[WITHDRAWN] Election Reform Act

[Quadrimmina]

Furtherment of Democracy -> Significant

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

UNDERSTANDING that electoral processes sometimes result in the winner being the person with more special interest support, and not necessarily the "best candidate".

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that political parties can be harmful to the proper exercise of political power, due to prejudice, which will prevent votes based on issues.

APPALLED that many nations report wins and losses based on political parties, instead of focusing on individuals.

DISGUSTED by the bipartisan or tripartisan systems that drown out the voices of other grassroots candidates.

HOPING to ensure that political decisions are made in such a way to ensure that candidates' stances on issues are heard and that money does not have as much overreach on political processes.

HEREBY DEFINES the following terms:
1) A "political party" as any political entity which a candidate identifies with that seeks to gain political power through its members holding office.
2) A "special interest" as any corporation or organization that donates money collectively or as a group to achieve an agenda.
3) A "candidate" as an individual seeking elected office.

FORBIDS individuals or special interests from donating money to a political party or any organization officially or unofficially affiliated with a political party.

FURTHER FORBIDS candidates from receiving money from a political party or any organization officially or unofficially affiliated with political parties.

STRONGLY URGES nations to limit the amount of money allowed for donation by special interests.

REQUIRES report of all special interest donations to the appropriate regulatory committees.

OUTLAWS donations to a candidate that exceed 1% of the projected salary of the candidate if he/she is to win the elected office.

APPLIES all of these regulations during the course of the candidate's tenure in elected office.

URGES nations to adopt the simplest and most easily-counted ballot to ensure that every vote is counted in the official tally, and that no accidental votes occur.

--------

This is a rough sketch. Let me know what you think!

EDIT: I'm thinking of adding this clause: "REQUIRES that all nations have at least one elected official. For non-democracies, this may be simply an "advocate of the people" who reports to the leader." Thoughts?

[Ugasolva]

Well as multi-partism is an ideolgy this would be against an ideolgy I think this is against rules, and futhermore some nations lack elections so would not apply to all nations, like me being an imperial kingdom

[Crabulonia]

Love this, but I don't see it going far because it might be viewed as too extreme. I wish politics could make decisions like this however.

[Minethings]

FORBIDS individuals or special interests from donating money to a political party or any organization officially or unofficially affiliated with a political party.

FURTHER FORBIDS candidates from receiving money from a political party or any organization officially or unofficially affiliated with political parties.

The donations of political parties are needed to give candidates the money to run, that they wouldn't be able to easily get on their own. Maybe limiting the amount they can donate to allow less wealthy parties a better chance would work better.

[Freeoplis]

We appear to be confused on the wording of some of the clauses:

2) A "special interest" as any corporation or organization that donates money collectively or as a group to achieve an agenda.

This defines a special interest.

FORBIDS individuals or special interests from donating money to a political party or any organization officially or unofficially affiliated with a political party.

This would appear to forbid the definition of a "special interest" from donating.

MANDATES report of all special interest donations to the appropriate political committees.

Why is this needed if above special interest donations are forbidden.

STRONGLY URGES nations to limit the amount of money allowed for donation by special interests.

Again this was forbidden earlier.

The wording of these clauses seem to contradict each other and may require some tidying up.

[American Capitalist]

This act is impossible to implement because politics can never be honest.

[Quadrimmina]

We appear to be confused on the wording of some of the clauses:

2) A "special interest" as any corporation or organization that donates money collectively or as a group to achieve an agenda.

This defines a special interest.

FORBIDS individuals or special interests from donating money to a political party or any organization officially or unofficially affiliated with a political party.

This would appear to forbid the definition of a "special interest" from donating.

MANDATES report of all special interest donations to the appropriate political committees.

Why is this needed if above special interest donations are forbidden.

STRONGLY URGES nations to limit the amount of money allowed for donation by special interests.

Again this was forbidden earlier.

The wording of these clauses seem to contradict each other and may require some tidying up.

Freeopolis, we understand your concerns, but counter that all we do is say that you can't donate to a political party or its committee or whatever. You CAN donate to an individual candidate if you're a special interest. That's why the other three clauses exist.

This act is impossible to implement because politics can never be honest.

It would seem you are more attacking the ability of this act to function rather than its ability to be implemented. It's a good first step though.

FORBIDS individuals or special interests from donating money to a political party or any organization officially or unofficially affiliated with a political party.

FURTHER FORBIDS candidates from receiving money from a political party or any organization officially or unofficially affiliated with political parties.

The donations of political parties are needed to give candidates the money to run, that they wouldn't be able to easily get on their own. Maybe limiting the amount they can donate to allow less wealthy parties a better chance would work better.

Candidates can receive individual donations. This simply restricts funnel donations, i.e. donations to political parties who then pick candidates who forward their agendas. It also prevents the notion that a candidate has to vote with a party in a legislative body or lose the party's donations.

Well as multi-partism is an ideolgy this would be against an ideolgy I think this is against rules, and futhermore some nations lack elections so would not apply to all nations, like me being an imperial kingdom

Multi-partyism is not an ideology, democracy is an ideology. Multi-partyism is a way to express that ideology. And that may be true...other nations, thoughts?

Love this, but I don't see it going far because it might be viewed as too extreme. I wish politics could make decisions like this however.

I do too.

[Crabulonia]

Glad to see that you are striving towards a better world. I'll vote massively with my puppet WA nation.

[Southrons United]

I have never heard of Honesty in Politics never.

[Sionis Prioratus]

We assume Your Excellency will solve the problem of dishonesty in politics by instituting worldwide the death penalty for dishonest politicians, right?

Yours,

[Enn]

How can this be seen as anything other than a ban on functional party politics? You ban individuals from giving any money to parties, and you ban parties from funding their candidates? This is not, and cannot, be a way of furthering democracy.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

[Mousebumples]

We assume Your Excellency will solve the problem of dishonesty in politics by instituting worldwide the death penalty for dishonest politicians, right?

Why are you trying to kill off so many of your ... *ahem* ... esteemed colleagues?

[Freeoplis]

We can't support this proposal, if it was more simpler for example legislation ensuring all parties are limited to the same budget during elections or budgets are capped at a certain level then maybe we could re consider, alternatively grants to help independent candidates is another angle in terms of creating equality.

[Quadrimmina]

We assume Your Excellency will solve the problem of dishonesty in politics by instituting worldwide the death penalty for dishonest politicians, right?

Yours,

Your nation's dissent of our views on capital punishment is noted. However, it must also be noted that we have never, ever introduced even the notion of mandating capital punishment with anything. It was simply a centerpiece of our agenda as part of a larger WA debate. Give it a rest already. I'm sorry I attempted to reform your health bill, please don't hurt me! <-Sarcastic

How can this be seen as anything other than a ban on functional party politics? You ban individuals from giving any money to parties, and you ban parties from funding their candidates? This is not, and cannot, be a way of furthering democracy.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

Democracy is a system of people rule, not special interest rule. In that regard, it is a way of furthering democracy. Also, that confuses parties with democracy. Parties are not needed in a democracy. That is why they are illegal in Quadrimmina. Instead, we have a survey of every candidate that scores their responses to key issues and print those responses on the ballot.

We can't support this proposal, if it was more simpler for example legislation ensuring all parties are limited to the same budget during elections or budgets are capped at a certain level then maybe we could re consider, alternatively grants to help independent candidates is another angle in terms of creating equality.

That would be rather undemocratic. If the electorate leans in favor of one candidate, then it has every right to donate more money to that one. However, the 1% rule is aimed at preventing too much money coming from one person. Also, independent candidates have a more equal footing in this system. I was presented with the possibility of equality or grants by my advisors, but immediately rejected it. The point isn't to have an equal footing, the point is that those who support you should be able to donate to you, but within reasonable limits, and without special interests drowning your donations.

If the people really support you, you'll get money. That is the idea.

We are sorry you cannot support this bill, but hope my esteemed colleagues have a more positive view of it.

[Freeoplis]

We would favor equality of opportunity for all candidates, which is jeopardized solely on what donors each candidate has, over the democratic principle the esteemed delegation favors, we would also contest that true democracy doesn't exisit in a system where the electorate only has the choice and is swayed towards only those candidates that have the largest donors and therefore can fund a high PR campaign, for this reason we cannot support such a proposal

[Sionis Prioratus]

Your nation's dissent of our views on capital punishment is noted. However, it must also be noted that we have never, ever introduced even the notion of mandating capital punishment with anything. It was simply a centerpiece of our agenda as part of a larger WA debate. Give it a rest already. I'm sorry I attempted to reform your health bill, please don't hurt me! <-Sarcastic

:: Applies the Death Penalty to Dr. Arlo Lewis ::
:: Runs away ::

OOC: "Arlo Lewis" sounds a bit like "Hallelujah"

[Glen-Rhodes]

First, as a preface, I must question why the World Assembly should concern itself with the election laws of its member states at all. But, this has been presented so I may as well critique it.

Glen-Rhodes has a strong history of being a two-party state. During its formation, when Glendale and Rhodes become Glen-Rhodes, there was a multi-party system, which failed to effectively govern. In fact, the disagreement between all of the parties led to a near collapse of the union of the two states. Eventually, after mergers and whatnot, two major parties emerged -- the Social-Centralists and the Democratic Federalists -- and those parties brought forth the modern-day electoral system. There are a few smaller parties, mostly regional single-issue parties, but they fail to ever gain more than a few seats in the Federal Parliament. Even then, they caucus with one of the two parties -- usually whoever pledges more support for their political agenda.

Giving a history lesson isn't really what I wanted to do here, but I suppose the more you know, the better. My point is that, in some nations, the two-party system forms naturally. It is not a product of some kind of authoritarian takeover of the political system. To vilify two-party systems is to vilify the people that have voted for them, that have elected a government that best suits their own beliefs and agendas. But that is certainly the least of this proposal's problems.

Despite whatever magical system Quadrimmina has, political parties are a fundamental aspect of any democratic society. I personally find it hard to believe that Quadrimmina can consider itself a democracy when it intentionally bans the freedom of assembly, which happens to an internationally protected freedom. As already stated, starving political parties (and their candidates) of funds is nothing more than affront to democracy. Quadrimmina may be functioning quite well -- and I only say so, because I won't be bothered to prove otherwise -- without political parties, but that system cannot function in most democratic societies. This law would destroy democracy as it currently known. Not to mention that it has a net effect of contradicting Freedom of Assembly, and thus is illegal.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Freeoplis]

We respect the esteemed delegation's from Glen-Rhodes history but we would argue that in many Nations a 2 party system evolves through nothing more than access to money due to minor parties or independent candidates being put at a disadvantage and therefore democracy is non existent as the choice is not the people's but the system creates the choice for them, we agree though these matters should be left as a National policy area.

[Quadrimmina]

We would favor equality of opportunity for all candidates, which is jeopardized solely on what donors each candidate has, over the democratic principle the esteemed delegation favors, we would also contest that true democracy doesn't exisit in a system where the electorate only has the choice and is swayed towards only those candidates that have the largest donors and therefore can fund a high PR campaign, for this reason we cannot support such a proposal

This is a true statement. This is why we tried to limit the amount donations could be, but sadly we couldn't do so effectively enough to satisfy you it would seem.

First, as a preface, I must question why the World Assembly should concern itself with the election laws of its member states at all. But, this has been presented so I may as well critique it.

Glen-Rhodes has a strong history of being a two-party state. During its formation, when Glendale and Rhodes become Glen-Rhodes, there was a multi-party system, which failed to effectively govern. In fact, the disagreement between all of the parties led to a near collapse of the union of the two states. Eventually, after mergers and whatnot, two major parties emerged -- the Social-Centralists and the Democratic Federalists -- and those parties brought forth the modern-day electoral system. There are a few smaller parties, mostly regional single-issue parties, but they fail to ever gain more than a few seats in the Federal Parliament. Even then, they caucus with one of the two parties -- usually whoever pledges more support for their political agenda.

Giving a history lesson isn't really what I wanted to do here, but I suppose the more you know, the better. My point is that, in some nations, the two-party system forms naturally. It is not a product of some kind of authoritarian takeover of the political system. To vilify two-party systems is to vilify the people that have voted for them, that have elected a government that best suits their own beliefs and agendas. But that is certainly the least of this proposal's problems.

Despite whatever magical system Quadrimmina has, political parties are a fundamental aspect of any democratic society. I personally find it hard to believe that Quadrimmina can consider itself a democracy when it intentionally bans the freedom of assembly, which happens to an internationally protected freedom. As already stated, starving political parties (and their candidates) of funds is nothing more than affront to democracy. Quadrimmina may be functioning quite well -- and I only say so, because I won't be bothered to prove otherwise -- without political parties, but that system cannot function in most democratic societies. This law would destroy democracy as it currently known. Not to mention that it has a net effect of contradicting Freedom of Assembly, and thus is illegal.

- Dr. B. Castro

We would like to counter that two-party systems are created by two factions with opposing viewpoints. And therefore, it all becomes about party vs. party instead of person vs. person. Not to mention the partisan "machine" that involves voting with your party or relinquishing the party's support, financially and physically.

Also, we'd like to note that parties are allowed. But you have to donate to candidates, not parties. That's all this does in the realm of political parties. While we have banned political parties, those of similar opinions are allowed to form coalitions to collectively advertise their positions and their endorsements of one another.

As to the charges that it would destroy democracy, take a look around the world. How many powerful, influentially wealthy people have influenced their government and stopped necessary reform? And how many of the people in those nations have suffered financial crisis, death, and poverty as a result of those people having a hold over the government?

Your nation's dissent of our views on capital punishment is noted. However, it must also be noted that we have never, ever introduced even the notion of mandating capital punishment with anything. It was simply a centerpiece of our agenda as part of a larger WA debate. Give it a rest already. I'm sorry I attempted to reform your health bill, please don't hurt me! <-Sarcastic

:: Applies the Death Penalty to Dr. Arlo Lewis ::
:: Runs away ::

OOC: "Arlo Lewis" sounds a bit like "Hallelujah"

You have failed to kill me. However, noting our fondness for your delegation, charges will not be pressed. I'm not sure what murder law is in international territory anyway. Probably diplomatic privilege.

OoC: I've always loved the name Arlo. As far as Lewis, I couldn't think of a more inventive last name. And I was watching Lewis Black on The Daily Show at the time.

We respect the esteemed delegation's from Glen-Rhodes history but we would argue that in many Nations a 2 party system evolves through nothing more than access to money due to minor parties or independent candidates being put at a disadvantage and therefore democracy is non existent as the choice is not the people's but the system creates the choice for them, we agree though these matters should be left as a National policy area.

This is probably true. Any suggestions you or our other friends in the WA have to make this a more NatSov-friendly resolution?

-----

Our nation is adding another section to this resolution if our esteemed delegates would approve.

REQUIRES that all candidates for elected office disclose all public holdings and investments that may influence their policy decisions.

[Enn]

Enn has a fully functioning multiparty system. We use proportional representation to ensure that all votes count, not just those in artificially created marginal seats. We also maintain a multiparty cabinet, so no single set of values is put above all others.

This proposal, as drafted, would act as an attack on our system of governance. Enn only a few years ago emerged from a state of civil war, and as such we will not accept any WA action that would jeopardise the safety and security of Enn. Any WA-backed interference in our system of governance would justify Enn's withdrawal from this body, as a matter of national security.

Angelo Lanerik,
WA Ambassador for Enn

[Quadrimmina]

Enn has a fully functioning multiparty system. We use proportional representation to ensure that all votes count, not just those in artificially created marginal seats. We also maintain a multiparty cabinet, so no single set of values is put above all others.

This proposal, as drafted, would act as an attack on our system of governance. Enn only a few years ago emerged from a state of civil war, and as such we will not accept any WA action that would jeopardise the safety and security of Enn. Any WA-backed interference in our system of governance would justify Enn's withdrawal from this body, as a matter of national security.

Angelo Lanerik,
WA Ambassador for Enn

We understand your concerns, but would like to ask the following question: Why is this an attack on your system of governance? All it means is that parties can't function as fundraising mills and can't encourage people to vote collectively.

So far, all you said was that you have a multiparty system, and that this is an attack on said system. You never elaborated on what the attack actually is. We don't attack party systems, we just take money out of their hands. Primaries and the like can still proceed as need be.

However, the many democracies of the WA have spoken, and as a nation founded on democratic values and ideals, even having the national motto "Unity, progress, and democracy", we humbly withdraw this proposal at the behest of the majority of my esteemed and highly respectable colleagues. We thank you all for your consideration and look forward to working with you in future endeavors.

[Sionis Prioratus]

REQUIRES that all candidates for elected office disclose all public holdings and investments that may influence their policy decisions.

This can be easily circumvented by creating offshore accounts in non-WA states. Just saying.

Yours,

EDIT: We only now saw Your Excellency's withdrawal.

[Freeoplis]

This can be easily circumvented by creating offshore accounts in non-WA states. Just saying.

Yours,

EDIT: We only now saw Your Excellency's withdrawal.

Probably not a comment that helps the cause we feel . . . case of whisky on it's way to the esteemed delegation of Sionis

[Quadrimmina]

REQUIRES that all candidates for elected office disclose all public holdings and investments that may influence their policy decisions.

This can be easily circumvented by creating offshore accounts in non-WA states. Just saying.

Yours,

EDIT: We only now saw Your Excellency's withdrawal.

If we had not withdrawn, we would have taken Your Excellency's wonderful notion to heart and added that all holdings in offshore accounts must be noted (in other words, offshore accounts should be noted as such).

This can be easily circumvented by creating offshore accounts in non-WA states. Just saying.

Yours,

EDIT: We only now saw Your Excellency's withdrawal.

Probably not a comment that helps the cause we feel . . . case of whisky on it's way to the esteemed delegation of Sionis

We scratched our heads wondering what was being said here.

[Freeoplis]

This can be easily circumvented by creating offshore accounts in non-WA states. Just saying.

Yours,

EDIT: We only now saw Your Excellency's withdrawal.

Probably not a comment that helps the cause we feel . . . case of whisky on it's way to the esteemed delegation of Sionis

We scratched our heads wondering what was being said here.

Basically we were acknowledging the argument advanced by Sionis Prioratus which highlighted a loophole in the proposed resolution, in response to this we offered a gift of a case of whiskey which is Freeoplis' custom.