[DRAFT] Fair Elections Act

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

“Besides from the vagueness of 1c and 6 that other ambassadors have pointed out, everything checks out.

Now regarding the opinions of the Sparklesian ambassador, by the principles of democracy, would non-secret voting be a violation of the right to privacy that people have if they reside in democratic countries if the multiverse? Of course, my homeland is not democratic, but I learned about that through international studies back in my university. And from those studies, specifically knowledge on the principles of democracy, this argument against secret voting seems to have a major loophole.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

My opinion, Ms. Schafer, is that voting is a public act and so cannot really be done privately. After all, the public will potentially be bound by the selection, and must have a system for accounting the votes of each individual. You cannot go vote without identifying yourself as a proper person to vote in that election. You cannot have your vote counted unless some aspect of the public sphere records how you selected. So how private is it, really?

I struggle to see how what a person votes for can truly be private in the way of things that we try to keep others from knowing. By voting we make a public statement about which path our society should pursue to the non-pursuit of another. When people talk of private voting, what they mean is that others cannot stroll down to the voting clerk and demand to see how so-and-so has voted. They don’t mean real privacy, like those things we genuinely keep between our loved ones and ourselves.

That said, I surely have no ill will toward those who want systems of private voting (even if I question how well that really works). I would never impose a system of MANDATORY public voting, just as I hope Hulldom will not impose a system of mandatory private voting on my people.

[Hannasea]

That said, I surely have no ill will toward those who want systems of private voting (even if I question how well that really works). I would never impose a system of MANDATORY public voting, just as I hope Hulldom will not impose a system of mandatory private voting on my people.

"Don't worry," says Daniella, "You can just abolish elections and become an absolute autocracy, and be absolutely in compliance with this resolution."

[Bears Armed]

My opinion, Ms. Schafer, is that voting is a public act and so cannot really be done privately. After all, the public will potentially be bound by the selection, and must have a system for accounting the votes of each individual. You cannot go vote without identifying yourself as a proper person to vote in that election. You cannot have your vote counted unless some aspect of the public sphere records how you selected. So how private is it, really?

OOC
In the RL United Kingdom, voting forms are printed in books from which each form gets torn off from a counterfoil that bears the same serial number as the form itself (c.f. raffle tickets). Each person listed in a constituency's Electoral Register as eligible to vote in that constituency has an identifying number next to their name there, and the people issuing forms to voters at the polling stations have copies of the Register's geographically relevant sections. When you identify yourself to them they tear off the next form in the book, and write your identifying number on the counterfoil but not on the form itself. After the election both the forms and the counterfoils are kept securely, separately, and are only released for cross-referencing if a judge can be persuaded that there is enough evidence of potential fraud to justify their authorising this.


______________________________________________________________________

Re the matter of handling age-limits & mental problems whilst still banning limits on voting due to characteristics: just replace the term "persons" with "legally competent persons", and as long as G.A. Resolution #299 'Legal Competence' doesn't get repealed this situation is safely covered.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

That said, I surely have no ill will toward those who want systems of private voting (even if I question how well that really works). I would never impose a system of MANDATORY public voting, just as I hope Hulldom will not impose a system of mandatory private voting on my people.

"Don't worry," says Daniella, "You can just abolish elections and become an absolute autocracy, and be absolutely in compliance with this resolution."

Seriously. Any voting rights passed by this assembly needs to strive for universal values, nothing besides. Because anyone who doesn’t want to comply will just decline to have “elections” and then just use whatever system they want.

It’s an extremely hard subject.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

My opinion, Ms. Schafer, is that voting is a public act and so cannot really be done privately. After all, the public will potentially be bound by the selection, and must have a system for accounting the votes of each individual. You cannot go vote without identifying yourself as a proper person to vote in that election. You cannot have your vote counted unless some aspect of the public sphere records how you selected. So how private is it, really?

OOC
In the RL United Kingdom, voting forms are printed in books from which each form gets torn off from a counterfoil that bears the same serial number as the form itself (c.f. raffle tickets). Each person listed in a constituency's Electoral Register as eligible to vote in that constituency has an identifying number next to their name there, and the people issuing forms to voters at the polling stations have copies of the Register's geographically relevant sections. When you identify yourself to them they tear off the next form in the book, and write your identifying number on the counterfoil but not on the form itself. After the election both the forms and the counterfoils are kept securely, separately, and are only released for cross-referencing if a judge can be persuaded that there is enough evidence of potential fraud to justify their authorising this.


______________________________________________________________________

Re the matter of handling age-limits & mental problems whilst still banning limits on voting due to characteristics: just replace the term "persons" with "legally competent persons", and as long as G.A. Resolution #299 'Legal Competence' doesn't get repealed this situation is safely covered.

Exactly. A great model. It’s not freedom from observation like true privacy. Is more like freedom from being bothered about it for no good reason. Unless of course you want to share it for yourself. Nations must remain free to experiment, to shape the process towards fairness as that concept moves along, and to meet their unique social needs.

Re: the bottom half. I couldn’t agree more. The author would do well to quickly enshrine that principle.

[Hulldom]

OOC
In the RL United Kingdom, voting forms are printed in books from which each form gets torn off from a counterfoil that bears the same serial number as the form itself (c.f. raffle tickets). Each person listed in a constituency's Electoral Register as eligible to vote in that constituency has an identifying number next to their name there, and the people issuing forms to voters at the polling stations have copies of the Register's geographically relevant sections. When you identify yourself to them they tear off the next form in the book, and write your identifying number on the counterfoil but not on the form itself. After the election both the forms and the counterfoils are kept securely, separately, and are only released for cross-referencing if a judge can be persuaded that there is enough evidence of potential fraud to justify their authorising this.


______________________________________________________________________

Re the matter of handling age-limits & mental problems whilst still banning limits on voting due to characteristics: just replace the term "persons" with "legally competent persons", and as long as G.A. Resolution #299 'Legal Competence' doesn't get repealed this situation is safely covered.

Exactly. A great model. It’s not freedom from observation like true privacy. Is more like freedom from being bothered about it for no good reason. Unless of course you want to share it for yourself. Nations must remain free to experiment, to shape the process towards fairness as that concept moves along, and to meet their unique social needs.

Re: the bottom half. I couldn’t agree more. The author would do well to quickly enshrine that principle.

Both these things should be taken care of. I applied the whole of clause 1 to legally competent persons, which, imo, shouldn’t create new problems. Added the “However” provision to 1(a) to cover investigations.

God knows if the cross-referencing is fine, but it ought to be if it isn’t.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

The Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs personally walks into the room, sits down, with everybody silent and confused, and they pull out a huge book, and it says "World Assembly General Resolution Archive" and they open it, look through the entire index for a span up to 3 minutes, flips to a page, and then clears their throat and says "In accordance with WAR#2, known formally as the 'Rights And Duties Of WA States', requiring elections is a blatant violation of WA law and even as such, our government strictly opposes elections, and prefers our way of rule."

The Minister then turns to another page and puts on some reading glasses and continues, "Under Section 1, Article 1, it clearly states that 'Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.' and as such within our reasoning, find that forcing elections upon our people, or upon any people, would be a direct violation of the right to choose a form of government, and a violation of the right to independence and self-determination."

They close the book, put their glasses away, stands up, and directs one of the ministry's staff to take their place as they leave the chambers, never to return.

Following their departure, Daniella continues addressing the empty seat.

"That's one of the basic misreadings of Rights & Duties sadly common among those new to this chamber. Article 1 states that nations have this right without dictation of any other NationState. The World Assembly is not a NationState. Article 9 requires that all NationStates carry out any obligations they incur under WA law. That could include the duty to hold elections."

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

Suppose you are right, and we may require elections. What elections then? Of parliament? Of military generals? Of municipal dog catchers? There are many elections. Which will we require of all member nations?

Is there a principle thing nations must decide by election? That is a matter for some thought!

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“Besides from the vagueness of 1c and 6 that other ambassadors have pointed out, everything checks out.

Now regarding the opinions of the Sparklesian ambassador, by the principles of democracy, would non-secret voting be a violation of the right to privacy that people have if they reside in democratic countries if the multiverse? Of course, my homeland is not democratic, but I learned about that through international studies back in my university. And from those studies, specifically knowledge on the principles of democracy, this argument against secret voting seems to have a major loophole.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

My opinion, Ms. Schafer, is that voting is a public act and so cannot really be done privately. After all, the public will potentially be bound by the selection, and must have a system for accounting the votes of each individual. You cannot go vote without identifying yourself as a proper person to vote in that election. You cannot have your vote counted unless some aspect of the public sphere records how you selected. So how private is it, really?

I struggle to see how what a person votes for can truly be private in the way of things that we try to keep others from knowing. By voting we make a public statement about which path our society should pursue to the non-pursuit of another. When people talk of private voting, what they mean is that others cannot stroll down to the voting clerk and demand to see how so-and-so has voted. They don’t mean real privacy, like those things we genuinely keep between our loved ones and ourselves.

That said, I surely have no ill will toward those who want systems of private voting (even if I question how well that really works). I would never impose a system of MANDATORY public voting, just as I hope Hulldom will not impose a system of mandatory private voting on my people.

“Thank you, ambassador, for enlightening me on how privacy works in elections. No wonder I answered that one question on election privacy wrong on my fall semester exam in college.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Don't worry," says Daniella, "You can just abolish elections and become an absolute autocracy, and be absolutely in compliance with this resolution."

C Marcius Blythe. *laughing*. As to the question of private voting more broadly, many countries (including ours) are direct democracies. There is no fully "private" voting when you stand in the local Forum and vote by division.