NationStates

No. Voting laws are a matter of internal security and shall not be subjected to World Assembly interference.

I think everyone here has said what I wanted to say. Why should we let people like murderers and rapists have a right to vote. While I understand your reasoning in minor crimes, this replacement allows all to vote, all being the key word here. People such as murderers and rapists have themselves infringed upon the human rights of others and taken them away. Murderers take human lives. Why should these people have rights when they have taken such rights from others? Handing voting rights to murderers and rapists is simply disrespecting those who have been abused by them. What I am presenting is just a small example and this applies to other cases. Why should we give these men and women who have infringed upon and taken away the rights of others their very own rights. They have automatically forfeited them when they committed these crimes.

"In Bananaistan, generally electors must present themselves at a polling station in order to vote. If Joe Criminal is incarcerated on the day of an election, he is unable to present himself at a polling station. This proposal would not change that.

"Also, if you somehow managed to mandate that prisoners must get early release on election day, it wouldn't really matter anyway. So he can rock up the polling station and lodge his pre-filled ballot into the ballot box, thereby approving the Party's slate of candidates. Big deal. The Party's candidate selection process, open only to Party members in good standing, will remain - those serving a custodial sentence are not members in good standing for the duration of their incarceration."

Bump for feedback - of which Banana's has been noted

"AGAINST

GAR#419 already solves the problems of the discrimination given to those who had previously served a criminal sentence and allows democratic states flexibility and leeway in at least revamping its justice system with its democratic processes to conditions that suit it while at least generally increasing democratic freedoms.

This draft would also have little teeth, as it only enforces its provisions to nations which already had a working democratic system, as stated in Clause b, meaning that the burdens it gives to democratic nations and making the process of instituting a democratic system restrictive would actually give an incentive for nations with a nascent democracy to stop in the process of instituting democracy entirely. The rights and conditions of prisoners in non-democratic countries are also ignored.

There should be a blocker at least to ensure that voting for prisoners and those being punished for a crime only takes place when human rights conditions and living conditions for those prisoners are ensured to be decent and well, to prevent the chance of electoral duress. Otherwise, how can we ensure that prisoners living under prison slavery conditions are not voting under conditions of intimidation and duress?

Also normally we would agitate for more democratic rights for prisoners, such as the right to organize, right to association and participate in rallies and more democratic freedoms overall, making the fact that the right is only extended on "voting in an election in a public office" to be unduly and narrowly arbitrary."

North Supreria finds the current concept of suffrage and human rights very interesting. The right to vote is too important to take away and we are therefore looking forward to voting in favor of this proposal to arrange this internationally.

Someone who does not respect the laws the government has passed(especially if the crime harms someone else) should not be able to vote for who should be in government. This should all be decided nationally not internationally. This also hurts election integrity.

While I personally believe convicted prisoners should have the right to vote, enforcing this idea is an overreach of the powers of the WA. Nations should have the right to set their own laws regarding franchise, and it would be inappropriate to tread on these rights.

The comments of Illu-chi, North Supreria, and Ike have been noted. All commentary below is IC and delivered by Lydia Anderson.

---

I intend to file this proposal with the General Assembly Civil Rights Board in the coming days. Now, as to some recent complaints-I mean a recent complaint...

Feyrisshire wrote:"AGAINST

GAR#419 already solves the problems of the discrimination given to those who had previously served a criminal sentence and allows democratic states flexibility and leeway in at least revamping its justice system with its democratic processes to conditions that suit it while at least generally increasing democratic freedoms.

This draft would also have little teeth, as it only enforces its provisions to nations which already had a working democratic system, as stated in Clause b, meaning that the burdens it gives to democratic nations and making the process of instituting a democratic system restrictive would actually give an incentive for nations with a nascent democracy to stop in the process of instituting democracy entirely. The rights and conditions of prisoners in non-democratic countries are also ignored.

Resolutions making provisions about elections almost always apply only to nations that actually organise them. I am further confident that this will lead to no more de-democratisation than the now-former resolution on Voting Equality for Freed Inmates did. Suggestions about the actual scope of this proposal are mostly welcome.

Feyrisshire wrote:There should be a blocker at least to ensure that voting for prisoners and those being punished for a crime only takes place when human rights conditions and living conditions for those prisoners are ensured to be decent and well, to prevent the chance of electoral duress. Otherwise, how can we ensure that prisoners living under prison slavery conditions are not voting under conditions of intimidation and duress?

The honourable ambassador lady is referred to the resolution on the Treatment of Inmates.

Feyrisshire wrote:Also normally we would agitate for more democratic rights for prisoners, such as the right to organize, right to association and participate in rallies and more democratic freedoms overall, making the fact that the right is only extended on "voting in an election in a public office" to be unduly and narrowly arbitrary."

The Tinhamptonian delegation voted against the repeal and subsequent Maowese replacement of Freedom of Assembly at least in part due to some unfortunate... "tough-on-crime rhetoric," as the Scalizagastian ambassador would have it - and have been drafting a repeal thereof which will not be submitted until Ambassador Slick McCooley expresses a willingness to continue to draft his proposed replacement. In the meanwhile, PCV should be welcomed as a first step towards such reforms. Actual, concrete suggestions for the improvement of this particular draft remain welcome.

“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.”

I'm opposed to this for the reasons articulated so well by Bananaistan. If it does go ahead, however, you need to look at the opening sentence on believing all eligible people should be able to vote. This is already the case in nations where convicts are disenfranchised, since in such nations they are ineligible. What you're trying to change is the definition of eligibility, not eligible people being denied a vote.

"As much as I oppose this proposal, it seems to me that the proposal may benefit from the addition of a third article, to ensure that prisoners voting from inside a prison are not voting under duress from other prisoners, gangs, and guards. The vote should be personal and individual, not belonging to whoever is most capable of intimidating the voter."

Draft 1c, which includes a newer preamble and a completely new Article b, is now up... thank you, Feyrisshire and Barfleur and also Uan aa Boa

(IC and OOC: Bananaistan's electoral system is working as intended, as far as I'm concerned.)

Simple, good and effective. I will support.

Thanks, GVH.

Absent any other major concerns, will submit at 5pm BST on Thursday OR 5pm BST on Friday.

Tinhampton wrote:requires members to ensure that no person within their jurisdiction is prevented (or otherwise unduly restricted) from voting in a election for public office simply because they currently are being, or have previously been, punished for a crime,

OOC: Speaking OOCly because I'm not really in the mood for the IC derisive attitude that Araraukarians tend to have towards anything to do with the public voting or selecting leaders via a popularity contest. So if I read the above right, it's totally ok for a nation to require that to vote in an election, you need to be at the voting location on the day of the election (few RL nations - if any - actually do this without lots of exceptions, but NS nations are not always as sensible) for your vote to be cast. So anyone who for any reason (sickness, injury, incarceration, unable to get to the location because not everyone lives within a brisk walk of a voting location, etc.) can't make it there at the time, is not able to vote. That's not discriminating or "otherwise unduly restrict[ing]", as it applies to everyone, not just imprisoned peeps.

Was that the intention? If yes then yeay for reading comprehension.

Might be worth adding the following, or something similar:

'Requires nations whose voting system requires voters to be physically present at a polling place in order to cast their votes to provide adequate polling places in prisons'

CoraSpia wrote:Might be worth adding the following, or something similar:

'Requires nations whose voting system requires voters to be physically present at a polling place in order to cast their votes to provide adequate polling places in prisons'

OOC: But then, to not discriminate against people, they'd have to do that in every location where someone might be, unable to attend. Discrimination bites both ways.

Araraukar wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:Might be worth adding the following, or something similar:

'Requires nations whose voting system requires voters to be physically present at a polling place in order to cast their votes to provide adequate polling places in prisons'

OOC: But then, to not discriminate against people, they'd have to do that in every location where someone might be, unable to attend. Discrimination bites both ways.

((OOC: A future resolution requiring ease of voting by, say, requiring the availability of postal votes may be in order, but that is rather outside of the intended scope of this proposal.))

CoraSpia wrote:but that is rather outside of the intended scope of this proposal.

OOC: Agreed.

"Opposed. Why should people that have committed treason against the state be allowed to participate in the very state they betrayed?"

Great Algerstonia wrote:"Opposed. Why should people that have committed treason against the state be allowed to participate in the very state they betrayed?"

Are you merely opposed to those that committed treason be allowed to vote or are you opposed to everyone with a criminal record being able to vote?

Outer Sparta wrote:

Great Algerstonia wrote:"Opposed. Why should people that have committed treason against the state be allowed to participate in the very state they betrayed?"

Are you merely opposed to those that committed treason be allowed to vote or are you opposed to everyone with a criminal record being able to vote?

"Algerstonen law mandates nobody with a criminal record being allowed to vote. We're willing change the law to let criminals vote should this proposal pass unless they're convicted of treason, murder, or stealing. But we recognize convincing the Tinhamptonians to change the draft to accomodate the two latter changes is a futile effort."

CoraSpia's suggestion has been incorporated into Draft 1d - which is otherwise identical to Draft 1c - and he has been cited as a co-author.

The first three of this proposal's four clauses are requirements, not suggestions. Given that this draft is not in my extremely unofficial opnion using "mild language," does anybody else believe that this affects a broad enough area of policy to become a Significant proposal? And does anybody have any other important thoughts on this proposal before I give this one the go signal?