[PASSED] Promoting Democratic Stability Act

[Minskiev]

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.

A square foot of land with a poster planted in it seems to fit the definition.

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.

If you can remove the clause with which in it, and not change the meaning of the subject, then you can use which. If not, use that.

[Outer Sparta]

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.

A square foot of land with a poster planted in it seems to fit the definition.

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

If you can remove the clause with which in it, and not change the meaning of the subject, then you can use which. If not, use that.

It should state that the electoral division must take equal population into account. Unless you want that in the definition itself, it mentions it later on:

Electoral divisions as drawn in a consultative process with the OEA will be considered the legal boundaries for national elections in a member state until such time as new data necessitate their redistribution for the purpose of equal representation.

[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."

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."

** cough **

"I don't see anything to this effect added yet so Bananaistan is obliged to oppose this."

[Hulldom]

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."

** cough **

"I don't see anything to this effect added yet so Bananaistan is obliged to oppose this."

"I think I get what you're driving at, sir, but I would remind you that we have changed the OEA's mandate to be on member-state impetus only. Additionally, we have added the qualification of needing to hold elections for clauses 2-4 to apply. So while I completely understand your opinion, I'm choosing to disregard it."

OOC: Ah, I misread that initially. However, I am keeping the wording that was changed as a result of your comment.

A square foot of land with a poster planted in it seems to fit the definition.



If you can remove the clause with which in it, and not change the meaning of the subject, then you can use which. If not, use that.

It should state that the electoral division must take equal population into account. Unless you want that in the definition itself, it mentions it later on:

Electoral divisions as drawn in a consultative process with the OEA will be considered the legal boundaries for national elections in a member state until such time as new data necessitate their redistribution for the purpose of equal representation.

Done.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: You said you'd add a blocker clause to prevent further WA meddling in elections. You haven't. Why not?

[Hulldom]

OOC: You said you'd add a blocker clause to prevent further WA meddling in elections. You haven't. Why not?

I certainly can and to be quite honest, that had slipped my mind. So long as I can have some advice/help with the wording when I do write it to make sure it’s a proper blocker, totally fine by me.

[Texkentuck]

In 1-A”Ballot” as any national vote held for the purposes of determining whether or not a Government shall take a course of action or adopt a specific policy.

We like that the leaders of nations would have to ask their congress or parliament for a course of action but it seems very broad. Some decisions have to be made at a moments notice such as preventing a nuclear strike by engaging a nuclear strike. Our nation doesn't want nuclear war but we think in our opinion it should say a government declaring war. Course of Actions should be in the hands of the responsibility of the world leader. We are a nation that doesn't overreact and we believe many nations in the WA don't overreact but would declare war with out the approval of their diplomatic system in place. Because of the wording it will prevent nations from stopping a threat by making a strong point through military means. This could also be ignored because some militaries may act on their own in the shades of gray....

For the record our nation intends to vote on your proposal with the change made or not....We just think it will be more to the point....Also in being a democratically elected monarch our policy is followed through. We respect getting the vote on the majority of major policy but policy set fourth as in you can leave me alone or find yourself another ride home is the most frequent policy I make as a world leader to my security council when they won't let me be when we fly home from visiting the WA.

President Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
UCCR

[Tsaivao]

In 1-A”Ballot” as any national vote held for the purposes of determining whether or not a Government shall take a course of action or adopt a specific policy.

We like that the leaders of nations would have to ask their congress or parliament for a course of action but it seems very broad. Some decisions have to be made at a moments notice such as preventing a nuclear strike by engaging a nuclear strike.
UCCR [ . . . ]

The definition does not mandate that all decisions be made by a ballot, rather it is saying that if your nation puts a decision through a vote, it is to be considered a ballot, and thus follow tge rules of what ballots are based on the mandates in the other clauses. This resolution doesn't mandate that anyone needs to perform any sort of democratic action, as that's up to the member states; it only mandates how to do democratic voting

With that said I do sort of agree that the definition of ballot is a little awkward. Why are only national-level elections held accountable to this resolution? I think that it should be broadened to include all votes and referendums at any level.

[Hulldom]

In 1-A”Ballot” as any national vote held for the purposes of determining whether or not a Government shall take a course of action or adopt a specific policy.

We like that the leaders of nations would have to ask their congress or parliament for a course of action but it seems very broad. Some decisions have to be made at a moments notice such as preventing a nuclear strike by engaging a nuclear strike.
UCCR [ . . . ]

The definition does not mandate that all decisions be made by a ballot, rather it is saying that if your nation puts a decision through a vote, it is to be considered a ballot, and thus follow tge rules of what ballots are based on the mandates in the other clauses. This resolution doesn't mandate that anyone needs to perform any sort of democratic action, as that's up to the member states; it only mandates how to do democratic voting

With that said I do sort of agree that the definition of ballot is a little awkward. Why are only national-level elections held accountable to this resolution? I think that it should be broadened to include all votes and referendums at any level.

That’s on my to-do list but you’ll have to forgive me that yesterday was a bit hectic IRL. Getting the definition tightened is a goal though.

OOC: Fixed?

[Goobergunchia]

We cannot support any draft proposal that would outlaw approval voting.

We also note that the current language of clause 5 permits any member state to request that the Office of Electoral Administration take over the electoral administration of any other democratic member state. While the World Assembly surely has the right to dictate policy for its member states, such crucial questions should be decided by the General Assembly, not a committee accountable only to a repeal. And of course, this does nothing to target those nations who most deserve to have their governmental structures overhauled.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[OOC: I think you want "if that member state requests it" instead of "if a member state requests it".]

[Hulldom]

We cannot support any draft proposal that would outlaw approval voting.

We also note that the current language of clause 5 permits any member state to request that the Office of Electoral Administration take over the electoral administration of any other democratic member state. While the World Assembly surely has the right to dictate policy for its member states, such crucial questions should be decided by the General Assembly, not a committee accountable only to a repeal. And of course, this does nothing to target those nations who most deserve to have their governmental structures overhauled.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[OOC: I think you want "if that member state requests it" instead of "if a member state requests it".]

"We would welcome the recommendations of the Goobergunchian delegation to ensure that their unique system remains legal. We support all democratic systems here in the Kingdom."

"However, we do not believe that a positive mandate for the OEA to meddle where it has not been specifically requested would be allowed."

OOC: Noted, that should work.

[Goobergunchia]

"We would welcome the recommendations of the Goobergunchian delegation to ensure that their unique system remains legal. We support all democratic systems here in the Kingdom."

Without getting too far into specific language, we would suggest modifying clause 4 so that it instead requires every individual to have equivalent voting power to any other individual in their electoral division without specifying exactly how this is implemented. (This might also obviate the need for clause 4b.) It might not exactly be "one person, one vote" if one voter votes for two candidates out of the three running and another voter votes for just one, but it remains fair if each voter has the opportunity to vote for as many candidates as they wish.

While we do not use approval voting for our national or provincial elections, certain of our municipalities granted home rule have adopted it in conjunction with nonpartisan elections.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Hulldom]

"We would welcome the recommendations of the Goobergunchian delegation to ensure that their unique system remains legal. We support all democratic systems here in the Kingdom."

Without getting too far into specific language, we would suggest modifying clause 4 so that it instead requires every individual to have equivalent voting power to any other individual in their electoral division without specifying exactly how this is implemented. (This might also obviate the need for clause 4b.) It might not exactly be "one person, one vote" if one voter votes for two candidates out of the three running and another voter votes for just one, but it remains fair if each voter has the opportunity to vote for as many candidates as they wish.

While we do not use approval voting for our national or provincial elections, certain of our municipalities granted home rule have adopted it in conjunction with nonpartisan elections.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

I think I’ve done it satisfactorily?

[Texkentuck]

The definition does not mandate that all decisions be made by a ballot, rather it is saying that if your nation puts a decision through a vote, it is to be considered a ballot, and thus follow tge rules of what ballots are based on the mandates in the other clauses. This resolution doesn't mandate that anyone needs to perform any sort of democratic action, as that's up to the member states; it only mandates how to do democratic voting

With that said I do sort of agree that the definition of ballot is a little awkward. Why are only national-level elections held accountable to this resolution? I think that it should be broadened to include all votes and referendums at any level.

That’s on my to-do list but you’ll have to forgive me that yesterday was a bit hectic IRL. Getting the definition tightened is a goal though.

OOC: Fixed?

ooc:
That's cool no need for forgiveness. I think your proposal is still awesome...It's to stop large wars that aren't necessary and the respect for the rule of law.

I.C.

Pres. Schirkophf takes a puff and his secretary pours him a glass of Texkentuck Vodka......The other advisor pours the president some coffee....

President Schirkophf states thank you to his secretary of advisors.

The President states while looking in the direction of Hulldoms People-
We agree it should be broadened because rules are followed when the top officials are on board...If they aren't we have beuacracy. I still think that a leader should have powers to enact measures of warfare but for a nation to go to war as a nation in general?.... It must go through the proper democratic process. Sometimes in some cases war isn't the decision of a particular nation but a source of actions that just play out. We believe your proposal will stop most war for nations who go to war at the drop of a hat and your wonderful proposal prevents that. Regardless we intend to vote for your proposal because we believe it will start world peace in a good direction. I view it like trying to put an end to poverty but we know sadly their will still be poverty..... We are a very opinionated nation and we know that in the future their may be strong disagreement most definitely. Our nation encourages more dialogue of agreement or disagreement because that's part of the reason we are all here is to cooperate and learn from our nations to make good proposal.....

In walks in Ambassador Verbatimkophf and the ambassador over heard and states-
This proposal is good but if it stays worded the way it is their will be nations acting in the gray area for all military operations. It will be very hard to find evidence against a nation if that's the case and do we want to be trying to find evidence on a nation for a simple airstrike?. When it could of been done not in the gray area and it would be easy for the Assembly to respond? But if a nation goes to war in the gray by using "So-Called foreign force" that denounces that they did their war on behalf of a government that would be less of a crisis for the WA because the evidence is more easily there because for all out war the money can be traced easily because more entities are definitely involved.....

President Schirkophf looks to his ambassador and states so the WA may here....First even with an airstrike it will be hard for any nation to see. But everyone can see an all out war. This proposal if the wording is changed will focus more on the aspect of what we are trying to prevent which is a World at War Ambassador.... If we are trying to find who did an airstrike that in general is hard but it will be more easy to stop and find which nation if not in the gray area....If they do regular operations in shades of gray by using "so called foreign entity" that is more of an investigation for us. Our nation will not spend hours on such operations if it doesn't concern our nation directly. It will make it more hard for us to prevent. But we will spend money for investigations into nations who go to all out war and disregard the WA as a whole. Our nation would have every inspector working 24/7 finding the links......But for an airstrike that seems justified with out going through their own national democratic process?.....Probably not.... Just to state if an airstrike for no reason was done shades of gray or not we would probably still investigate but it would be more hard because it was done in the shades of gray.....No nation would do an airstrike unless it's in reason but nations that just do airstrikes will probably just break the rules of the proposal anyway. It's problematic.....I don't want to make such nations go into the shades of gray for basic operations because they didn't get approval of their democratic process. Just to be frank we didn't say we wouldn't make such investments but we would have too if this proposal is written for all policy and not just democratic elections. We will still vote for the proposal with changes or not as long as it's about elections. If it was for all policy we would reluctantly vote for it because it would make operations go into the area of the shades of gray But for the purpose of stopping wide spread war it would have our vote.

President Schirkophf takes a puff- Then states so if this is just about democratic elections we believe the proposal is perfectly written with accommodations suggested by the good nations of the WA...Schirkophf enjoys his bourbon and continues to enjoy.... Your proposal has our vote....

[Merni]

OOC:

5. 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.

7. Electoral divisions as drawn in a consultative process with the OEA will be considered the legal boundaries for national elections in a member state until such time as new data necessitate their redistribution for the purpose of equal representation. If member states may request that the Office for Electoral Administration create electoral divisions at the sub-national level, these will also be considered binding.

Is there not an internal contradiction here? The way I read article 7, the only legal electoral divisions that can exist in a member state are those "drawn in a consultative process with the OEA", regardless of whether the OEA is invited under clause 5 or not. Clause 7 seems to need a qualification that it only applies to those states which invite the OEA.

Edit: Also:

”Ballot” as any national vote held specifically to determine what policy or policies a Government is to adopt.

So, sub-national votes are excluded?

Edit 2: I know internal contradictions are not illegal, but they can cause confusion. It would be much clearer if article 7 was clarified, either to say it applies regardless of member states requesting the OEA for help, or that it applies only to states which have done so.

[Hulldom]

OOC:

5. 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.

7. Electoral divisions as drawn in a consultative process with the OEA will be considered the legal boundaries for national elections in a member state until such time as new data necessitate their redistribution for the purpose of equal representation. If member states may request that the Office for Electoral Administration create electoral divisions at the sub-national level, these will also be considered binding.

Is there not an internal contradiction here? The way I read article 7, the only legal electoral divisions that can exist in a member state are those "drawn in a consultative process with the OEA", regardless of whether the OEA is invited under clause 5 or not. Clause 7 seems to need a qualification that it only applies to those states which invite the OEA.

Edit: Also:

”Ballot” as any national vote held specifically to determine what policy or policies a Government is to adopt.

So, sub-national votes are excluded?

Edit 2: I know internal contradictions are not illegal, but they can cause confusion. It would be much clearer if article 7 was clarified, either to say it applies regardless of member states requesting the OEA for help, or that it applies only to states which have done so.

I don't know if I agree with your assessment, but I'll re-construct the clause for clarity's sake. As for ballot and sub-national votes, yes. While I included the option for the OEA to draw sub-national boundaries (I don't know if I should have on second thought), the OEA's mandate is to work with member states so I don't believe that necessitates monitoring elections below that level.

[Bears Armed]

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.

OOC: Unless your people are very small? Individually-sapient Ants, for example?

_______________________________________________________________________________


"This would be unacceptable to Bears Armed, for three basic reasons.
"Firstly, as I have commented in previous debates here, We regard it as not only intrusive but hypocritical for an organisation that accepts non-democratic members to try telling those members that are democracies -- and only those members -- how to govern themselves.
"Secondly, we consider it offensive that those non-democratic members of the Assembly would -- under this organisation's standard operating practices -- be able to vote in this decision that would not affect them as well.
"And, thirdly, we object to the cultural imperialism in the rules that would be introduced. There are nations in which electoral divisions are based on membership in clans and septs, rather than on geographical areas; there are nations in which electoral divisions select two or even more legislators each, and voters may each possess an equivalent number of votes that have to be distributed between the same number of candidates; and in some of the latter nations the numbers of legislators chosen vary from division to division specifically because those divisions differ in number of voters. I have yet to hear any reason given here why standardizing on geographical divisions and single-member constituencies is intrinsically superior to those methods, and therefore should be specified here."

Artorrios O Southwoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the W.A. .

OOC notes
For the "divisions based on clans and septs, rather than on geographical divisions", my main example is Bears Armed itself but there is at least one RL nation (namely India) in which -- although most constituencies are geographical -- a number of seats in the legislature are "reserved" for elected delegates of various groups (in India's case the former 'Untouchables', for example, or the 'Anglo-Indians '[Eurasians] ; maybe others, as well?) whose interests might otherwise lack adequate representation. Multi-member constituencies (in some cases with population-based differences in numbers of legislators elected) also have RL precedent: 2-MP constituencies were standard in England for a lonnng time, with the modern party system actually originating because some of the larger cities were given a third MP each but each elector still had only 2 votes & so there was a "need" to coordinate their voting for maximum effectiveness. A more modern example would be Switzerland, where the 20 "full" cantons send 2 'Councillors' each to the national legislature's upper house but the 6 'demi-cantons' -- which formed through the division of former cantons into 2 parts each -- send only 1 Councillor each.

OOC: For more examples of the former concept, see_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_ ... _positions .

[Hulldom]

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.

OOC: Unless your people are very small? Individually-sapient Ants, for example?

_______________________________________________________________________________


"This would be unacceptable to Bears Armed, for three basic reasons.
"Firstly, as I have commented in previous debates here, We regard it as not only intrusive but hypocritical for an organisation that accepts non-democratic members to try telling those members that are democracies -- and only those members -- how to govern themselves.
"Secondly, we consider it offensive that those non-democratic members of the Assembly would -- under this organisation's standard operating practices -- be able to vote in this decision that would not affect them as well.
"And, thirdly, we object to the cultural imperialism in the rules that would be introduced. There are nations in which electoral divisions are based on membership in clans and septs, rather than on geographical areas; there are nations in which electoral divisions select two or even more legislators each, and voters may each possess an equivalent number of votes that have to be distributed between the same number of candidates; and in some of the latter nations the numbers of legislators chosen vary from division to division specifically because those divisions differ in number of voters. I have yet to hear any reason given here why standardizing on geographical divisions and single-member constituencies is intrinsically superior to those methods, and therefore should be specified here."

Artorrios O Southwoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the W.A. .

OOC notes
For the "divisions based on clans and septs, rather than on geographical divisions", my main example is Bears Armed itself but there is at least one RL nation (namely India) in which -- although most constituencies are geographical -- a number of seats in the legislature are "reserved" for elected delegates of various groups (in India's case the former 'Untouchables', for example, or the 'Anglo-Indians '[Eurasians] ; maybe others, as well?) whose interests might otherwise lack adequate representation. Multi-member constituencies (in some cases with population-based differences in numbers of legislators elected) also have RL precedent: 2-MP constituencies were standard in England for a lonnng time, with the modern party system actually originating because some of the larger cities were given a third MP each but each elector still had only 2 votes & so there was a "need" to coordinate their voting for maximum effectiveness. A more modern example would be Switzerland, where the 20 "full" cantons send 2 'Councillors' each to the national legislature's upper house but the 6 'demi-cantons' -- which formed through the division of former cantons into 2 parts each -- send only 1 Councillor each.

OOC: For more examples of the former concept, see_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_ ... _positions .

I'm aware of the whole university constituencies thing, that was the point of an earlier draft where the exception to the one-person, one-vote clause was worded for something like "alumni status from a particular institution". To that though, I think it's smart to just remove the exceptions altogether and adopt the current wording of clause 5 which simply states:

"Member states which conduct elections or ballots shall adopt systems which allows an individual to exercise equivalent voting power to others for each position for which they are eligible to vote."

Hopefully the simpler method will clear up confusion on the issue.

IC: "We appreciate your comments about this proposal ChairBear Southwoods, but as we should note, there are proposals on the books currently that non-democracies have voted on which grant them the right, together with democracies, to legislate on how democracies conduct their elections. The Disabled Voters Act comes to mind immediately. While we understand your concern here, our Delegation does not find it unconscionable and indeed believes that democratic nations should welcome these standards as yet another way to safeguard the rights of their citizens. On your last point, we would direct you to the re-worked clause 5 which we will hope will clear up some confusion on the subject while also protecting the idea of "one sapient being, one vote".

[Bears Armed]

I'm aware of the whole university constituencies thing

OOC: I wasn't talking about the "university constituencies thing": Two -member seats were standard for all English constituencies, 'borough' (urban) or 'county' (more rural) from the Medieval creation of Parliament right through until 19th-century reforms varied the number of seats per 'borough' constituency by giving the most populous 'boroughs' (such as Birmingham) a third MP each and then later on changed to a single-member system across the country.

Hopefully the simpler method will clear up confusion on the issue.

It does, yes.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IC: "We appreciate your comments about this proposal ChairBear Southwoods, but as we should note, there are proposals on the books currently that non-democracies have voted on which grant them the right, together with democracies, to legislate on how democracies conduct their elections. The Disabled Voters Act comes to mind immediately."

"Presumably you are already familiar with the expression that 'Two wrongs do not make a right''? We opposed those, as well."

[Sandaoguo]

Call me bitter if you'd like, but I'm incredibly confused as to how this is any different at all from my resolution that just got repealed. GAR#130 guaranteed private ballots, set up voluntary election monitoring, and provided a neutral arbiter for ballot counting disputes.

It seems the only additions here are adding a non-discrimination provision, which was already covered by the Charter of Civil Rights in the first place. And then you've removed the entire portion of GAR#130 that covered referenda, constitutional amendments, etc., in addition to elections for public office, and wrapped that all up in a very odd definition of "ballot" that makes no sense.

Why was the Elections and Assistance Act repealed, if this is the replacement? I would vote for this if it's all we get, but I remain baffled at why a quality resolution was repealed just for the replacement to be 99% identical in policy and .. well, to be honest, lower quality in formatting and writing.

[Hulldom]

Call me bitter if you'd like, but I'm incredibly confused as to how this is any different at all from my resolution that just got repealed. GAR#130 guaranteed private ballots, set up voluntary election monitoring, and provided a neutral arbiter for ballot counting disputes.

It seems the only additions here are adding a non-discrimination provision, which was already covered by the Charter of Civil Rights in the first place. And then you've removed the entire portion of GAR#130 that covered referenda, constitutional amendments, etc., in addition to elections for public office, and wrapped that all up in a very odd definition of "ballot" that makes no sense.

Why was the Elections and Assistance Act repealed, if this is the replacement? I would vote for this if it's all we get, but I remain baffled at why a quality resolution was repealed just for the replacement to be 99% identical in policy and .. well, to be honest, lower quality in formatting and writing.

Call me bitter as well. There were initially going to be stronger provisions, or at least in my opinion less confusing ones, regarding the OEA's ability to act, but I was informed that there was quite strong opposition to any stronger mandates so here we are.

[Sandaoguo]

Call me bitter as well. There were initially going to be stronger provisions, or at least in my opinion less confusing ones, regarding the OEA's ability to act, but I was informed that there was quite strong opposition to any stronger mandates so here we are.

The repeal you passed was based entirely on the original not having those stronger mandates, though. At this point, you could just resubmit GAR#130, which I would completely allow you to do without considering it plagiarism.

Otherwise, I think this replacement needs to actually address the reasons why the General Assembly voted for the repeal.

- Require election-holding nations to have an independent body to conduct elections
- Somehow ban electoral systems with a "disproportionate advantage" for ... parties, I guess? The repeal was not clear what disproportionality needed to be addressed, or why banning specific parliamentary systems is within the purview of the World Assembly at all. I would encourage some research on Arrow's impossibility theorem here and revisit whether or not this is a desirable goal to try legislating.
- Grant the OEA complete authority to design electoral systems for new and transitioning democracies, since the repeal stated the non-binding nature of this assistance defeated the entire purpose. (Though, again, I think some research into peacemaking theory would be useful here.)
- Resolve the election monitoring contradiction you stated exists in the original. As of now, your replacement is just as voluntary, but then makes election monitoring even weaker than the original.
- Add in "investigatory powers" to the OEA election monitoring role.
- Make the OEA's ballot counts binding.

This proposed replacement manages to be significantly weaker than GAR#130, while only being possible because you repealed the original using arguments that it was too weak. Ethically, that's pretty damn bad and makes me question if you sought repeal just to have something credited to you. If you'd like assistance writing a replacement that actually addresses the concerns you used to convince the rest of the WA to repeal the original, I'll extend my hand in that. The biggest issue I see with this replacement is that your main focus is on the particulars of a secret ballot and (now-removed) electoral district design. While the original resolution was about building democratic electoral institutions in new and transitioning democracies (usually post-conflict), which is genuinely the purview of an inter-governmental organization.

[Bananaistan]

"Further regulation of electoral practices in democracies by dictatorships, monarchies and the various other non-democratic nations that make up this assembly is unwelcome. This replacement is superior precisely because it's lighter in such regulation."

[Sandaoguo]

"Further regulation of electoral practices in democracies by dictatorships, monarchies and the various other non-democratic nations that make up this assembly is unwelcome. This replacement is superior precisely because it's lighter in such regulation."

That's great, but "we oppose this because it's trying to do what its meant to do" is a reason to ignore your arguments, and I would encourage the author to not let themselves get distracted by them.

[Bananaistan]

"Further regulation of electoral practices in democracies by dictatorships, monarchies and the various other non-democratic nations that make up this assembly is unwelcome. This replacement is superior precisely because it's lighter in such regulation."

That's great, but "we oppose this because it's trying to do what its meant to do" is a reason to ignore your arguments, and I would encourage the author to not let themselves get distracted by them.

"Opposing a particular policy is entirely valid Ambassador. There are many of us here who are utterly opposed to the general policy of dictatorships regulating democracies but not themselves. Most recently the delegation representing the nation of Tinhamptom has ignored such contributions and their proposals have not gone well. The proposers here would be well advised not follow their example. Your advice to ignore us is a surefire way to failure."