Advertisement
by Tinhampton » Sat Jun 05, 2021 2:59 pm
by WayNeacTia » Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:04 pm
Tinhampton wrote:How is this being defeated by an even larger margin than my previous attempt at this was?
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Bananaistan » Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:08 pm
Tinhampton wrote:How is this being defeated by an even larger margin than my previous attempt at this was?
by Nepleslia » Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:35 pm
Tinhampton wrote:How is this being defeated by an even larger margin than my previous attempt at this was?
by Waldenes » Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:46 pm
by Shamian » Sat Jun 05, 2021 6:39 pm
Tinhampton wrote:How is this being defeated by an even larger margin than my previous attempt at this was?
by Scalizagasti » Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:33 pm
by Canasius » Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:59 am
by Ardiveds » Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:38 am
by Kenmoria » Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:16 am
Scalizagasti wrote:The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote for this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1555622
by Tinhampton » Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:23 am
by Wallenburg » Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:42 am
Kenmoria wrote:Scalizagasti wrote: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.”
by Kenmoria » Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:00 am
by Wallenburg » Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:10 am
Kenmoria wrote:Wallenburg wrote: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.)
by Thermodolian WA Mission » Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:36 pm
Tinhampton wrote: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.
by Tinhampton » Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:40 pm
Thermodolian WA Mission wrote:Tinhampton wrote: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?
by WayNeacTia » Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:13 pm
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Jedinsto » Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:21 pm
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 sayWayneactia wrote:It won't pass. The idea is sound, the problem is the author.
by Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories » Sun Jun 06, 2021 6:07 pm
by Croanique » Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:00 pm
Shamian wrote: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.
by Canedeau » Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:36 pm
by Outer Sparta » Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:41 pm
by Jocospor » Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:54 am
by Tuco the Baby Corgi » Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:30 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement