proposal would have absolutely no bearing on how any member states sets out their government system and it imposes no rules on anyone. It specifically states that member states decide all elections rules themselves and, as per WA rules, makes no comment on nations that don't have elections other than urging them to do so. Urging is not requiring or mandating and that clause is included only to avoid breaching the committee only rule.

[Grays Harbor]

I think that it is up to individual Nations to decide how their Governments are elected. If the majority of people support Monarchy (as the majority of my population does) then surely it is wrong to impose a set of rules for a Nation to elect a a Government in a certain way contrary to how the people in the Nation want their Government to be elected. I do not want certain Election rules imposed on all Nations by the World Assembly. Therefore I am against the proposal and stand up for the right of Monarchs to rule their own countries with their own Election rules.

This proposal would have absolutely no bearing on how any member states sets out their government system and it imposes no rules on anyone. It specifically states that member states decide all elections rules themselves and, as per WA rules, makes no comment on nations that don't have elections other than urging them to do so. Urging is not requiring or mandating and that clause is included only to avoid breaching the committee only rule.

So, a resolution which tells nations they can keep on doing what they are doing already because now the WA says they can. Fascinating.

[Chester Pearson]

So, a resolution which tells nations they can keep on doing what they are doing already because now the WA says they can. Fascinating.

Big brother at its finest....

[The Dark Star Republic]

So, a resolution which tells nations they can keep on doing what they are doing already because now the WA says they can. Fascinating.

Big brother at its finest....

Isn't that exactly what all blockers do? This has no more to do with "Big brother" than NAPA.

[New Mushroom Kingdom]

The New Mushroom Kingdom supports this resolution as it prevents more resolutions preaching and attempting to convert nations to Democracy.

[Cedoria]

We are not convinced of the necessity for this resolution. The Electoral Assistance Act already exists for nations wishing help to run free elections, and I don't believe that the WA should be taking a position on trying to promote a particular ideology over any others within it's member states.

If my people like a one-party socialist state, the WA needs to respect that. If I want multi-party elections, I can already ask the WA for assistance. So whilst I applaud the theory behind this resolution. I fail to see the practical necessity for it at this time.

I will not be "urged" to change my political system due to WA either. Or at least, I shouldn't be.

[Cardoness]

The New Mushroom Kingdom supports this resolution as it prevents more resolutions preaching and attempting to convert nations to Democracy.

Sadly, those will continue even if this passes.

As to the proposal itself, I don't object to anything in it, mostly because there doesn't seem to be anything in it.

The General Assembly

Regretting that it is not within the power of this body to extend the right to vote to citizens of all member states,

Why not? I know why not but this comes close to referencing the rules of the game. While there is no spicific rule against it,unlike the SC (unless there is a mod ruling I am unaware of), it doesn't look right. The WA is an international assembly of nations and as such (in character) has what ever power we say it has. As this is fluff, I recommend taking it out.

Acknowledging the great strides made by this body and individual member nations in furthering democracy,

Wishing to establish a method by which international election monitors can review and report upon a member state’s elections,

What is stopping this from happening now? Any nation that wants the OEA to assist them is doing, or will be doing so. The OEA being made up of good bureaucratic gnomes already files, in triplicate, reports of their actions and those of the nations they are involved with.

Hereby

1) Expands the role of the Organization for Electoral Assistance (OEA) to:

(a) Establish a methodology on certification of elections and electoral systems based upon how free, fair, transparent and regular the elections and electoral systems are,

Why do you assume this isn't already being done? The gnomes would no doubt file a final report which would also no doubt contain their expert opinion on how the election itself was handled including the above standards.

(b) Upon the request of the government of a member state to monitor that member state’s election(s) and electoral process, and to certify the election(s) and electoral system pursuant to the criteria above,

It already does this.

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,

So you reserve to member states the same things that the game rules and GAR #2 already guarantee.

3) Urges all member nations to hold free and fair elections for national and subnational government positions and legislatures.

Just squeaks by here. In fact, each section just squeaks by the rules and when taken as a whole I'm not 100% sure it does. Regardless, this feels like a dressed up attempt to amend GAR #130 (also illegal) and doesn't offer much in the way of independent substance.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC:

What is stopping this from happening now? Any nation that wants the OEA to assist them is doing, or will be doing so. The OEA being made up of good bureaucratic gnomes already files, in triplicate, reports of their actions and those of the nations they are involved with.

There's nothing in the Elections and Assistance Act that allows for that. The provisions of that resolution apply only to "transitioning" nations. Expanding the scope of a committee like this is a perfectly legal function. For example, the World Trade Commisstion has often seen its scope expanded (and contracted) depending on which particular trade laws are in force at the time.

Why do you assume this isn't already being done? The gnomes would no doubt file a final report which would also no doubt contain their expert opinion on how the election itself was handled including the above standards.

Because the OEA's resolution authorising resolution makes no provision for it to happen. The implication that unaccountable "gnomes" are without a vote of the General Assembly expanding the function of WA committees is actually pretty alarming.

Your objection to this proposal is based on a fundamental misreading of the Elections and Assistance Act so I won't pantomine act an "Oh no it doesn't!" line to every one of your arguments, but suffice it to repeat: at present, the OEA's authorised mission is limited to only "transitioning nations". Indeed, you can look at the OEA's very charter:

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.

So you reserve to member states the same things that the game rules and GAR #2 already guarantee.

That's the case for all blockers. Nuclear Arms Possession Act reserves nations' rights to own nuclear arms, but that was the case anyway before it passed. In the past, there was an attempt at a "Prohibition of [WA] Military" proposal, but that was the case anyway, meaning it made no difference when the proposal failed; and the same provision was later written into Rights & Duties v.2 anyway. But this also blocks considerably more: some of the recent draft proposals that would have interfered with democratic systems would have been legal.

This is an excellent proposal and I admit to being utterly mystified as to why it isn't gathering more support.

[Cardoness]

OOC:

What is stopping this from happening now? Any nation that wants the OEA to assist them is doing, or will be doing so. The OEA being made up of good bureaucratic gnomes already files, in triplicate, reports of their actions and those of the nations they are involved with.

There's nothing in the Elections and Assistance Act that allows for that. The provisions of that resolution apply only to "transitioning" nations. Expanding the scope of a committee like this is a perfectly legal function. For example, the World Trade Commisstion has often seen its scope expanded (and contracted) depending on which particular trade laws are in force at the time.

Why do you assume this isn't already being done? The gnomes would no doubt file a final report which would also no doubt contain their expert opinion on how the election itself was handled including the above standards.

Because the OEA's resolution authorising resolution makes no provision for it to happen. The implication that unaccountable "gnomes" are without a vote of the General Assembly expanding the function of WA committees is actually pretty alarming.

Your objection to this proposal is based on a fundamental misreading of the Elections and Assistance Act so I won't pantomine act an "Oh no it doesn't!" line to every one of your arguments, but suffice it to repeat: at present, the OEA's authorised mission is limited to only "transitioning nations". Indeed, you can look at the OEA's very charter:

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.

So you reserve to member states the same things that the game rules and GAR #2 already guarantee.

That's the case for all blockers. Nuclear Arms Possession Act reserves nations' rights to own nuclear arms, but that was the case anyway before it passed. In the past, there was an attempt at a "Prohibition of [WA] Military" proposal, but that was the case anyway, meaning it made no difference when the proposal failed; and the same provision was later written into Rights & Duties v.2 anyway. But this also blocks considerably more: some of the recent draft proposals that would have interfered with democratic systems would have been legal.

This is an excellent proposal and I admit to being utterly mystified as to why it isn't gathering more support.

OOC: My apologies. I did a quick refresher read of the Elections and Assistance Act and overlooked "transitioning nations". I have re-read that resolution and will back off of my objections to section 1. And though there is no direct reference to "reports", those are the life blood of any bureaucracy and it has been long established that the gnomes and their committees are that in spades.

My objection to section 2 stands. I understand what a good blocker is supposed to do and acknowledge their usefulness. This blocker however is not needed, as the rules and existing WA resolutions already allow each nation to determine its own system of government, and by extension how that government is selected. I didn't have any problem with section 3 except that it doesn't do much. Nations are urged to hold elections, and such nations that hold elections may by request get the OEA to observe such. This resolution doesn't universally require anything thereby making it optional, legal rulings aside.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC:

My objection to section 2 stands. I understand what a good blocker is supposed to do and acknowledge their usefulness. This blocker however is not needed, as the rules and existing WA resolutions already allow each nation to determine its own system of government, and by extension how that government is selected.

I think you're missing that there's lots the WA can legally interfere with that this also blocks beyond the generic issue of whether elections happen at all, such as mandating universal suffrage, banning compulsory voting, and regulating felony disenfranchisement. There are myriad other possibilities. This proposal clearly reflects a frustration that the WA cannot impose democracy, yet it can micromanage nations who voluntarily choose to adopt democracy.

[Cardoness]

OOC:

My objection to section 2 stands. I understand what a good blocker is supposed to do and acknowledge their usefulness. This blocker however is not needed, as the rules and existing WA resolutions already allow each nation to determine its own system of government, and by extension how that government is selected.

I think you're missing that there's lots the WA can legally interfere with that this also blocks beyond the generic issue of whether elections happen at all, such as mandating universal suffrage, banning compulsory voting, and regulating felony disenfranchisement. There are myriad other possibilities. This proposal clearly reflects a frustration that the WA cannot impose democracy, yet it can micromanage nations who voluntarily choose to adopt democracy.

I see your point Ambassador. But I actually like (some of) those ideas. I don't care if a nation is a democracy or not, but if they are going to claim to be than they should be held to act like one. Surely you don't wish to block the furtherance of democracy?

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC:
I think you're missing that there's lots the WA can legally interfere with that this also blocks beyond the generic issue of whether elections happen at all, such as mandating universal suffrage, banning compulsory voting, and regulating felony disenfranchisement. There are myriad other possibilities. This proposal clearly reflects a frustration that the WA cannot impose democracy, yet it can micromanage nations who voluntarily choose to adopt democracy.

I see your point Ambassador. But I actually like (some of) those ideas. I don't care if a nation is a democracy or not, but if they are going to claim to be than they should be held to act like one. Surely you don't wish to block the furtherance of democracy?

OOC: I think it's hypocritical for the WA to declare that democracies have to abide by certain rules but that non-democracies don't. I think it's impractical to think that the WA can ever really "further democracy" by legislative fiat given a massive "lol nope" opt-out clause exists for every non-democratic nation. I think it's naive to think that imposing strict regulations on democracies that don't apply to non-democratic states won't actually prevent some of those states from choosing to transition.

It's not me that doesn't recognise voting as a universal right: it's the WA. But given it doesn't, legislating as though it does is not something I support.

I've said my piece OOC; I'll leave further defence of the proposal to the author as I don't wish to drag discussion off-topic.