Tinhampton wrote:Smith: To steal a turn of phrase from Lydia, please read the extracts you quoted again. WA regulation of elections - and, for that matter, WA regulation of anything - is an immunity recognised by international law, and widely accepted to be such by ambassadors more experienced than I.
Regarding non-discrimination for non-voters, the now-retired Ambassador van Rooy admitted that compulsory voting was a meaning, but not an intended meaning, of Article 2c.
Regarding the disenfranchisement of non-property-owners, it is clear that property ownership is a non-immutable characteristic. Therefore, if it is to be protected by Article 2d, it must be a class that is "protected under national or international law." Since no "international law" bars discrimination on the grounds of property ownership status, the task of such protection falls to member states. There is no guarantee that member states will introduce this protection, and thus no guarantee that - as my Tepertopian friend and I make clear - they will not "arbitrarily and capriciously disenfranchise non-landowners."
Regarding factchecking of manifestos, that is typically the job of the news media and concerned civil society organisations - it is, at least, in Tinhampton. I see no need to clarify who should take over the job in this proposal; if I did, I would almost certainly be legislating in a repeal.
*sighs to herself* “Mein Gott (My God), I should have reconsidered my decision to use GAR#2 to my advantage. But my point still stands, the WA has never held the power to interfere in national elections. Say for example, her highness decides to abdicate on her own will. That’s fine. But if WA forces come knocking on the door of her castle and force her to resign, now that’s just wrong. You get the point, the WA being bestowed such sweeping powers to interfere with strictly-national matters is not right.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire