[DEFEATED] Fairness in Elections

[Tinhampton]

This resolution was at vote between the 5th and 9th of June, 2021.
It was defeated by a margin of 9,777 votes (about 70%) to 4,241 (about 30%).

---

This proposal has been submitted to the General Assembly Furtherment of Democracy Board.
NOTE: At 0531 BST on the 30th of May 2021, I believe this proposal reached quorum with Indusse's approval, the 61st all told... I'm not sure, I was sleeping at the time and quorum may have been fluctuating

---

Character count: 3,695
Word count: 593

ICly by Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador, who intends to submit this as soon as plausible while ensuring that it is free from any extremely serious errors.

OOC: The official sequel to Protecting Convicted Voters. Junitaki-cho and Cretox State asked not to be listed as co-authors but I would like to thank them for their contributions to this resolution, direct and indirect, nonetheless. (CoraSpia is fine with remaining so listed.)

Fairness in Elections
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Recalling that an earlier attempt to allow prisoners to vote was defeated by approximately 8,300 votes to 6,000, partially due to issues concerning the enfranchisement of voter fraudsters and disenfranchisement as punishment for a crime which are not present in this resolution,

Believing that those member states which choose to hold democratic elections or referenda should refrain from rendering anyone unable to vote in them simply due to their circumstances, and

Seeking to restore many of the protections for formerly-imprisoned voters that were assured by GA#419 "Voting Equality for Freed Inmates"...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. an "election" as an election for public office or a referendum (whether binding or non-binding), and
   2. a "relevant crime" in any given member state as any one of:
      
      • any war crime,
      • any crime against humanity, including torture and all forms of genocide,
      • a crime involving proven election fraud,
      • a crime involving the deliberate killing or injury of other people, successful or not, in order to facilitate a political goal, and
      • a crime involving the overthrow of the government of that member or any of its political subdivisions,
2. requires members to ensure that no person within their jurisdiction is prevented (or otherwise unduly restricted) from voting in a election as punishment for any crime other than a relevant crime; or simply because that person is currently, or has previously been, punished for a crime other than a relevant crime,
3. forbids members and any courts that may be established by resolution from rescinding any person's citizenship in order to bypass Articles b or d in relation to that person,
4. reminds members that they must not prevent any person from voting at any election simply because:
   
   1. that person possesses or does not possess any arbitrary or reductive characteristic, except where such prevention is allowed by prior and standing international law (including future international law on preventing minors from voting) or necessary to ensure that those who are not citizens of a particular member state do not vote in elections organised by that member,
   2. that person is employed, unemployed, a member or a non-member of any trade union, nor simply because
   3. that person is bankrupt or in debt,
5. requires each prison in member states to protect their inmates from being pressured to vote for or against any option, candidate or slate of candidates (or to refrain from voting) by any entity employed by or currently held at that prison in all elections in a manner that seriously impacts those inmates' judgement,
6. orders that those members which choose to hold elections provide adequate voting access to prison inmates equivalent to the voting access enjoyed by the non-incarcerated population,
7. clarifies that this resolution does not mandate that elections be organised in any member state, yet
8. mandates that those members which choose not to hold elections apply Articles b, c, d and f in regards to all people that would otherwise be eligible to vote in any non-election votes it may organise (such as votes organised by a one-party state to determine who joins that party's central leadership committee which only members of that party can vote in), and that any prisons within such members likewise apply Article e to such votes, and
9. insists that all members - whether or not they hold elections - permit those expressions of opposition to their government that are in full compliance with international law.

Co-authored with CoraSpia.

[Nouvelle Provence]

Dear Ambassador,

I admire your diligence and determination in protecting the democratic ideals which you hold dear! Even though I opposed your previous Resolution in my quality of Royal Governor of Nouvelle Provence, I must say that you made some progress in swaying me to your side.

However, there is one section with which I cannot possibly agree. Section a. ii. attempts to define the severity of a crime while it would seem to me that this power should be the prerogative and only the prerogative of a nation's legislative body. Not only that, but from your words I understand it that "serious crimes" only seem to be those that are politically motivated, which makes the matter ever more so repressive and stiff. Should this Resolution pass in its current state, this would become a grave overreach of the W.A. into each nation's sovereignty.

I would like also to bring your attention to the fact that each nation is built around its core cultural values which differ from one nation to another. What one may consider a "serious crime" another may consider it a "minor offence" or on the opposite a "grave crime". Thus, should we force each nation to reformulate their laws around this unique point of view of yours, not only are we stifling each member's legislative liberties, but we are also reprimanding them for their cultural differences.

Take the example of my own colony which Sa Majesté the King of France has graciously put me in charge of. According to French law as ordained by Sa Majesté, any act of blasphemy is treating as a very grave offence, one of the most reprehensible in my Sovereign's realm. If it were to be so that your Resolution passes, and given that the laws governing the Colony of Nouvelle Provence are just as those ordained by my Monarch, blasphemy would then be forced not to be considered as what it has always been considered in the territories ruled by Sa Majesté. This would be inconceivable for those colonial subjects under my authority! They would be up in arms, rightfully angry at an administration that does not respect their religion! Clerics and men of the Church would be at my throat! Worse! His Holiness the Pope may excommunicate me...

Thus, having extensively detailed my point of view, I would like to suggest that you, at the very least, make it so that your Resolution does not attempt to take authority away from a nation's legislative and judicial system by defining standards for the severity of crimes. If I may be frank with you, should I have been the author of this Resolution, I would have suppressed this section entirely and have it replaced by one which "encourages" rather than "imposes" a definition.

It is regrettably that as Royal Governor of Nouvelle Provence I must stand against Draft n°1 in its current form.

Vive le Roi,

H.E. Le Gouverneur

[CoraSpia]

"Although it is regrettable that those repressive states which would ever consider the disenfranchisement of groups of voters have forced a partial climbdown here, the Haven will support this proposal as it would any proposal aimed at making the lives of prisoners better or increasing the right to vote."

[Bananaistan]

"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. Any chance any of the weakminded fools supporting this nonsense can advance a justification?

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

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "I agree with my colleague from Bananaistan. If affairs like this have to be regulated, they should be regulated equally and uniformly. By this I mean: one type of government cannot get a free pass while others are regulated.

Our delegation agrees that dictatorial governments should not be allowed to have a vote in how democracies are practiced. While we admire the noble intentions of the authoring delegations in furthering the values of democracy, I sadly will advise my Queen to move to a vote 'against' this proposal, should it come to a vote."

[Nouvelle Provence]

"To the Noble Ambassadors and Other Officials who have Part-taken in the Present Discussion,

Thus far, I have noticed great anxiety from those nations that hold democracy and its guiding principles dear to their heart, pointing out that nations whose government did not align with democracy should not have a say in how nations who do uphold democracy manage their internal affairs. I concur with them on this point and, if permissible, I would like to expand further.

It has come to my attention that the recent Resolutions that have been put to the W.A.'s vote are tailored in such a fashion as to only be applicable to certain types of nations while others are to be left idle. This trend is most alarming. How is the W.A. meant to maintain any legitimacy if it functions in such a way as to favour some nations and disregard others? How long can this last before the W.A. erupts into multiple separate entities?

I think it crucial to make no distinctions between nations. A Resolution must be applicable to all members without concession and without arrangements. If a Resolution cannot be applied by all and any member of this W.A., it has no reason to be! In no case whatsoever should there be a Resolution that applies only to a portion of members. Make it fit or toss it off.

I would also like to clarify that it is my opinion that nations should not have to change in order to fit the Resolutions of the W.A. The Resolution have to fit the nations just as it is the horseshoe that should fit the hoof.

As always, I send my distinguished regards to all present.

Vive le Roi,

H.E. Le Gouverneur de Nouvelle Provence"

[Tinhampton]

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: The current proposal has been slightly altered to include a new provision on member states that do not hold elections - which, for clarity, does not in fact require them to hold elections. For the relief of the Governor of Nouvelle Provence, I have changed the several references to "serious crimes" to references to "relevant crimes." And to avoid confusing the Havenite ambassador, member states are not in fact required to stop those who have committed seri... relevant crimes from voting.

(OOC: Articles a(ii) and g)

[Outer Sparta]

Once again, opposed.

[Tinhampton]

Once again, opposed.

Where did you express your opposition to Protecting Convicted Voters, for what reason, and which aspects of my current Draft 1b are of concern? The only post that you made on the PCV debate thread was addressed to Great Algerstonia and asked him if he was "merely opposed to those that committed treason be allowed to vote or [opposed] to everyone with a criminal record being able to vote."

[Outer Sparta]

Once again, opposed.

Where did you express your opposition to Protecting Convicted Voters, for what reason, and which aspects of my current Draft 1b are of concern? The only post that you made on the PCV debate thread was addressed to Great Algerstonia and asked him if he was "merely opposed to those that committed treason be allowed to vote or [opposed] to everyone with a criminal record being able to vote."

I opposed to letting those charged of treason could still be able to vote. I'll have to see if this one contained any major flaws in the last one, but I am once again taking an opposition to this.

[WayNeacTia]

Opposed, and I believe my reasons are fairly obvious.

[Remavas]

Our Republic is of the opinion that this is a step in the right direction, although it would love to see a mandated reintegration of an individual into society, thereby disallowing the disenfranchisement of previous electoral crime convicts, after a set time has passed after the conviction, say a maximum of 10 years. This nation does however realize that most constituents of this body would probably not pass such legislation, and therefore thinks this is a valid groundwork for more progressive nations to build from, and to require all nations to have minimal democratic freedoms and rights, if they purport to have such.

This nation fully voices their agreement and support of this draft.

ADDENDUM: The Minister of Justice and Public Safety recommends changing the definition of "relevant crime" to the following

a "relevant crime" as a crime involving election fraud, intentionally or knowingly killing, injuring, bribing or threatening other people in order to facilitate a political goal, or both,

[Tinhampton]

Our Republic is of the opinion that this is a step in the right direction, although it would love to see a mandated reintegration of an individual into society, thereby disallowing the disenfranchisement of previous electoral crime convicts, after a set time has passed after the conviction, say a maximum of 10 years...

The provisions you describe are present in the draft. See the second half of Article b.

[Remavas]

Our Republic is of the opinion that this is a step in the right direction, although it would love to see a mandated reintegration of an individual into society, thereby disallowing the disenfranchisement of previous electoral crime convicts, after a set time has passed after the conviction, say a maximum of 10 years...

The provisions you describe are present in the draft. See the second half of Article b.

[O]r simply because they currently are being, or have previously been, punished for a crime other than a relevant crime,

In my interpretation this means that if a person has been punished for a relevant crime that he may be disenfranchised for eternity. I may be wrong, if I am I do apologize.

[Tinhampton]

The provisions you describe are present in the draft. See the second half of Article b.

[O]r simply because they currently are being, or have previously been, punished for a crime other than a relevant crime,

In my interpretation this means that if a person has been punished for a relevant crime that he may be disenfranchised for eternity. I may be wrong, if I am I do apologize.

This proposal says nothing regarding the enfranchisement of those who have committed a relevant crime, as far as I know

[Wallenburg]

You forgot your Oxford comma in section d.

[Thermodolia]

Opposed. Bananaistan and Wayneactia have said all that needs to be said

[Tinhampton]

You forgot your Oxford comma in section d.

Deliberately so

Opposed. Bananaistan and Wayneactia have said all that needs to be said

Have you taken notice of Article g yet? Please do when you have the opportunity.

[Thermodolia]

You forgot your Oxford comma in section d.

Deliberately so

Opposed. Bananaistan and Wayneactia have said all that needs to be said

Have you taken notice of Article g yet? Please do when you have the opportunity.

“Ambassador your feeble attempt has changed nothing. Dictatorships still have the power to vote on things which they do not have to follow”

[Great Algerstonia]

"The Algerstonens do not support this draft at present. This still allows people convicted of treason to vote. We will support this draft once this exempts all treason, not election-related treason."

~Admiral-Ambassador Alec Ainsworth.

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: Consider it done, Mister Ainsworth - I think so, anyway. Article d(ii) has been also added after our delegation independently discovered that Article 5 of GA Number Four-Seven-Six is in fact "subject to [...] future World Assembly resolutions" as well as prior and standing ones. Article c has also been added and all other Articles moved up a letter after I personally discovered the arguments made in Repeal "Debtor Voting Rights," whatever number that was.

OOC: Draft 1c comes in just below the old-skool character limit of 3,500.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Regarding clause h, can the the party still only allow party members to vote or do they have to allow everyone to vote? Because applying clause b to h would suggest that.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: Regarding clause h, can the the party still only allow party members to vote or do they have to allow everyone to vote? Because applying clause b to h would suggest that.

Ordinarily, an individual who is not a member of the leading party in a one-party regime would not "otherwise be eligible to vote" - i.e. be eligible to vote in the absence of this resolution - in the kinds of non-election vote described in the example in Clause h.

[Great Algerstonia]

Anderson: Consider it done, Mister Ainsworth - I think so, anyway. Article d(ii) has been also added after our delegation independently discovered that Article 5 of GA Number Four-Seven-Six is in fact "subject to [...] future World Assembly resolutions" as well as prior and standing ones. Article c has also been added and all other Articles moved up a letter after I personally discovered the arguments made in Repeal "Debtor Voting Rights," whatever number that was.

OOC: Draft 1c comes in just below the old-skool character limit of 3,500.

"Ah! Algerstonia delivers it's thanks to the Tinhamptonians for ratifying our concerns. We are now satisfied with this proposal."

~Admiral-Ambassador Alec Ainsworth, while sending ingredients for a barbeque to the Tinhamptonian leadership, scheduled to arrive by repurposed naval warship

[Uan aa Boa]

"We fully share Bananaistan's sentiments. As a nation that does not hold elections we have no reason to tell other nations how they should organise theirs."