[DRAFT] Eliminating Financial Barriers to Voting

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: As they should.

OOC: If a person cheats the government out of the taxes they are required to pay, why should they have the right to participate in the working of such government? Upon release, yes, they should regain the right to vote, but there is no reason white-collar criminals should have more rights than people who follow the laws but cannot afford to pay a tax designed to keep them from the polls.

(Also, IA, when I said to blame your style guide, I was responding to Tinhampton's remark about the style of the draft, not making a judgement about what you wrote.)

OOC: The right to vote is so central to any democracy for me that I think that yes, even those cheating the state and those working against it should still have the right to vote.

Since no one should have to pay taxes explicitly for being allowed to vote - which, again, in my opinion should be the scope of this legislation -, and no criminal conviction should take away someone's right to vote, tax evaders would not have more, but the same amount of rights.

But it's your proposal, of course.

Also, there are countries where non-citizens are allowed to vote. The prohibitions in 2. and 3. should therefore refer to 'voters', not citizens. (Making the definition of citizen superfluous.)

Any thoughts on that?

[Barfleur]

OOC: If a person cheats the government out of the taxes they are required to pay, why should they have the right to participate in the working of such government? Upon release, yes, they should regain the right to vote, but there is no reason white-collar criminals should have more rights than people who follow the laws but cannot afford to pay a tax designed to keep them from the polls.

(Also, IA, when I said to blame your style guide, I was responding to Tinhampton's remark about the style of the draft, not making a judgement about what you wrote.)

OOC: The right to vote is so central to any democracy for me that I think that yes, even those cheating the state and those working against it should still have the right to vote.

Since no one should have to pay taxes explicitly for being allowed to vote - which, again, in my opinion should be the scope of this legislation -, and no criminal conviction should take away someone's right to vote, tax evaders would not have more, but the same amount of rights.

But it's your proposal, of course.

Also, there are countries where non-citizens are allowed to vote. The prohibitions in 2. and 3. should therefore refer to 'voters', not citizens. (Making the definition of citizen superfluous.)

Any thoughts on that?

That's a good point you make, I skimmed over it in your earlier comment. I will find a way to add that in.

[Bananaistan]

"We 100% agree with the comments of Comrade Dr Russel and utterly refuse to have our democratic practices dictated to us by all sort s of ne'er do wellswho infest this particular snake pit such as fascists, dictatorships and, worst of all, the so called liberal democracies, who try their best to let on that they are actually democratic and are the only ones who might try to implement the policies this proposal seeks to eliminate."

- Ted

[Comfed]

I’ll support this as long as it doesn’t require me to hold elections, which it does not so far!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Awww, this us so cute. The author assumes just by changing the title of the proposal he's erasing the problem that it's targeted toward a problem that is not even relevant to this century in RL anymore, let alone NS. Look, Spanky (as Palentine might call you), racial/ethnic poll taxes were outlawed in the early 1960s; they are no longer relevant. I'm glad you finally heard about this stuff in your middle-school social-studies classes, but trust me, they are a nonstarter in NS, where a sizable chunk of the players are not from the US and would have no no fucking idea what you are talking about. Just drop it. Please.

[Tinfect]

(3) Tinfect needs to read up on the economic incidence of taxes and how they discourage work, investment, and consumption. Head taxes (capitations, also poll taxes) have no deadweight loss because they cannot be avoided and are not dependent on whether some does or does not partake in economic activity. They are extremely efficient -- and exceptionally unpopular -- ways for the government to raise revenue.

OOC:
What the fuck does this mean? Genuinely, why did you feel the need to take an opportunity to attack my intelligence? You're OOCly defending poll taxes, that's all I had a problem with, what the fuck does deadweight loss or economic incidence have to do with that?

Awww, this us so cute. The author assumes just by changing the title of the proposal he's erasing the problem that it's targeted toward a problem that is not even relevant to this century in RL anymore, let alone NS. Look, Spanky (as Palentine might call you), racial/ethnic poll taxes were outlawed in the early 1960s; they are no longer relevant. I'm glad you finally heard about this stuff in your middle-school social-studies classes, but trust me, they are a nonstarter in NS, where a sizable chunk of the players are not from the US and would have no no fucking idea what you are talking about. Just drop it. Please.

Jesus christ dude, I get it, you don't like the draft, but this is exactly the kind of toxic shit that makes people stop coming back.

[Confusium]

Is it always this hostile for new players?

[Araraukar]

Is it always this hostile for new players?

OOC: Barfleur doesn't count as a new player anymore, and the thread has attracted 5/5 of the Great Grumps of GA to post in it. Still, most of the sniping is at each other rather than Barfleur.
I count myself as a Great Grump - the others can probably guess who they are, as well.

Personally I agree with Kenny that this proposal is about something that isn't any more relevant to modern societies than the use of crossbows as a weapon of war. But for the contents, let my very non-democratic IC nation's representative put it thusly...

IC: "If the purpose of this thing is to keep nations from preventing the poor from voting, shouldn't it just come out and say so? Something to the effect of "bans the use of fees or taxes or other financial barriers intended to keep the poor from voting in elections they are eligible to vote in" would work nicely, and there wouldn't need to be any of this mess about financial terminology and whatnot. It still wouldn't fix the issue of registration fees being the stumbling block, but adding a clause that covers the registration - just mandating nations arrange free registration or handle registering the people themselves in the state's systems would work as intended - wouldn't be that difficult."

OOC: I don't know how it's done in other RL nations but here in Finland, if you're eligible to vote in a public election (or some closed ones, like church council and worker unions and similar organizations), you're pre-registered to vote automatically, with just needing to turn up at the right place the right day with picture ID. I've never understood why any democratic nation wouldn't handle it that way.

[Barfleur]

Is it always this hostile for new players?

OOC: Barfleur doesn't count as a new player anymore, and the thread has attracted 5/5 of the Great Grumps of GA to post in it. Still, most of the sniping is at each other rather than Barfleur.
I count myself as a Great Grump - the others can probably guess who they are, as well.

Let me see... you, Kenny, IA, Tinfect, and Gruenberg/Hanassea?

Personally I agree with Kenny that this proposal is about something that isn't any more relevant to modern societies than the use of crossbows as a weapon of war. But for the contents, let my very non-democratic IC nation's representative put it thusly...

IC: "If the purpose of this thing is to keep nations from preventing the poor from voting, shouldn't it just come out and say so? Something to the effect of "bans the use of fees or taxes or other financial barriers intended to keep the poor from voting in elections they are eligible to vote in" would work nicely, and there wouldn't need to be any of this mess about financial terminology and whatnot. It still wouldn't fix the issue of registration fees being the stumbling block, but adding a clause that covers the registration - just mandating nations arrange free registration or handle registering the people themselves in the state's systems would work as intended - wouldn't be that difficult."

"That is some good advice. If a nation chooses to give the people a voice in government--which not all nations wish to do, and I respect that--it must make sure such voice is heard evenly, without regard to the financial status of the voters. Otherwise, you end up with the worst of both worlds, with only the rich being able to participate in government, and consequently government only serving the interests of a small class. In Barfleur, while there is a fair degree of income inequality, the mere fact that someone is poor does not preclude them from having a say in their elected representatives, and as such government is for the most part interested in giving the poor the ability to escape poverty."

OOC: I don't know how it's done in other RL nations but here in Finland, if you're eligible to vote in a public election (or some closed ones, like church council and worker unions and similar organizations), you're pre-registered to vote automatically, with just needing to turn up at the right place the right day with picture ID. I've never understood why any democratic nation wouldn't handle it that way.

OOC: Not all nations which require people register to vote have any malicious intent--but many do. And as it turns out, in the NS verse, like you said in your earlier post, requiring voters to register and then charge them to register is a great way of getting around GA#476's prohibition on using taxes or fines to disenfranchise people.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Is it always this hostile for new players?

OOC: Barfleur doesn't count as a new player anymore, and the thread has attracted 5/5 of the Great Grumps of GA to post in it. Still, most of the sniping is at each other rather than Barfleur.
I count myself as a Great Grump - the others can probably guess who they are, as well.

Wait - there's only five of us?

[Confusium]

Is it always this hostile for new players?

OOC: Barfleur doesn't count as a new player anymore, and the thread has attracted 5/5 of the Great Grumps of GA to post in it. Still, most of the sniping is at each other rather than Barfleur.

Okay thanks! A friend recommended this game to me and especially thought I might enjoy the world assembly part. This thread is the first thing I saw. I think I'll pass, lol

Maybe the Great Grumps could reflect on how they treat other people?

[Barfleur]

OOC: Barfleur doesn't count as a new player anymore, and the thread has attracted 5/5 of the Great Grumps of GA to post in it. Still, most of the sniping is at each other rather than Barfleur.

Okay thanks! A friend recommended this game to me and especially thought I might enjoy the world assembly part. This thread is the first thing I saw. I think I'll pass, lol

Maybe the Great Grumps could reflect on how they treat other people?

If you want to take part in the World Assembly, I would say go for it! But before you write your first proposal, make sure to read the rules for GA and SC proposals, and read up on passed resolutions. Oh, and make sure to draft your proposals on this forum before submitting them. That will do you a world of good. As for the "grumps" and other players... they don't bite. Seriously. Aside from some actually bitter people, most WA regulars are willing to help you. I certainly am, should you choose to stay and familiarize yourself with how the WA works.

[Araraukar]

As for the "grumps" and other players... they don't bite. Seriously. Aside from some actually bitter people, most WA regulars are willing to help you.

OOC: Yeah, most of us might grump at drafts or other players, but still give constructive feedback. And of course in-character (IC) grumpiness is completely separate from player grumpiness and vice versa. It's entirely possible for player to have completely opposite values, ideals and attitude than their ambassador character. Often there's some overlap but not always.

Wait - there's only five of us?

Okay, 5/6 of us posted here.

SP doesn't grump enough anymore to count as one, and many past grumps aren't active (at least in GA) anymore.