[PASSED] Promoting Democratic Stability Act

[Hulldom]

I think I have a reputation for being aspirational in this Assembly, I also think this strikes a fair balance between respecting national sovereignty and fulfilling my wildest IntFed dreams.

Yes, this is a #130 replacement. I thought of this sort of thing the other day and I think it goes back on #130 in ways that tighten it and also advances civil rights in a strong way.

Finally, if someone can help me tighten the language in clause 4 as it pertains to allowing MMPR, would appreciate it.

"As our Delegation is finally realizing its desire to repeal Resolution 1-3-0, we invite our fellow Ambassadors and interested staff to review a draft of our proposed replacement."

Promoting Democratic Stability Act

Area of Effect: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the late repeal of GA#130,

Believing that promoting democratic transitions is a noble goal and one that should continue to be a priority, hereby:

1. The following terms are defined for the purpose of this Act:
   
   1. ”Ballot” as any national vote held specifically to determine what policy or policies a Government is to adopt.
   2. “Election” as any vote held for the purposes of electing an individual into a legislative or executive office.
2. Member states are bound to the following policies in the conduct of all local, regional, and national ballots and elections:
   
   1. No person shall, under penalty or cover of law, be forced to disclose for whom or what position they voted or be discriminated against on those grounds.
   2. All persons shall have the opportunity to cast their vote in private and without interference from outside parties.
   3. No person shall be discriminated against in casting their vote by virtue of how they choose to cast their vote or for not casting a vote.
   4. No person shall be disallowed from casting a vote due to some immutable characteristic such as race, biological sex, gender, disability, or any other class which may be protected under national or international law.
3. Member states are encouraged to monitor for, and prosecute, fraudulent or dishonest practices relating to elections or ballots held in their state.
4. The Office of Electoral Administration (hereinafter the OEA) will only enter a member state to assist with or monitor an election or ballot if that member state requests it.
5. However, individual member states are reserved the right to set all further regulations pertaining to elections.
6. OEA officials must investigate allegations of voter intimidation, voter fraud, and other fraudulent or dishonest practices relating to elections in which they have been invited to serve as a monitoring party and must report any and all violations of the practices found in (2) to the World Assembly Compliance Commission for consideration of further sanction.

[Bananaistan]

"Add something to the effect that all other regulations pertaining to elections are solely a matter for member states and not the WA and we'd consider supporting."

[Hulldom]

"Add something to the effect that all other regulations pertaining to elections are solely a matter for member states and not the WA and we'd consider supporting."

OOC: That's not a terrible idea, though I do worry if such a provision would violate applicability rules.

"We'll be adding something to that affect, Ambassador."

Edit: maybe? I don't think clauses 4 and 5 necessarily matter, but I can definitely add "if member states hold elections" there as well.

[Greater Cesnica]

"Very well-put-together, Ambassador. On a cursory read-through, it appears without issues, save for one concern I have. In Article 2(d), you provide protection against discrimination based on immutable characteristics. I believe that this should be expanded to also provide protection against discrimination based on political orientation and beliefs. Other than that, no issues for now."

[Gonswanza]

"As effective as this may be, it does leave many questions. For example, local laws may have it to where the ruling party would simply lack the ability to run a campaign so as to offer a level playing field to other parties in some countries, while the opposite holds true in other regions. Would that, technically, be in violation of Article 8 and/or 9? Especially when Gonswanzan elections tend to rely upon such a law (majority/ruling party campaigns ahead of the rest) to uphold order through a majority rule despite holding democratic elections in a system with multiple parties competing for control, given various and conflicting ideals among said parties."

[Tinhampton]

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: No support while the OEA is allowed to dictate, under any pretext, how any member state's legislature or executive ought to be elected.

[Comfed]

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: No support while the OEA is allowed to dictate, under any pretext, how any member state's legislature or executive ought to be elected.

The OEA only has authority under jurisdictions where they are invited.

[Hulldom]

"As effective as this may be, it does leave many questions. For example, local laws may have it to where the ruling party would simply lack the ability to run a campaign so as to offer a level playing field to other parties in some countries, while the opposite holds true in other regions. Would that, technically, be in violation of Article 8 and/or 9? Especially when Gonswanzan elections tend to rely upon such a law (majority/ruling party campaigns ahead of the rest) to uphold order through a majority rule despite holding democratic elections in a system with multiple parties competing for control, given various and conflicting ideals among said parties."

"As with the Honorable Ambassador from Tinhampton, my answer is the same. Provisions which deal with the OEA are only in force and enforceable on your nation if you invite the OEA into your nation. Otherwise, we only ask you respect clauses 2-5."

[Gonswanza]

"As effective as this may be, it does leave many questions. For example, local laws may have it to where the ruling party would simply lack the ability to run a campaign so as to offer a level playing field to other parties in some countries, while the opposite holds true in other regions. Would that, technically, be in violation of Article 8 and/or 9? Especially when Gonswanzan elections tend to rely upon such a law (majority/ruling party campaigns ahead of the rest) to uphold order through a majority rule despite holding democratic elections in a system with multiple parties competing for control, given various and conflicting ideals among said parties."

"As with the Honorable Ambassador from Tinhampton, my answer is the same. Provisions which deal with the OEA are only in force and enforceable on your nation if you invite the OEA into your nation. Otherwise, we only ask you respect clauses 2-5."

"And hence it is so... Even as it does seem a bit odd and mildly intrusive. For now, I withhold my support."

[Imperium Anglorum]

How does this interact with something like a bicameral assembly?

[Hulldom]

How does this interact with something like a bicameral assembly?

This is why I asked for help with clause 4.

I will admit that frankly this idea slipped my mind. I think it could be addressed even given the current wording, will edit it later.

[Hulldom]

Updating this, though not precisely a bump.

I have removed this clause to avoid duplication with GAR#310.

"Accommodations must be made so that the disabled are better able to cast a vote, though member states are bound to follow the provisions in 2(a) and 2(b) for their casting a vote should elections or ballots be held."

I have added a subclause under the "one person, one vote" clause to encompass multicameral legislatures. Finally, I merged the drawing of boundaries clause with its subclause.

[Hannasea]

"Add some language requiring all nations hold such elections and we will support this. Otherwise we will under no circumstances support legislation that dictates to democracies specific rules they must obey while allowing automcracies to entirely disregard them."

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

[Hulldom]

"Add some language requiring all nations hold such elections and we will support this. Otherwise we will under no circumstances support legislation that dictates to democracies specific rules they must obey while allowing automcracies to entirely disregard them."

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

"We cannot do that for a variety of reasons."

OOC: Such would almost certainly make this DOA due to the Ideological Ban rule. No can do.

[Hannasea]

"Add some language requiring all nations hold such elections and we will support this. Otherwise we will under no circumstances support legislation that dictates to democracies specific rules they must obey while allowing automcracies to entirely disregard them."

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

"We cannot do that for a variety of reasons."
"Yes, you can. That you are not willing to do so does of course mean we will not support this crushingly stupid imposition on democracies."

[Hulldom]

"We cannot do that for a variety of reasons."
"Yes, you can. That you are not willing to do so does of course mean we will not support this crushingly stupid imposition on democracies."

From the Rules Compendium:

"Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies."

That knife cuts both ways. I cannot do so and have it be legal.

[Scalizagasti]

If a member states conducts elections or ballots, they are bound to the following policies in the conduct of all local, regional, and national ballots and elections:

1. No person shall, under penalty or cover of law, be forced to disclose for whom or what position they voted or be discriminated against on those grounds.
2. All persons shall have the opportunity to cast their vote in private and without interference from outside parties.
3. No person shall be discriminated against in casting their vote by virtue of when and how they choose to cast their vote.
4. No person shall be disallowed from casting a vote due to some immutable characteristic such as race, biological sex, gender, disability, or any other class which may be protected under national or international law.

Because you have defined ballot as "any vote held for the purposes of determining whether or not a Government shall take a course of action or adopt a specific policy," this would include legislative votes. Mandating that legislatures have all their votes held secretly is probably not your intention with this resolution, but with the current definition + clause 2 I would argue it is a side effect. You should make the definition of ballot more clearly reflect the idea of it being about referenda.

This provision shall not apply in those member states which adopt a model which requires, or allows, individuals to cast multiple types of votes insofar as individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote in one electoral division.

What about in mixed-member proportional systems where there is more than one electoral division in which you vote? For instance voting for both your constituency and a larger, regional list.

The Office of Electoral Administration (hereinafter the OEA) will only enter a member state to assist with or monitor an election or ballot if a member state requests it.

Just wondering, why only if a member state requests it? If a government is attempting to rig an election wouldn't OEA presence be most beneficial?

[Hulldom]

If a member states conducts elections or ballots, they are bound to the following policies in the conduct of all local, regional, and national ballots and elections:

1. No person shall, under penalty or cover of law, be forced to disclose for whom or what position they voted or be discriminated against on those grounds.
2. All persons shall have the opportunity to cast their vote in private and without interference from outside parties.
3. No person shall be discriminated against in casting their vote by virtue of when and how they choose to cast their vote.
4. No person shall be disallowed from casting a vote due to some immutable characteristic such as race, biological sex, gender, disability, or any other class which may be protected under national or international law.

Because you have defined ballot as "any vote held for the purposes of determining whether or not a Government shall take a course of action or adopt a specific policy," this would include legislative votes. Mandating that legislatures have all their votes held secretly is probably not your intention with this resolution, but with the current definition + clause 2 I would argue it is a side effect. You should make the definition of ballot more precise to make it reflect the idea of referendum more clear.

This provision shall not apply in those member states which adopt a model which requires, or allows, individuals to cast multiple types of votes insofar as individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote in one electoral division.

What about in mixed-member proportional systems where there is more than one electoral division in which you vote? For instance voting for both your constituency and a larger, regional list.

The Office of Electoral Administration (hereinafter the OEA) will only enter a member state to assist with or monitor an election or ballot if a member state requests it.

Just wondering, why only if a member state requests it? If a government is attempting to rig an election wouldn't OEA presence be most beneficial?

1. Noted. That makes sense.
2. See my original note in the OP where I requested help in that. Though I believe 3(a) should help with that.
3. One of the issues in replacing 130 is that any positive mandate for international intervention would either (1) rely on self-reporting, which while not preferable, at least is sort of the point--our goal is ensuring that democratic transitions are successful, not that they are necessarily more likely (though the latter is, in my opinion, the correct opinion and the best course of action) or (2) necessarily have a mandate for intervention, which would lead, I'm almost certain, to the scurrilous accusation I'm embarking on a regime change effort (I'm not) and would imperil a replacement's passage period since the national sovereigntist block, lamentably, holds a sufficient number of votes to sink this. I agree with you on the notion that OEA presence would be beneficial in the event of outright fraud, but I'm also a realist, and see that a positive mandate for action when requested is better than no enforceable mandate as is the present.

[Scalizagasti]

2. See my original note in the OP where I requested help in that. Though I believe 3(a) should help with that.

The OP mentioned clause 4 so I thought MMPR meant something else
Perhaps you could change "individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote in one electoral division" to "individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote once per category of electoral division." Or something like that. The idea is that you can vote once for the local constituency and once for the regional list, which are different "categories" of electoral divisions. Perhaps there is a better word for "category" that you could use.

If you want to be lazy, you could also mention MMP by name. Throw in a "... does not apply to systems such as mixed-member proportional" somewhere in the exceptions subclauses.

3. One of the issues in replacing 130 is that any positive mandate for international intervention would either (1) rely on self-reporting, which while not preferable, at least is sort of the point--our goal is ensuring that democratic transitions are successful, not that they are necessarily more likely (though the latter is, in my opinion, the correct opinion and the best course of action) or (2) necessarily have a mandate for intervention, which would lead, I'm almost certain, to the scurrilous accusation I'm embarking on a regime change effort (I'm not) and would imperil a replacement's passage period since the national sovereigntist block, lamentably, holds a sufficient number of votes to sink this. I agree with you on the notion that OEA presence would be beneficial in the event of outright fraud, but I'm also a realist, and see that a positive mandate for action when requested is better than no enforceable mandate as is the present.

That makes sense.

[Hulldom]

2. See my original note in the OP where I requested help in that. Though I believe 3(a) should help with that.

The OP mentioned clause 4 so I thought MMPR meant something else
Perhaps you could change "individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote in one electoral division" to "individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote once per category of electoral division." Or something like that. The idea is that you can vote once for the local constituency and once for the regional list, which are different "categories" of electoral divisions. Perhaps there is a better word for "category" that you could use.

If you want to be lazy, you could also mention MMP by name. Throw in a "... does not apply to systems such as mixed-member proportional" somewhere in the exceptions subclauses.

3. One of the issues in replacing 130 is that any positive mandate for international intervention would either (1) rely on self-reporting, which while not preferable, at least is sort of the point--our goal is ensuring that democratic transitions are successful, not that they are necessarily more likely (though the latter is, in my opinion, the correct opinion and the best course of action) or (2) necessarily have a mandate for intervention, which would lead, I'm almost certain, to the scurrilous accusation I'm embarking on a regime change effort (I'm not) and would imperil a replacement's passage period since the national sovereigntist block, lamentably, holds a sufficient number of votes to sink this. I agree with you on the notion that OEA presence would be beneficial in the event of outright fraud, but I'm also a realist, and see that a positive mandate for action when requested is better than no enforceable mandate as is the present.

That makes sense.

I believe it should be fixed now, I made that wording exactly or near enough. For broader consumption: This necessitated adding a sub-clause which concerns STV/AV systems.

Also believe I fixed the ballot problem with the addition of a word.

[Tsaivao]

Delegate Manhu chuckled to himself. "Someone let Baije in the Assembly behind my back? This sounds like a stepping stone closer to his brand of radical anti-monarchism. In any case, I do find this proposal palateable, and I am thankful of the necessary optionality in some parts."

"I would recommend including under Clause 2 protections for individual who do not choose to vote, as no-shows or spoilt ballots aren't explicitly protected. In One-Party states, often one's only resort to oppose is to avoid voting in the first place, but an individual who has been discovered to have not shown up to the ballot box can be... Persuaded. The protections in this legislation should cover those cases as well."

[Hulldom]

Delegate Manhu chuckled to himself. "Someone let Baije in the Assembly behind my back? This sounds like a stepping stone closer to his brand of radical anti-monarchism. In any case, I do find this proposal palateable, and I am thankful of the necessary optionality in some parts."

"I would recommend including under Clause 2 protections for individual who do not choose to vote, as no-shows or spoilt ballots aren't explicitly protected. In One-Party states, often one's only resort to oppose is to avoid voting in the first place, but an individual who has been discovered to have not shown up to the ballot box can be... Persuaded. The protections in this legislation should cover those cases as well."

“Duly noted. I shall add a provision or amend the language to that effect.”

[Minskiev]

“Electoral division” as a geographical area which exists for the purpose of electing a person into office.

is an odd definition, no? If I bought a square foot of land and plopped a sign saying Walrus 2024 on it, would that be an electoral division? Also, if I'm not mistaken, it would be that exists.

[Outer Sparta]

“Electoral division” as a geographical area which exists for the purpose of electing a person into office.

is an odd definition, no? If I bought a square foot of land and plopped a sign saying Walrus 2024 on it, would that be an electoral division? Also, if I'm not mistaken, it would be that exists.

Electoral divisions are predetermined by a districting committee (or in the US, by politicians and you get extremely weird blobs and shapes as a result of gerrymandering). So no, you cannot just have a square foot of land especially since electoral divisions take population into account.

[Hulldom]

“Electoral division” as a geographical area which exists for the purpose of electing a person into office.

is an odd definition, no? If I bought a square foot of land and plopped a sign saying Walrus 2024 on it, would that be an electoral division? Also, if I'm not mistaken, it would be that exists.

The that/which distinction has never been my strong suit. On the second point, I disagree, but I can tighten the definition further.