NationStates

So, here goes, my first proposal.

---

Fair Voting (Proportional Representation) Act
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

RECOGNIZING the good work of R#130 (Elections and Assistance Act) in defining good electoral practice,
CONCERNED that plurality (or first-past-the-post) voting systems are fundamentally flawed because:
• Large political parties are often over-represented, while smaller parties are often under-representented or not represented at all
• Voters are encouraged to vote tactically, voting for whom they think is electable rather than whom that actually want to win office
• That many votes have no effect on the outcome of elections
• Results can be gerrymandered by changing the boundaries of constituencies for the benefit of larger political parties
THEREFORE REALISES that plurality voting systems are therefore undemocratic and unfit for purpose,
DECIDES:
• All single winner elections shall be decided using alternative vote (AV) rules,
• In all legislative elections for member states, the single transferable vote method of voting shall be used,
• In order to ensure proportionality, for parliamentary or legislative assembly elections in member states, constituencies shall elect 3 members or more,
• That the Robson Rotation be used to avoid donkey voting,
• In the event of a vacancy in a consistency, a single winner shall be elected using AV rules
MANDATES the OEA (Office for Electoral Assistance) to assist member states in implementation of electoral reform, including training of counting officers, and public information programs to explain electoral change,
AFFIRMS that this Act in no way dictates how many members any legislative assembly may need to represent the people, or affects member states that have a non-democratic system of government.

---

So what do people think? Comments, questions, and suggestions would be appreciated before I put it to the floor.

McPenguins wrote:So, here goes, my first proposal.

---

Fair Voting (Proportional Representation) Act
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

RECOGNIZING the good work of R#130 (Elections and Assistance Act) in defining good electoral practice,
CONCERNED that plurality (or first-past-the-post) voting systems are fundamentally flawed because:
• Large political parties are often over-represented, while smaller parties are often under-representented or not represented at all
• Voters are encouraged to vote tactically, voting for whom they think is electable rather than whom that actually want to win office
• That many votes have no effect on the outcome of elections
• Results can be gerrymandered by changing the boundaries of constituencies for the benefit of larger political parties
THEREFORE REALISES that plurality voting systems are therefore undemocratic and unfit for purpose,
DECIDES:
• All single winner elections shall be decided using alternative vote (AV) rules,
• In all legislative elections for member states, the single transferable vote method of voting shall be used,
• In order to ensure proportionality, for parliamentary or legislative assembly elections in member states, constituencies shall elect 3 members or more,
• That the Robson Rotation be used to avoid donkey voting,
• In the event of a vacancy in a consistency, a single winner shall be elected using AV rules
MANDATES the OEA (Office for Electoral Assistance) to assist member states in implementation of electoral reform, including training of counting officers, and public information programs to explain electoral change,
AFFIRMS that this Act in no way dictates how many members any legislative assembly may need to represent the people, or affects member states that have a non-democratic system of government.

---

So what do people think? Comments, questions, and suggestions would be appreciated before I put it to the floor.

Strongly against:

1. This proposal micromanages, a lot.
2. Condorcet methods are far superior to the alternative vote (instant-runoff voting).

Greetings Ambassador. Interesting choice for a first proposal - trying to establish new fundamentals of democracy and all. Here's my critique. Please bear in mind that I'm still agitated over Untied Celts proposal regarding weapons of mass destruction; so I might be less kind to your first proposal than I otherwise might have been.

If you haven't already, please familiarize yourself with the Rules for GA proposals. I feel like this proposal might be illegal at its inception, because you're demanding that nations recognize what you consider to be an ideal democratic mechanism to the exclusion of all others. Ideological bans are forbidden. I think that when you say that you prefer "proportional" representation to "plurality" representation, you're essentially arguing for one conception of democracy over another. Reasonable minds may differ on that point, so please seek further guidance. But my hunch is that this whole concept of prohibiting plural democracy and instituting mandatory proportional democracy is probably dead on arrival.

To the extent that this type of Act might be legal, you do a poor job explaining what your Act does. You use a whole lot of jargon when you talk about "alternative vote (AV) rules," the "single transferable vote method," the "Robson Rotation," and "donkey voting." It's kinda hard to follow since every time I read one of these I have to go look it up and figure out how that's going to work with the other jargon to make this Act actually do something.

The more I learn, the angrier I become at how presumptuous this all is. So you think you've got it all figured out, do you? Your delegation truly believes that your democratic procedures are so much better than anything anyone else might have or might possibly dream up, eh? Stuff it. We have a strong interest in deciding certain things for ourselves. We don't need the WA saying "ah ha, this is proper democracy! Everyone follow this election procedure from now on! And never do anything else!" If you really want to eliminate the terrible evil of plurality voting (which, somehow, sounds more democratic than proportional voting), look for ways to encourage nations to venture onto the right track. Don't say "no no, you're doing democracy all wrong. Here's how it should look; it's the only proper way you know." In short, get your micro-management out of my democracy!

Lastly, your proposal seems to duplicate the Elections and Assistance Act when you mandate OEA assistance in electoral reform. The OEA already has a capacity "as an advisory body... to promote democratic principles, including universal suffrage and voting accessibility." I don't know that your mandate adds anything to what the OEA already does. I get that you mean the OEA should oversee a transition to "proportional" democracy - something the OEA does not do under the EEA. But I still think this is an illegal duplication.

Edit: To quote my succinct colleague (who barely beat me to the punch):

Christian Democrats wrote:Strongly against:

1. This proposal micromanages, a lot.

RECOGNIZING the good work of R#130 (Elections and Assistance Act) in defining good electoral practice,

Illegal, house of cards.

Moronist Decisions wrote:

RECOGNIZING the good work of R#130 (Elections and Assistance Act) in defining good electoral practice,

Illegal, house of cards.

To be honest, thats the easiest part to deal with here...

Recognizing that previous legislation has defined good electoral practices,

Is this concept legal? I could see it working if so.

I'm actually prepared to question as whether it isn't trying to repeal a previously established resolution.

That said, however, if the representative from McPenguins would like to rework GAR#130, I would recommend to them they present (not in resolution form) two things:

1. What significant errors exist in GAR#130;
2. What corrections could be made in a replacement to correct this.

Maybe then we could help you in writing both the repeal and replacement.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Micromanagement. Against.

Also, you'll want to categorize this under "Furtherment of Democracy"

This is micromanagement to the extreme, mandating a single one-size-fits-all voting method for everybody. It might even be termed nanomanagement. We are quite disturbed as well that the author of this has determined that no system of democracy is "worthy" except for that which they wish to dictate to the rest of the WA. That appears to be just slightly on the arrogant side.

We must also echo our colleagues in that there is nothing explaining what alternative vote (AV) rules are, what the single transferable vote method is, what Robson Rotation is, or what donkey voting is. Please explain how anybody is expected to comply with provisions they have no frelling idea of what they are.

As this stands, it is not something worth voting on.

Aside from all of the stated issues, doesn't this practically force democracy in nations that don't want it?

The Republic of Lanos wrote:Aside from all of the stated issues, doesn't this practically force democracy in nations that don't want it?

Does it? Then we support!

Anyway, to be serious; yes, proportional representation is much fairer than first past the post, but it also means radicals get in; and we don't want to be fair on radicals, and therefore we oppose proportional representation.

And don't let the Ponyist delegations hear about you avoiding donkey voting.

(Also, Robson voting is probably an illegal real life reference. We're not entirely sure of how to get round this?)

Well, if this requires that all WA members use some form of democratic representation, this it's illegal as an ideological ban. If it only requires it of those members that already use some form of democratic representation, then it's in all likelihood illegal for optionality.

So, I am unsure why this is being discussed?

Micromanagement - so we need to dictate how to elect people at all levels now? And gnomes are going to help run it? Good lord. No.

And this goes (apparently) not only for governmental elections - also board elections, society membership elections, and so on - including the time-honored SEPTIC SEPTIC elections.

Oh, and category/strength?

Syrkania wrote:Well, if this requires that all WA members use some form of democratic representation, this it's illegal as an ideological ban. If it only requires it of those members that already use some form of democratic representation, then it's in all likelihood illegal for optionality.

So, I am unsure why this is being discussed?

"Indeed."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Moronist Decisions wrote:

RECOGNIZING the good work of R#130 (Elections and Assistance Act) in defining good electoral practice,

Illegal, house of cards.

Not really, that's just a preamble clause and if it's removed the proposal still works fine.

The delegation understands concerns about the "nano-management" in the draft (which actually sounds quite cool). We are primarily concerned with unfair elections in member states, not imposing McPenguin's preferred electoral system to everyone. Under R#130 massivelydisproportionate parliament and government can take place. However, we felt it best to draft a proposal to that end to test the water, as it were. I refer to the draft:

• Large political parties are often over-represented, while smaller parties are often under-representented or not represented at all
• Voters are encouraged to vote tactically, voting for whom they think is electable rather than whom that actually want to win office
• That many votes have no effect on the outcome of elections
• Results can be gerrymandered by changing the boundaries of constituencies for the benefit of larger political parties

These are our concerns. I hope that all democratic states in the WA that all pen- sorry, peop- sorry, sentient life forms have to right to fair representation in public life. We do not believe that minority views should be pushed out simply because they are minority.

The delegation will support for and campaign for any proposal that meets these stated aims. We feel that there could be support for a repeal of R#130, which a replacement with additional clauses that ban gerrymandering and encourage greater voter choice?

I see the value in encouraging the use of proportional representation over first-past-the-post. However, it should not go beyond suggestion. It conflicts with the goal of the OEA when the resolution dictates that they impose PR systems on nations that opt for OEA assistance. This kind of coercion will only diminish the use of the OEA, I fear.

- Dr. B. Castro