[PASSED] Disabled Voters Act

[Falcania]

If the ambassador requires a demonstration of how maiming is not necessarily a consensual act, a demonstration is likely to be arranged.

Perhaps YOU need a demonstration as to how a nuclear explosion can decimate a city?

Myself, Ser Petear Wilhelmsin? I've witnessed my fair share of WMD deployments. As a rule of thumb, if only one in ten inhabitants of a city is killed, somebody hasn't done their job correctly.

Still, I'm sure such ostentatious willy-waving probably makes the delegate of Ebola feel better about themselves, although it does not necessarily help discussion.

[Christian Democrats]

Section 5 seems to assume that all nations have a particular style of justice system.

The only assumption is that every nation has a judicial system, an assumption made by many passed resolutions.

And is section 6 an attempt at the opposite of a blocking clause? One would assume that if this passed, my blocker would then be illegal?

No, Section 6 only clarifies the effects of this proposal if it is enacted.

I'd also question if the strength is appropriate.

A mild proposal would suggest that nations provide accommodations for disabled individuals.

A strong proposal would cover more people, not just a small minority of national populations.

[Separatist Peoples]

Perhaps YOU need a demonstration as to how a nuclear explosion can decimate a city?

Myself, Ser Petear Wilhelmsin? I've witnessed my fair share of WMD deployments. As a rule of thumb, if only one in ten inhabitants of a city is killed, somebody hasn't done their job correctly.

Still, I'm sure such ostentatious willy-waving probably makes the delegate of Ebola feel better about themselves, although it does not necessarily help discussion.

"The Elbow Empire delegation enjoys the public waving bit. I wouldn't pay them much mind, ambassador. They're entirely harmless."

[The Empire of Ebola]

Myself, Ser Petear Wilhelmsin? I've witnessed my fair share of WMD deployments. As a rule of thumb, if only one in ten inhabitants of a city is killed, somebody hasn't done their job correctly.

Still, I'm sure such ostentatious willy-waving probably makes the delegate of Ebola feel better about themselves, although it does not necessarily help discussion.

"The Elbow Empire delegation enjoys the public waving bit. I wouldn't pay them much mind, ambassador. They're entirely harmless."

How harmless will it be when a few of your cities go up in a nuclear apocalypse of fire and death?
The screams of your dying citizens would be like an Opera to us.

[Separatist Peoples]

How harmless will it be when a few of your cities go up in a nuclear apocalypse of fire and death?
The screams of your dying citizens would be like an Opera to us.

"Please put it away, ambassador, you'll go blind. The C.D.S.P. doesn't even consider the Elbow Empire a threat, so their deranged ambassador isn't likely to be one considered one.

"As the Dark Star Republic's sentiments are heard, so do I echo them. Autocracies ought not have a say in how democracies are run."

[Falcania]

"The Elbow Empire delegation enjoys the public waving bit. I wouldn't pay them much mind, ambassador. They're entirely harmless."

How harmless will it be when a few of your cities go up in a nuclear apocalypse of fire and death?
The screams of your dying citizens would be like an Opera to us.

We normally call that "Tuesday"

[The Empire of Ebola]

How harmless will it be when a few of your cities go up in a nuclear apocalypse of fire and death?
The screams of your dying citizens would be like an Opera to us.

"Please put it away, ambassador, you'll go blind. The C.D.S.P. doesn't even consider the Elbow Empire a threat, so their deranged ambassador isn't likely to be one considered one.

"As the Dark Star Republic's sentiments are heard, so do I echo them. Autocracies ought not have a say in how democracies are run."

We have just publically executed the few citizens of your nation who were in the Empire for business.

Have a nice day.

[Nonesica]

or any other physical or mental impairment that does not diminish general intelligence

Really? The proposal doesn't cover a person with a disorder such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome)? Just because it affects intelligence, as the majority of disorders do, doesn't mean the people with the disorders are not humans who do not deserve a voice.

I support your proposal in general, but this is a very serious problem I see in it that may force me to vote against it.

[Wencee]

Myself, and my (very tiny) Region; support this proposal, and Furthermore indeed to vote in support of it.

[Christian Democrats]

or any other physical or mental impairment that does not diminish general intelligence

Really? The proposal doesn't cover a person with a disorder such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome)? Just because it affects intelligence, as the majority of disorders do, doesn't mean the people with the disorders are not humans who do not deserve a voice.

I support your proposal in general, but this is a very serious problem I see in it that may force me to vote against it.

I don't think the General Assembly should force member states to extend voting rights to individuals whose mental ages are equivalent to those of prepubescent children. Of course, your nation would remain free to allow such citizens to vote on its own.

OOC: Voting restrictions on low-IQ individuals are not uncommon. In the United States, for example, there are intellectual disability restrictions in 38 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/issues/voter_qualification_chart-2008-06.pdf

[Linux and the X]

Oh goodie, did the Ambassador just seriously use the term "mental age"? A third reason to vote against this, we'd say.

[Normlpeople]

or any other physical or mental impairment that does not diminish general intelligence

Really? The proposal doesn't cover a person with a disorder such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome)? Just because it affects intelligence, as the majority of disorders do, doesn't mean the people with the disorders are not humans who do not deserve a voice.

I support your proposal in general, but this is a very serious problem I see in it that may force me to vote against it.

"So, by that logic, infants and toddlers receive a vote as well? Some mental impairments reduce the functioning intelligence capabilities to this level, despite biological age. Where I can see the argument regarding physical disabilities that do not affect intelligence, mental disabilities that do are another story."

[Linux and the X]

infants and toddlers receive a vote

YES

[Ainocra]

has someone released the Elbonians again?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Please put it away, ambassador, you'll go blind. The C.D.S.P. doesn't even consider the Elbow Empire a threat, so their deranged ambassador isn't likely to be one considered one.

"As the Dark Star Republic's sentiments are heard, so do I echo them. Autocracies ought not have a say in how democracies are run."

We have just publically executed the few citizens of your nation who were in the Empire for business.

Have a nice day.

"That would be none, according to every travel manifest a brief request at the Customs Authority yielded, since we don't allow business with unstable regimes. Perhaps your law enforcement needs retraining if they cannot identify certain citizens? I don't envy you that particular diplomatic mess."

[Bears Armed Mission]

We are well aware of this and therefore we oppose all proposals dealing with elections. We do not appreciate all the undemocratic governments of the WA having a say in how we run our democracy.

A view that we also share.
Furthermore, this proposal makes no allowance for those nations with confederal or federal government systems within which jurisdiction over voting rights is held by a "lower" tier of government rather than at the 'national' level: If it were to be passed then those nations' governments would be faced with a choice between amending their constitutions to transfer that authority to the national government (Not necessarily easy, especially in the short time-span that would be available between submission and passage...), violating their constitutions, or exclusion from the WA. For example, this would be yet another barrier in the way of Bears Armed proper's potential return to membership.
(OOC: and for a RL example, it would also be a problem for the USA if they were subject to WA law..).

[Christian Democrats]

Furthermore, this proposal makes no allowance for those nations with confederal or federal government systems within which jurisdiction over voting rights is held by a "lower" tier of government rather than at the 'national' level.

You should reread the proposal . . .

Every time I refer to "member states," I refer to "political subdivisions" in the same breath, thus accounting for non-unitary states, where voting rights and regulations might be determined on the subnational level.

(OOC: and for a RL example, it would also be a problem for the USA if they were subject to WA law.)

As I say above, this proposal would not do this; but, even if it did, it would not present a problem for the United States.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sections 1 and 5:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

If such an international law were enacted, Congress would have the constitutional power to implement it; and the courts likely would say that the WA law had created a new privilege or liberty for U.S. citizens, one to be incorporated into U.S. law.

Not to mention the fact that federal civil rights laws already require states and localities to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled voters: see the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Also, see the Supreme Court decision Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: Could you at least use "OOC" tags if you are going to use real life precedent to back up your proposal? The United States constitution does not exist in NationStates, and has absolutely no bearing here. This is precisely why I tend to vote against your proposals. You make no attempt to back them up IC.

[Christian Democrats]

OOC: Could you at least use "OOC" tags if you are going to use real life precedent to back up your proposal?

The OOC tag is located in the post by Bears Armed that I quote. It precedes all of my OOC content.

This is precisely why I tend to vote against your proposals. You make no attempt to back them up IC.

I haven't really made any attempt to back up this proposal IC or OOC in this thread. (We're only on page two right now.)

I would hope that disabled voting rights is self-explanatory. I believe the proposal itself provides all of the "backing up" needed for this fairly simple issue: Should there be accommodations for the disabled to vote or not?

[Chester Pearson]

Should there be accommodations for the disabled to vote or not?

Except the resolution in itself is pointless. It won't apply to nations that don't permit voting, and do you truly believe any nation that embraces a truly representative democracy, and not a sham democracy is going to discriminate against disabled persons when it comes to voting? Voting in itself is not an international issue, and neither is this. This is nothing more than a "feel good" resolution, and is a waste of space.

[The Dark Star Republic]

This is precisely why I tend to vote against your proposals. You make no attempt to back them up IC.

I haven't really made any attempt to back up this proposal IC or OOC in this thread. (We're only on page two right now.)

I think the point is more that for those of us who want to play the game, your refusal to treat it as anything more than a forum for RL political arguments creates a bit of a disconnect. Sad little roleplay dorks we may be to you, but it's not like the game doesn't make accommodations for those purely interested in RL debate.

I would hope that disabled voting rights is self-explanatory. I believe the proposal itself provides all of the "backing up" needed for this fairly simple issue: Should there be accommodations for the disabled to vote or not?

Why should non-democratic states be allowed to have any say in the electoral processes of democratic states?

[Chester Pearson]

Why should non-democratic states be allowed to have any say in the electoral processes of democratic states?

Obviously because God said so....

[The Dark Star Republic]

Sorry, that was unnecessary, n/m.

[Chester Pearson]

You know, voting against someone's resolutions because they're a Catholic doesn't really strengthen your claim to be the protector of IC conduct. Though I do accept that is exactly why his resolutions get voted down.

I don't vote them down because he is Catholic. I vote them down because he tends to act like he knows everything....

[Linux and the X]

You know, voting against someone's resolutions because they're a Catholic doesn't really strengthen your claim to be the protector of IC conduct. Though I do accept that is exactly why his resolutions get voted down.

I don't vote them down because he is Catholic. I vote them down because he tends to act like he knows everything....

So, because he's Catholic, then?