[PASSED] Promoting Democratic Stability Act

[Tinhampton]

Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Thank you, Hornwood.
As it stands, we are inclined to support this bill - although are understandably disappointed at the lack of provisions related to incarcerated voters. Ambassador van Rooy is welcome to take whatever she wants from Protecting the Right to Vote if she feels it necessary.

[Hulldom]

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."

OOC: You know, I initially I wasn't going to respond to this, but I think it is. Banana, I respect the hell out of you man. There is certainly a lot of difference between someone like myself who OOCly and ICly has very strong views towards expanding the international bureaucracy and someone whose "antics" include mass-drafting of proposals to see what sticks. If you don't believe there's that daylight, fine? But then I would ask, why bother contributing in my threads? If you believe I'm a lost cause, what's the point in continuing to feed any hope?

For the record, I did reach out to Glen after this comment to see if they were still interested in drafting a replacement because, frankly, I reject the view that we shouldn't be targeting autocracies to turn them into democracies and to strengthen existing ones. Both IC Hulldom and OOC Hulldom would love to see that. Maybe IC and OOC Bananaistan would not, that's certainly your choice to do so, but to simply threaten a pretty automatic veto on a player over simply attempting to reach ambitious goals is just ludicrous. It does the Secretariat, and the "elite" more generally, no favors.

I'm not going to ask you to apologize, you said what you believe, but I would ask you to think before you make comments like this in the future and consider what kind of message you're sending, not just to me, the OP, but to everyone else who might read this thread.

[Texkentuck]

President Schirkophf reads over the proposal and puffs his cigar.

When this proposal hopefully reaches the floor of the WA you can count on our nation to vote for this proposal to be enacted. This is clearly an international proposal.

[Bananaistan]

"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."

OOC: You know, I initially I wasn't going to respond to this, but I think it is. Banana, I respect the hell out of you man, but with the whole bit about elites bullying authors coming out lately this is absolutely the last thing to say. It's absolutely reprehensible, frankly. There is certainly a lot of difference between someone like myself who OOCly and ICly has very strong views towards expanding the international bureaucracy and someone whose "antics" include mass-drafting of proposals to see what sticks. If you don't believe there's that daylight, fine? But then I would ask, why bother contributing in my threads? If you believe I'm a lost cause, what's the point in continuing to feed any hope?

For the record, I did reach out to Glen after this comment to see if they were still interested in drafting a replacement because, frankly, I reject the view that we shouldn't be targeting autocracies to turn them into democracies and to strengthen existing ones. Both IC Hulldom and OOC Hulldom would love to see that. Maybe IC and OOC Bananaistan would not, that's certainly your choice to do so, but to simply threaten a pretty automatic veto on a player over simply attempting to reach ambitious goals is just ludicrous. It does the Secretariat, and the "elite" more generally, no favors.

I'm not going to ask you to apologize, you said what you believe, but I would ask you to think before you make comments like this in the future and consider what kind of message you're sending, not just to me, the OP, but to everyone else who might read this thread.

OOC: I'm not willing to accept an accusation of bullying. And I think you may have misinterpreted my IC post there but you can take it or leave it. You have no obligation to respond to anyone. OTOH there is no thread ownership in the GA - people will post opposing policies they ICly or OOCly oppose. And I do not see what's reprehensible about pointing out that two wider ranging proposals on the topic have failed where the author ignored opposition. This is a statement of fact.

IC opposition is not a veto. It is merely a vote against. In any case I note I have not posted IC opposition to this proposal in this thread and if I did it would have nothing to do with GenSec or the "elite".

[Hulldom]

OOC: You know, I initially I wasn't going to respond to this, but I think it is. Banana, I respect the hell out of you man, but with the whole bit about elites bullying authors coming out lately this is absolutely the last thing to say. It's absolutely reprehensible, frankly. There is certainly a lot of difference between someone like myself who OOCly and ICly has very strong views towards expanding the international bureaucracy and someone whose "antics" include mass-drafting of proposals to see what sticks. If you don't believe there's that daylight, fine? But then I would ask, why bother contributing in my threads? If you believe I'm a lost cause, what's the point in continuing to feed any hope?

For the record, I did reach out to Glen after this comment to see if they were still interested in drafting a replacement because, frankly, I reject the view that we shouldn't be targeting autocracies to turn them into democracies and to strengthen existing ones. Both IC Hulldom and OOC Hulldom would love to see that. Maybe IC and OOC Bananaistan would not, that's certainly your choice to do so, but to simply threaten a pretty automatic veto on a player over simply attempting to reach ambitious goals is just ludicrous. It does the Secretariat, and the "elite" more generally, no favors.

I'm not going to ask you to apologize, you said what you believe, but I would ask you to think before you make comments like this in the future and consider what kind of message you're sending, not just to me, the OP, but to everyone else who might read this thread.

OOC: I'm not willing to accept an accusation of bullying. And I think you may have misinterpreted my IC post there but you can take it or leave it. You have no obligation to respond to anyone. OTOH there is no thread ownership in the GA - people will post opposing policies they ICly or OOCly oppose. And I do not see what's reprehensible about pointing out that two wider ranging proposals on the topic have failed where the author ignored opposition. This is a statement of fact.

IC opposition is not a veto. It is merely a vote against. In any case I note I have not posted IC opposition to this proposal in this thread and if I did it would have nothing to do with GenSec or the "elite".

but with the whole bit about elites bullying authors coming out lately this is absolutely the last thing to say.

This is not to suggest you’re bullying. I’m saying it could be construed that way. I don’t, for the record, believe you were/are.

If you don't believe there's that daylight, fine? But then I would ask, why bother contributing in my threads? If you believe I'm a lost cause, what's the point in continuing to feed any hope?

Thread ownership doesn’t exist, but I’m once again pointing out that the comparison to Tin inevitably invites the idea of being labeled a lost cause.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I'm not willing to accept an accusation of bullying. And I think you may have misinterpreted my IC post there but you can take it or leave it. You have no obligation to respond to anyone. OTOH there is no thread ownership in the GA - people will post opposing policies they ICly or OOCly oppose. And I do not see what's reprehensible about pointing out that two wider ranging proposals on the topic have failed where the author ignored opposition. This is a statement of fact.

IC opposition is not a veto. It is merely a vote against. In any case I note I have not posted IC opposition to this proposal in this thread and if I did it would have nothing to do with GenSec or the "elite".

but with the whole bit about elites bullying authors coming out lately this is absolutely the last thing to say.

This is not to suggest you’re bullying. I’m saying it could be construed that way. I don’t, for the record, believe you were/are.

If you don't believe there's that daylight, fine? But then I would ask, why bother contributing in my threads? If you believe I'm a lost cause, what's the point in continuing to feed any hope?

Thread ownership doesn’t exist, but I’m once again pointing out that the comparison to Tin inevitably invites the idea of being labeled a lost cause.

OOC: Sorry, I really don't know why you would bring up bullying and the mention of "reprehensible" if you don't think this was bullying or otherwise want to gag my opinions.

For the record, it wasn't bullying and I'd be surprised if any reasonable neutral observer would see it as such. It was an IC post. It referred to two IC proposals on this topic which failed. I'd prefer if you would withdraw the allegation but I'm also not asking you too.

Also not sure how someone who has passed something like seven resolutions this year so far is supposed to be a lost cause.

[Hulldom]

This is not to suggest you’re bullying. I’m saying it could be construed that way. I don’t, for the record, believe you were/are.


Thread ownership doesn’t exist, but I’m once again pointing out that the comparison to Tin inevitably invites the idea of being labeled a lost cause.

OOC: Sorry, I really don't know why you would bring up bullying and the mention of "reprehensible" if you don't think this was bullying or otherwise want to gag my opinions.

For the record, it wasn't bullying and I'd be surprised if any reasonable neutral observer would see it as such. It was an IC post. It referred to two IC proposals on this topic which failed. I'd prefer if you would withdraw the allegation but I'm also not asking you too.

Also not sure how someone who has passed something like seven resolutions this year so far is supposed to be a lost cause.

I'll take the "charge" off (though I will maintain it wasn't accusing of such, merely pointing out that that sort of thing could be considered such by some). Anyways, one off. Just six.

[Hulldom]

This has been submitted.

[Sandaoguo]

I think it would be best to split the separate interests here. The bulk of this submitted resolution is still primarily concerned with the political rights of individuals in elections. Which is fine, but then election monitoring and assistance is just tacked on as an afterthought. That really does a disservice to election monitoring, which is something that the World Assembly as a inter-governmental organization is uniquely positioned to do really well at.

I was going to suggest dropping the attempt to enshrine voting rights into law, and leave that to a proposal that can do it better, in more detail, and do only that. And then make this proposal about election assistance. This is the draft I had written up earlier today, though unfortunately this proposal was already submitted.

---

World Elections Organization

(preamble)

Article I – Election Monitoring

1. By agreement with host nations, the World Elections Organization will monitor elections and referenda to ensure they are free of manipulation, corruption, intimidation, and violations of all applicable laws.
a. Election monitors must be given adequate access to polling sites and ballot collection, counting, and storage sites, that allows them to visibly and physically conduct monitoring activities.
b. When acting in a monitoring capacity, the W.E.O. will not be a party in counting, challenging, or verifying the validity of ballots. Monitors shall only report on compliance with law and common democratic standards of transparency.

2. W.E.O. election monitors will publish regular public notices of monitoring activities, to promote public trust in the ballot counting process and electoral outcome. At the conclusion of a monitored election or referendum, the W.E.O. will issue a comprehensive public report outlining successes, concerns, and failures.

3. W.E.O. election monitors will remain available to be witnesses in testimonies, hearings, and judicial proceedings regarding the elections they monitored.

4. W.E.O. election monitors must not display bias or preference for any candidate, party, bloc, policy outcome, or other factor that would compromise public trust in their ability to neutrally monitor an election.

Article II – Election Administration

1. By request and agreement of the host nation, the W.E.O. will administer an election or referenda, in compliance with all applicable laws, and in partnership with the civil service of the host nation.

2. In coordination with the host nation, the W.E.O. will establish polling sites, employ poll workers, and oversee ballot counting and recording. In doing so, the W.E.O. will utilize local infrastructure, population, and civil service as much as possible, to promote community engagement and trust in the democratic process.

3. W.E.O. election administration experts will oversee and verify the counting and recording of ballots, ensuring compliance with all applicable law, as well as ensuring a commitment to common democratic principles, transparency, and accountability.

4. The W.E.O. will comply with all requests for audits of ballot counts and outcomes issued by a legal authority and in compliance with all applicable law, and all judicial orders during proceedings related to the election. W.E.O. election records will be maintained in perpetuity for historical and auditing purposes.

5. W.E.O. election administrators must not display bias or preference for any candidate, party, bloc, policy outcome, or other factor that would compromise public trust in their ability to neutrally administer an election.

Article III – Promotion of Democracy

1. Each year, the W.E.O. will issue a report on the state of electoral systems of World Assembly member states, written and devised by experts in election administration, civil and political rights, and election and human rights law, with the overall goal to encourage and promote improvement of the quality and trust in electoral systems.

2. By request of a host nation, the W.E.O. will provide electoral system advisors to assist in the creation, development, or reform of democratic electoral systems according to common democratic principles, promotion of the rule of law and democratic accountability, and the local needs and considerations of the host nation.

[Hulldom]

OOC: Glen, there's nothing suggesting you couldn't submit that in the event this fails.

[Bananaistan]

<snip>

OOC: You're not that long gone out of here to have forgotten that pimping your draft in someone else's thread is bad form.

[Sandaoguo]

<snip>

OOC: You're not that long gone out of here to have forgotten that pimping your draft in someone else's thread is bad form.

It was requested of me to share where I thought this proposal should go, just finished up a day late. This isn’t “my own draft.” Perhaps you should let the OP be concerned with their own thread.

@Hulldom: I don’t intend to submit a proposal of my own, but you’re free to take that draft as a basis for an elections monitoring/assistance version of this one. (I also gave permission to use my repealed resolution as a basis, too. It’s not plagiarism as long as it’s credited!) I’m not confident the current version is going to succeed at vote, given an attempt earlier this year to enshrine voting rights was voted down by a significant margin. That’s why I think the two ideas should be de-coupled. The monitoring and assistance is, imo, the more important aspect of the Elections and Assistance Act that got repealed.

[Greater Cesnica]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote FOR the General Assembly Resolution, "Promoting Democratic Stability Act".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[URA World Assembly Affairs]

The United Regions Alliance recommends voting against this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1602287

[Laeral]

"Does this resolution's clause 2(c) prevent member states from enacting compulsory voting, with a penalty for violating that law, in their elections?"

[Hulldom]

"Does this resolution's clause 2(c) prevent member states from enacting compulsory voting, with a penalty for violating that law, in their elections?"

"I believe it could be read that way. However, I don't read it that way and that was not the intended meaning."

[Ondao]

"Opposed on principle."

[Yronland]

The United Citystates of Free Yronland objects to the following clauses outlined in this resolution, and refuses to be bound by them should the resolution pass. The Yronland Militia strongly urges the party to revise their proposed resolution to respect certain Yronlandian customs.

[*]All persons shall have the opportunity to cast their vote in private and without interference from outside parties.
Yronland Militia Leadership Elections are held in full open view of all voting members to eliminate potential cases of fraud. Yronland enacts strong legal protections against discrimination based on voting record to combat any potential retaliation by slighted runners-up or groups loyal to them. This clause infringes on the Yronland's right to determine its own leadership under the Yronland Uniform Code of Militia Laws (YUCML).

[*]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.
Voting in Yronland Militia Leadership Elections is mandatory and compulsory for all Yronland Militia personnel (with service in the Yronland Militia also being mandatory for all Yronlandian citizens), with the option to vote Null. The language of this clause precludes compulsory voting, even with the allowance of Null votes. This clause infringes on the Yronland's right to determine its own leadership under the YUCML.

[*]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.[/list]
The United Citystates of Free Yronland reserves the right to disallow the votes of Non-Citizen Military Prisoners, a protected class under the YUCML. The Diplomatic Warseed Office advises that the language of this clause be changed from "No person..." to "No citizen..." to reflect the distinction.

The United Citystates of Free Yronland hope to convey that they are not opposed to the notion of ensuring fairness and stability in elections, but wish to express their concerns over the shortsighted and narrowly defined concepts of "fairness" outlined in this resolution. We also wish to reiterate that the United Citystated of Free Yronland will not be bound by any resolution that infringes on the rights established within the YUCML should the resolution be erroneously passed in its current state. Send your peacekeepers if you must, the Yronland Militia will not be swayed.

~Warseed Durant Teller; Diplomatic Officer, Yronland Militia

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Does this resolution's clause 2(c) prevent member states from enacting compulsory voting, with a penalty for violating that law, in their elections?"

I think this is a very good point.

[Bananaistan]

"Does this resolution's clause 2(c) prevent member states from enacting compulsory voting, with a penalty for violating that law, in their elections?"

I think this is a very good point.

OOC: I understood it as applying to spoiled votes or such like. The clause states that "no person shall be discriminated against in casting their vote ...". A penalty for not voting in a compulsory voting system is not discrimination in casting a vote.

[Thassala]

"Does this resolution's clause 2(c) prevent member states from enacting compulsory voting, with a penalty for violating that law, in their elections?"

I think this is a very good point.

"Indeed, this is one of the larger sticking points for us also." Callan nods. "Our colleagues from Laeral and our Urrsish neighbours both raise excellent points, the latter of whom seem to have gone rather unremarked upon following your exchange with the delegate from Sandaoguo. I would not wish the World Assembly to infringe on Urrsish belief and tradition, especially considering that many in this Assembly need not comply with these rules at all."

Callan frowns. "Enough delegates are picking up the imprecise wording regarding 2.c ("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") that it is giving us real cause for concern. I do not know if I can support the proposal as it stands, and certainly not while its wording is at odds with mandatory voting regulations."

[Amerion]

The South Pacific's World Assembly Delegation has cast the Coalition's vote FOR this proposed resolution, Promoting Democratic Stability Act, and warmly encourages fellow member regions to vote FOR.

'No Rec' or No Recommendation indicates a vote where, in the absence of a recommendation from the Office of WA Legislation, the Admiral Delegate General voted according to the majority stance of World Assembly members in the South Pacific.

[Federation of the Astral Plane]

While supportive of the goals and measures outlined in this proposal, my government is concerned about the lack of legislating voting equality. Whilst this proposal is guaranteeing elections held under its auspice are held where the electors are not discriminated against and their vote is cast in secret, the proposal does not protect the equality of the vote among electors. Obviously, legislating as such is bound to run into certain technical difficulties as this would further require in depth detailing, especially in regards to bicameral structures where a second house is apportioned by small structures within a state. My government feels that such task, whilst burdensome to clear up, is necessary to ensure that states which use democratic methods do so in an equal manner.

This also leads to my government's primary concern. The proposal, which protects against discrimination based on immutable grounds, it does not protect against socioeconomic grounds. Our government strongly feels, that all people, whether they be homeless and living on the street or living in a luxurious estate be enfranchised, and their votes count equally. We strongly feel that there should be no restrictions to the vote in the form of poll taxes, economic requirements or overbearing literacy tests which only have in mind the prevention of the poor and weaker in society from voting. Furthermore, any vote cast by any elector has the same effect as any other vote cast by an elector. The rich should not be afforded more representation or more vote value than the poor.

Without amendment to ensure an equal enfranchisement based on one person, one vote, with equal say, my government has instructed me to vote against this proposal.

As an aside:
In our legal view, we find that our colleagues in this august body should not need to worry about clause 2c) in the proposal as the electors, whilst compelled to vote, are protected by the sanctity electors are provided to in effect a non-vote by not marking any option when voting.

Ambassador of the Astral Plane to the World Assembly

[Legit Freedom]

"I only have one concern." Says the Leader of Legit Freedom after pushing up his glasses when he has completed reading the proposal.
"In this Act it says that the OEA can only interfere in cases in which the state invites them to partake. But what about the potentiality for corruption in which the OEA determines that to not step in would be to create a crisis? For Example, say a president after attempting to challenge the election through all legal avenues wishes to taint to democratic process by forcing the state to perform a biased investigation, or they attempt to pressure their state to forego law and declare them victor anyways? There must be situations in which the OEA has full right to intervene without permission, but to maintain a fair and legal balance, the states are legally allowed to then put legal challenge on the OEA after its intervention, so that an outside party may determine whether or not the intervention was necessary, and in the event the legal challenge finds the OEA unnecessarily intervened the results of their intervention would be null and void."

[Apatosaurus]

"Apatosaurus is in compliance with this resolution."