[PASSED] Repeal GA#419 "Voting Equality for Freed Inmates"

[North Supreria]

I support the repeal as a member state, but I am not convinced why this should be regulated internationally and cannot remain a national matter. In addition, the WA should be inclusive towards member states that do not hold elections and in my opinion this should remain a national matter at all times. So support for the repeal, but not for the replacement.

[Udmar]

We are worried that the repeal of GA#419 could strip former prisoners of their freedom if the proposed alternative isn't passed. Would it not be possible to seek an amendment to the existing law? And would the proposed bill account for inmates who committed crimes against democracy, terrorism or treason?

[Tinhampton]

We are worried that the repeal of GA#419 could strip former prisoners of their freedom if the proposed alternative isn't passed. Would it not be possible to seek an amendment to the existing law? And would the proposed bill account for inmates who committed crimes against democracy, terrorism or treason?

Mechanically impossible and I have no idea what you mean by "account[ing] for inmates" respectively.

[Barfleur]

"Whilst it is understandable that criminals who have served their sentences should have their voting rights reinstated, it is preposterous to propose that incarcerated individuals be able to vote, considering they have violated the law of the land; why should someone be able to vote for something they have shown no respect? Additionally, there are crimes such as voter fraud, for which the most obvious punishment is rescinding the person's right to vote. For these reasons, Germany will be opposing this repeal-and-replace effort."

"I oppose this proposal for the reasons ably states by Ambassador Schmidt. As I am already on record opposing the proposed replacement for similar reasons, I see no reason to waste this body's time and repeat my statement of opposition. No doubt this is a well-meaning proposal, born of a desire to ensure that a person does not become 'rightless' by virtue of a criminal conviction, but its passage would effect entirely avoidable harm on the administration of justice."

I support the repeal as a member state, but I am not convinced why this should be regulated internationally and cannot remain a national matter. In addition, the WA should be inclusive towards member states that do not hold elections and in my opinion this should remain a national matter at all times. So support for the repeal, but not for the replacement.

"Ambassador, if a nation chooses not to hold elections, they are not covered by international laws pertaining to voting and elections. If a nation does hold elections, however, they may not exclude formerly incarcerated individuals from participating in such elections solely because they were once incarcerated."

[GreaterFrance]

To my mind it depends of the importance of the crime, we can't say for or against like if it was black or white, there are many shades that need to be studied separately.

[Remlasia]

The Principality of Remlasia:

• does not agree that persons incarcerated should have the right to vote;
• believes that imprisonment requires the deprivation of certain civil rights as a matter of justice;
• shall therefore regretably be voting AGAINST this proposal.

[Tinhampton]

The Principality of Remlasia:

• does not agree that persons incarcerated should have the right to vote;
• believes that imprisonment requires the deprivation of certain civil rights as a matter of justice;
• shall therefore regretably be voting AGAINST this proposal.

If this repeal is defeated:
1. Member states will be allowed to determine whether to allow prisoners to vote
2. Future resolutions cannot act to require members to allow prisoners to vote while GA#419 is in force

If this repeal passes:
1. Member states will be allowed to determine whether to allow prisoners to vote
2. Future resolutions can act to require members to allow prisoners to vote since GA#419 is not in force

[Wallenburg]

The Principality of Remlasia:

• does not agree that persons incarcerated should have the right to vote;
• believes that imprisonment requires the deprivation of certain civil rights as a matter of justice;
• shall therefore regretably be voting AGAINST this proposal.

If this repeal is defeated:
1. Member states will be allowed to determine whether to allow prisoners to vote
2. Future resolutions cannot act to require members to allow prisoners to vote while GA#419 is in force

If this repeal passes:
1. Member states will be allowed to determine whether to allow prisoners to vote
2. Future resolutions can act to require members to allow prisoners to vote since GA#419 is not in force

They seem to understand that, and are voting against this for that very reason.

[New Decius]

OOC: Just to make sure I understand, the issue with the Resolution in question is it allows for member states to deny the right to vote to those who are still incarcerated? Though not to those who have been freed following time served?

[North Supreria]

I support the repeal as a member state, but I am not convinced why this should be regulated internationally and cannot remain a national matter. In addition, the WA should be inclusive towards member states that do not hold elections and in my opinion this should remain a national matter at all times. So support for the repeal, but not for the replacement.

"Ambassador, if a nation chooses not to hold elections, they are not covered by international laws pertaining to voting and elections. If a nation does hold elections, however, they may not exclude formerly incarcerated individuals from participating in such elections solely because they were once incarcerated."

I want to thank you for your understanding of the laws and treaties established by the General Assembly, and you are absolutely right. North Supreria thinks the right to vote is too important to lose and therefore supports the repeal and, after reconsideration, also the possible replacement.

[Vikanias]

CYKA BLYAT

Is of denied

[Mystery Realms]

As I have seen many proposals to improve voting rights and democracies, I oppose them all since the start of this nation’s existence. Let me break my argument into sections, and hopefully in the end your understand and right for our coalition of opposition to such frivolous proposal.
Section 1 Damage Of The Justice System

We should take into account that this proposal explicitly damages a nation’s public law and justice system, especially in more authoritative nations. As incarnation of criminals in prison is a very very common practice in the whole law system, this proposal is repealing another “ good “ proposal so it is possible that criminals, including murderers and criminals which deserve torture can get voting rights. I, am the leader already see this as going on the wrong way of revolutionize the law system. First of all, I not talking about death or torture, but why do even criminals should get voting rights. They already are recovering way too much rights by other bad proposals and now are you letting them electing a criminal president by giving them voting rights ? I mean that we need a fair degree of strictness and harsh punishments that govern and protect the law system from abusive criminals. This law literally just damages my nation, which authorizes slavery, torture, capital punishment, harsh prison conditions... Also this law gives criminals a new light when they are in the darkness to manipulate the law system by abusing their rights and breaking out to commit more crimes and eventually the cycle repeats again and again.

Section 2 This Proposal’s merits

Also just a generally note that even if you like to support the cause of criminal rights and support an repeal to do this, I suggest you vote against because the own merits of this proposal is lame as it is super super short and it simply has only one or two sentences. This is pretty much a novice writer I can tell by the lack of quality in this proposal already. This probably is very very likely to violate WA rules as it explicitly states that “ writing proposals are not for novices “ and many other rules which this is crossing the line on.

Conclusion and Advice

The Government of Mystery Realms has carefully debated about this proposal to repeal an existing proposal and rejected support for this one. They strongly advise you to vote AGAINST and unite to defeat this proposal. Signed - Top Government Office Johnson Harry

#VOTEAGAINEST AND #COA ( coalition of against ) an organization that actively combats this proposal and seeks to defeat it.

[North Silldistia Cita]

Those who have been released from their incarceration are deserving of the right to participate in their democracy. They have paid their debt to society and furthormore all must be able to voice their opinions in matters that shape the society they live in

[Illu-chi]

Those who have been released from their incarceration are deserving of the right to participate in their democracy. They have paid their debt to society and furthormore all must be able to voice their opinions in matters that shape the society they live in

They are allowed the right if their government deems it already or not right now. This proposal would allow the world assembly to force sovereign nations to allow inmates to vote which the government elected by the people should choose. Not the world assembly.

[Tinhampton]

This is pretty much a novice writer I can tell by the lack of quality in this proposal already. This probably is very very likely to violate WA rules as it explicitly states that “ writing proposals are not for novices “ and many other rules which this is crossing the line on.

Please file a legality challenge if you believe that my proposal violates GA rules.

Seconds ago: Tinhampton changed its national nation type to "Novice Writer".

[Illu-chi]

This is pretty much a novice writer I can tell by the lack of quality in this proposal already. This probably is very very likely to violate WA rules as it explicitly states that “ writing proposals are not for novices “ and many other rules which this is crossing the line on.

Please file a legality challenge if you believe that my proposal violates GA rules.

Seconds ago: Tinhampton changed its national nation type to "Novice Writer".

[Illu-chi]

If this passes I will continue my policy of nullification like always.

[Mystery Realms]

If this passes I will continue my policy of nullification like always.

Please vote against

[Mystery Realms]

This is pretty much a novice writer I can tell by the lack of quality in this proposal already. This probably is very very likely to violate WA rules as it explicitly states that “ writing proposals are not for novices “ and many other rules which this is crossing the line on.

Please file a legality challenge if you believe that my proposal violates GA rules.

Seconds ago: Tinhampton changed its national nation type to "Novice Writer".

[Imperium Anglorum]

It seems that many people have no ability to judge what is good writing and what is not. Regardless, the 'quality' of the 'writing' of this proposal is not bad. Merely because something is short does not make it unacceptable. The rules have no limitations as to the length of a proposal or the identity of the author. If a proposal is clear about what it does and avoids needless ambiguity, it is acceptably written. This repeal is acceptably written.

[Mystery Realms]

It seems that many people have no ability to judge what is good writing and what is not. Regardless, the 'quality' of the 'writing' of this proposal is not bad. Merely because something is short does not make it unacceptable. The rules have no limitations as to the length of a proposal or the identity of the author. If a proposal is clear about what it does and avoids needless ambiguity, it is acceptably written. This repeal is acceptably written.

Yes that is technically correct though my point is that different quality proposals can be legal in any situations. For example, comparison to a well passed legal proposal to a barely above legal proposal is the difference as common sense states that the well passed legal proposal should be the one we choose. This proposal is one of the poor quality ones, IMAO It barely passed. I mean you don’t want to just have a good one, you want the best one and this is technically what I trying to say.

[Astrobolt]

It seems that many people have no ability to judge what is good writing and what is not. Regardless, the 'quality' of the 'writing' of this proposal is not bad. Merely because something is short does not make it unacceptable. The rules have no limitations as to the length of a proposal or the identity of the author. If a proposal is clear about what it does and avoids needless ambiguity, it is acceptably written. This repeal is acceptably written.

Yes that is technically correct though my point is that different quality proposals can be legal in any situations. For example, comparison to a well passed legal proposal to a barely above legal proposal is the difference as common sense states that the well passed legal proposal should be the one we choose. This proposal is one of the poor quality ones, IMAO It barely passed. I mean you don’t want to just have a good one, you want the best one and this is technically what I trying to say.

OOC: Whether a proposal passes is different from whether the quality of the proposal is good. Furthermore, could you please explain why this proposal is of "poor quality"?

[New Decius]

“Her Imperial Majesties Government feels that granting the right to vote and participate in the democratic process to the incarcerated is, while a noble cause, not practical in all situations. For those convicted of minor crimes, Her Imperial Majesties’ Government already guarantee’s the right to continue in the democratic process. However, those convicted of the most heinous of crimes...to allow them to participate in such an august and noble act as helping direct the course of the nation, would seem to be an insult to their victims. Her Imperial Majesties’ Government must oppose this proposal and retain its right to deny such a right to the worst of humanity. Else proper justice would not be served.”

[Illu-chi]

If this passes I will continue my policy of nullification like always.

Please vote against

I have, but sadly some of the bigger delegates have switched their vote from a against vote to a for vote(ex:chimes).

[Scalizagasti]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote for the resolution. During internal voting, 6 regions voted for the resolution, 3 regions voted against, and 1 region abstained. For more information please see the dispatch linked below.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1531576