NationStates

If the leadership of your nation fears the opinion of incarcerated individuals so much then perhaps it should take a very close look at how it is treating them. Likewise if the leadership of your nation relies upon the opinion of incarcerated individuals it should perhaps take a very close look at how it's treating everyone else.

We support this measure.

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA

"Still completely, utterly and entirely opposed. The proposing delegation should be ashamed of themselves.

"In any of these debates on these insane proposals to regulate the actions of only democracies in this assembly and granting tin pot dictatorships a say on how the internal affairs of democracies are conducted, not one person in favour has adequately explained why this is fair or reasonable.

"We will utilise the entirety of our diplomatic muscle to see this proposal fail should it be submitted."

And we are once again Proposal-A-Go-Go

I have decided to submit this as a Mild resolution

Bananaistan wrote:"In any of these debates on these insane proposals to regulate the actions of only democracies in this assembly and granting tin pot dictatorships a say on how the internal affairs of democracies are conducted, not one person in favour has adequately explained why this is fair or reasonable."

"Hey now, not all dictatorships exist to oppress their law-abiding citizens or brutally punish the lawbreakers. Sometimes it is in fact necessary to make away with the populary contests called elections - though in Araraukar's case that was, ironically, decided on with a population-wide vote - to make sure that only people who have the qualifications and actual training, do the jobs they've been trained for. It makes it easier to make sure that regular people receive the aid and resources they need to live safe and happy lives, without needing to fear poverty, preventable diseases or random criminal violence. Our leader - whom you'd call a "dictator" - prefers to stay out of medias and public in general and instead focuses on their job."

OOC: I know, I know, you mean like North Korea style ones, but thought it was point worth making in IC.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We disagree with the proposition that those who have defrauded or undermined the electoral system criminally ought to be permitted to vote even while their sentences are being served. We will vote against.

This is now in queue and will likely be at vote between the major updates of Saturday 8th May and Wednesday 12th May.

AS OF 1900 BST ON THURSDAY: Approvals: 76 out of 60 needed (Tinhampton, TESDAI, Momma Ayu, Ashaie, CoraSpia, Our lord Hot Pocket, Creator Land, Zukchiva, Paleocacher, Halexandria, Prime Jansenation, Red Green and Black, Mikeswill, OF Courscant, Zarnath 2, Felistia, Baloo Kingdom, Violet Outlands, Trinindad, Wischland, J-O-E, Koobland, Libonesia, South Boston Irishmen, Aldrest, Spectral Empire, Hamgria, FarmerGroot, Republic of Blank, Italian Community, Galaysh, Pastries, Comfed, New Age Society, Boris Cult, RemiBourg, Central Protectorate of Alkoholi, The Anarchist Federation of Spain, Falthonia, Reultan, Stedinia, Castelia, Indusse, Draavida, Molopovia, Gladys and the drowning fish, Jedingtown, Lorila, Ruinenlust, San Teodoro de Haro, Omniabstracta, Yugandastan, Almerdonia, New Technocratic Prussia, Zombiedolphins, Santa Thereza, Novum Orientis, Timmy City, Valerity, Nagistan, Ur-Noxia, The Hard Part, Hipsters With Airpods, Londoniopol, OceanicGaze, Etoile Arcture, San Lumen, Karteria, Denathor, So Pep, Goundirk, Dabberwocky, People of Phoenix, The Union of Costa Rica, Brototh, Orioni 2)

Why does this only apply to elections for public office? It seems that prisoners could still be prohibited from voting on a ballot with a referendum.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We disagree with the proposition that those who have defrauded or undermined the electoral system criminally ought to be permitted to vote even while their sentences are being served. We will vote against.

"Agreed. Upon further consideration we will also vote Against."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We disagree with the proposition that those who have defrauded or undermined the electoral system criminally ought to be permitted to vote even while their sentences are being served. We will vote against.

Agreed. Thermodolia will not allow those who have committed fraud and election interference from voting, especially not while their sentences are being carried out

Laka Strolistandiler stands firmly against allowing those convicted of election fraud, financial crimes and extremely heavy and dangerous crimes to vote. As such, we will be voting against this resolution.

If only it specified that in some cases determined by some WA organizations convicted criminals couldn’t vote we would be in full support of this resolution...

It actually strikes me personally that while some delegates vote against this resolution due to them now wanting to give criminals a voting right, others comically enough vote against it because it doesn’t give criminals enough voting rights! *sigh* The WA is surely far more interesting than operating the launch pad...

Man i’ve always burned anyone who talked no no about egg, they can’t vote if they are dead.

“There is no requirement that World Assembly nations allow their citizens to vote at all. There is nothing that prevents nations from enacting total disenfranchisement. There are many WA member nations that are proudly, openly, and completely legally entirely anti-democratic.

“Therefore proposals of this type are nonsense and we shall always oppose them as such. It amounts to dictatorships and autocracies regulating democracies while being bound by none of the same restrictions themselves.”

Daniella Russel, MA PhD
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We disagree with the proposition that those who have defrauded or undermined the electoral system criminally ought to be permitted to vote even while their sentences are being served. We will vote against.

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Our delegation agrees with this assessment. There ought to have been provisions that would have allowed the judiciary to revoke the right to vote of a convict during the sentencing, if the situation would call for such. Undermining the democratic process can not be rewarded with a right to vote, nor can be political terrorism.

As this is the recommendation I have given to my Queen, notwithstanding our esteem for the delegation of Tinhampton, Her Majesty Queen Demi Maria I has instructed me to vote 'against' this proposal."

No way dudes. Anyone who commits a crime against the state is an enemy of the state and has forfeited their right to vote. They can vote once they done their time and get out of jail.

“Ambassador, what about those who attempt to remove the lawful government? Surely they forfeit their voting rights.”

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: I have initiated discussions with the Cretoxian delegation about how best the World Assembly can in future protect voting rights for all individuals, whether or not in possession of a criminal record.

a rare show of sanity from the voters. GIven how things usually swing I would expect they would want convicted voters, knowing what and whom they'd vote for.

Non-violent felons? Sure

Murderers and rapists? No

Nosam Republic wrote:Non-violent felons? Sure

Murderers and rapists? No

I'm not sure what the violent or non-violent nature of someone's crime has to do with their right to vote.

I support this bill.

A lot of the times, it's disenfranchised minority groups that are disproportionately imprisoned by the state. If criminals were to be banned from voting, then that would impact some groups more than others.

Furthermore, not all people convicted are actually guilty of the crime they do. Many people are faced with false accusations.

And finally, many states jail their own citizens without fair trial or for authoritarian reasons. For example, if a state unfairly bans an opposition party and jails its members, then the opposition wouldn't be allowed to vote anymore since they're considered criminals. Here's another example; if a specific marginalized community has its practices criminalized and many of them are jailed for it, then that community also can't vote anymore because they'd be considered criminals as well. And if they can't vote, their unable to make any legislative changes that'll stop their discrimination.

There are many more examples where barring criminals from voting could raise issues. But I mainly brought up how not everyone convicted is actually guilty, how some groups are affected more than others, and how many authoritarian states jail people for discriminatory/corrupt reasons. And for those who are falsely jailed or are jailed due to discrimination/corruption, they now can't vote anymore because they're "criminals" even though they're really not.

Wallenburg wrote:

Nosam Republic wrote:Non-violent felons? Sure

Murderers and rapists? No

I'm not sure what the violent or non-violent nature of someone's crime has to do with their right to vote.

OOC: It sets a minimum bar for what kind of people choose a nation's leader, atleast until they have done their sentence and proven they are a somewhat descent member of society.

voting for; the standards we hold people as deserving of what are supposed to be universal rights to (aside from the dictatorships/authoritarian govts in the WA, noah fence) are kind of irrationally high for the sake of ...... like what, reinforcing the legitimacy of legal/justice systems... i understand rules are there for a reason but this one just seems strange, i'm seeing arguments from many delegates using the same justification/reasoning that allows phone calls and food to be expensive in prison to jail populations that contain (overwhelmingly) poor people. this reasoning will likely also target groups who have been (historically or currently) politically disenfranchised/excluded. pretty sure the same protection measures for ballot integrity that take place outside of prison can be performed as effectively in prison, if not more so. might be hard to make campaigning neutral or reflective of actual policies of the candidates running but that applies to any situation lol

I do believe that SOME people behind bars should vote, but only depending on the crime they committed, if it's a small crime then I don't see why not, but if it's something serious such as murder, kidnapping, etc., then they don't get to vote, as well as those that commit political crimes such as voter fraud would also lose the right to vote, I vote against this bill because it's not specific enough.

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote against this resolution.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1543933

"As others have said, the intent of the proposal is noble, but it is too strident and lacks necessary texture. Denying a citizen the right to vote solely for any form of lawfully-addressed criminal act whatsoever, no matter how far in the past, is surely unjust. The problem with the proposal is that it creates the equally-untenable inversion: no lawfully-addressed criminal act, no matter how recent or heinous, would be sufficient for stripping a citizen of franchise, even if such a measure befits the wrong.

"Should a future resolution be presented, permitting the denial of franchise with appropriate World Assembly review--conducted by, for example, a panel of volunteer legal experts taken from nations holding democratic elections themselves--then Aelyria would be significantly more inclined to support. As it stands, even though we support the participation of legally-sanctioned or incarcerated individuals in elections, despite having no institutionally incarcerated population ourselves, we must unequivocally oppose the proposal at vote."
-- Charlotte Forrest-Drake, Aelyrian delegate to the World Assembly