[DEFEATED] Fairness in Elections

[Tinhampton]

How is this being defeated by an even larger margin than my previous attempt at this was?

[WayNeacTia]

How is this being defeated by an even larger margin than my previous attempt at this was?

Do you really need to ask?

[Bananaistan]

How is this being defeated by an even larger margin than my previous attempt at this was?

OOC: Voter fatigue.

[Nepleslia]

How is this being defeated by an even larger margin than my previous attempt at this was?

It’s almost as if they - the voters - are pointing out that quantity doesn’t equal quality...

[Waldenes]

*A young woman stands up shyly holding some papers in her hands.*

“Um... the Ambassador couldn’t make it today, so I have been tasked to read a statement from him. The um... statement is as follows; ‘What? How can you do this? This is outrageous. It’s unfair! How can you be on the council and not-‘“

*The young woman is interrupted by one of her colleagues and handed a new set of papers.*

“Ahem... sorry that was the... wrong statement. Ahem. The Ambassador for Waldenes is once again extremely disappointed with this blow to civil rights... and... he continues ranting for several pages. Um. Er, thank you.”

*She sits down sheepishly. Her colleague rolls her eyes and takes to the floor for a moment.*

“What my colleague means to say is, we support this proposal, and are disappointed to see so many votes against it. That is all.”

[Shamian]

How is this being defeated by an even larger margin than my previous attempt at this was?

Because the wording of this proposal has managed to simultaneously irritate both right and left wings of the political spectrum.

The right wing is unsurprisingly upset that this proposal is aimed at preventing their prison population from being disenfranchised.

This is an expected outcome, and usually such a bill would be supported by the left wing community, which would balance this out.
However, in this instance the Left wing is also upset with the same proposal, as the wording specifically allows states to disenfranchise political dissidents:

In section a(ii) , It specifically defines
"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"
as "relevant crimes".
Then in section B it goes on to give states carte blanche to disenfranchise individuals due to having committed said "relevant crimes".

Since no-where in this proposal does it;
A) prevent a state from arbitrarily manipulating its legal code to make membership, support or having sympathy towards political opposition groups into a crime against the state - or indeed outright treason,
Or..
B) define that such crimes must have taken place within the state of residence and/or be against that state or its interests in order to be considered relevant,
Then this proposal (if passed) would permit governments to selectively disenfranchise revolutionaries, political dissidents, freedom fighters and any other inconvenient political opposition group at will, even if immigrating as refugees from foreign nations.

As such, this proposal is not worth the ink it is written with.

[Scalizagasti]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote for this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1555622

[Canasius]

“Knowing that this proposal will fail, Canasius votes in support for because it is on the whole consistent with Canasiusian values. However, Canasius strongly objects to shoe-horning voting rights for criminals. Canasius is of the opinion that voting rights for criminals should have been a separate bill from one guaranteeing FAIRNESS IN ELECTIONS.”

[Ardiveds]

OOC: This is frankly bizarre. All the issues that were raised on the previous version of this were resolved and yet the whole thing’s going to shit. I’m curious Tin, what’s your plan for this topic should this fail, (which seems more and more likely every second.)

[Kenmoria]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote for this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1555622

“On the contrary, the European region recommends that nations vote against this proposal. In line with this, the Kenmoria WA Mission has switched its vote from abstaining to against the legislation.”

[Tinhampton]

There will be a third attempt in the near future for which - in order to placate European concerns - the clause about prisoner voter intimidation instead requires prisons 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 at that prison in all elections in a manner that seriously impacts those inmates' judgement

The above quoted text is not the text of Article e of Fairness in Elections. I will post the full text in a dedicated drafting thread in the coming days.

[Wallenburg]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote for this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1555622

“On the contrary, the European region recommends that nations vote against this proposal. In line with this, the Kenmoria WA Mission has switched its vote from abstaining to against the legislation.”

It's good to know that Europe supports voter intimidation committed by inmates.

[Kenmoria]

“On the contrary, the European region recommends that nations vote against this proposal. In line with this, the Kenmoria WA Mission has switched its vote from abstaining to against the legislation.”

It's good to know that Europe supports voter intimidation committed by inmates.

(OOC: Preventing voter intimidation committed by inmates seems impossible without reducing unmonitored contact between prisoners to zero. Member states are simply not able to achieve clause e without severe losses to inmate welfare.)

[Wallenburg]

It's good to know that Europe supports voter intimidation committed by inmates.

(OOC: Preventing voter intimidation committed by inmates seems impossible without reducing unmonitored contact between prisoners to zero. Member states are simply not able to achieve clause e without severe losses to inmate welfare.)

Most governments are capable of preventing voter intimidation in the broader public without turning into a total police state. Preventing voter intimidation in a small, controlled, well-surveilled environment such as a prison should be a piece of cake.

[Thermodolian WA Mission]

There will be a third attempt in the near future for which - in order to placate European concerns - the clause about prisoner voter intimidation instead requires prisons 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 at that prison in all elections in a manner that seriously impacts those inmates' judgement

The above quoted text is not the text of Article e of Fairness in Elections. I will post the full text in a dedicated drafting thread in the coming days.

At which point do you just take the hint and realize that you aren’t going to get it passed?

[Tinhampton]

There will be a third attempt in the near future for which - in order to placate European concerns - the clause about prisoner voter intimidation instead requires prisons 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 at that prison in all elections in a manner that seriously impacts those inmates' judgement

The above quoted text is not the text of Article e of Fairness in Elections. I will post the full text in a dedicated drafting thread in the coming days.

At which point do you just take the hint and realize that you aren’t going to get it passed?

When I get it passed.

[Nepleslia]

At which point do you just take the hint and realize that you aren’t going to get it passed?

When I get it passed.

Ah, yes, fatigue the voters even more by spamming the same proposal over and over. That’s definitely a receipt for success, oh yes.

[WayNeacTia]

At which point do you just take the hint and realize that you aren’t going to get it passed?

When I get it passed.

It won't pass. The idea is sound, the problem is the author.

[Jedinsto]

It won't pass. The idea is sound, the problem is the author.

Hmmm.... considering the amount of people that don't want the WA to touch elections, I'd say that the problem actually is the idea. All this Tinhampton hate from you kinda makes me want to say

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

So long as any version of this bill fails to have sufficient safeguards, as outlined by the delegate for Shamian, it will not have the support from the left necessary to overcome the entrenched and immovable opposition it will receive from the right.

[Croanique]

As others have said, Croanique's primary concerns with this bill have to do with what are outlined as "relevant crimes". Other than "a crime involving proven election fraud" and perhaps "any war crime", these crimes are irrelevant to elections or voting rights. We are especially concerned with the same issues highlighted by Shamian here:

In section a(ii) , It specifically defines
"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"
as "relevant crimes".
Then in section B it goes on to give states carte blanche to disenfranchise individuals due to having committed said "relevant crimes".

Since no-where in this proposal does it;
A) prevent a state from arbitrarily manipulating its legal code to make membership, support or having sympathy towards political opposition groups into a crime against the state - or indeed outright treason,
Or..
B) define that such crimes must have taken place within the state of residence and/or be against that state or its interests in order to be considered relevant,
Then this proposal (if passed) would permit governments to selectively disenfranchise revolutionaries, political dissidents, freedom fighters and any other inconvenient political opposition group at will, even if immigrating as refugees from foreign nations.

With our concerns stated, Croanique will be voting against this resolution, with hopes that future resolutions better protecting prisoners' voting rights will be up to vote.

[Canedeau]

Greetings,

I, the Prime Minister of Canedeau and the Special Administrative Region of Windbec, humbly accept this proposal. We believe that all people, no matter their history, ethnic background, or socio-economic status, should be granted the right to vote. This is to ensure that even those serving time will have the power to change any negligence done against them by any government in the future, as the last thing we want is for our grandchildren to call us barbarians.

This vote was extensively discussed amongst our top scientists, political analysts, ethics advisors, doctors, lawyers, former inmates, and citizens. We have come to the conclusion that not only protecting the right to vote for all citizens is ethically just, the process of learning about each candidate and political party also assists with the rehabilitation process by further sharpening the potential minds of inmates as well as having an increase in political activity once time has been served.

No matter what a person does, they are humans at the end of the day, so we shall have the obligation to treat them as one.


The people of Canedeau and Windbec urge other nations to reconsider and vote in favour of this bill.

Thank you,
Prime Minister Jerry Tremblay.

[Outer Sparta]

It won't pass. The idea is sound, the problem is the author.

Hmmm.... considering the amount of people that don't want the WA to touch elections, I'd say that the problem actually is the idea. All this Tinhampton hate from you kinda makes me want to say

If the idea were attempted to be passed by a different author, then we'll see what is the underlying issue. Given that the WA voters don't really want something like this passed at the moment, I don't really see any attempts by anyone successful.

[Jocospor]

Now, I know a thing or two about badge-hunting... Tinhampton, don't stoop to my nefarious level!

Maybe give it a rest for now and pick it up again in a few months?

[Tuco the Baby Corgi]

This is a direct attack on the sovereignty of each nation in this forum and across the world. First off, your argument takes no account of states that do not allow for free elections, and therefore is not relevant to a large portion of the world that we live in. Second, each country should benefit from self-determination under the concept of sovereignty. Because countries have the inherent right to self-determination, they also have the right to decide what their internal election procedures look like, as well as how those should be carried out.

You have unjustly inserted yourself into the internal politics of other nations with this vote and have no right to disregard electoral systems and the legislative bodies of countries worldwide with this barbaric encroachment on our rights to sovereignty and self-determination.

I'm fervently against this proposal.