[DRAFT #2b] Repeal GA#579 "Promoting Dem. Stability Act"

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 2,536
Word count: 373

.
ICly by Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly.

Repeal "Promoting Democratic Stability Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#579

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #579 “Promoting Democratic Stability Act” (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Lamenting that while GA#579's efforts to advance democratic integrity and equality are very much laudable, their implementation ‒ by shockingly overshooting some mandates while wholly undermining the intents of others ‒ is not,

Confused at Article 2 applying to "all local, regional, and national ballots and elections", whereas Article 1:

1. explicitly defines a "ballot" to be a "national vote," and
2. fails to cover as an "election," for example, closed-list proportional representation systems (where only slates of candidates - not "an individual" - may be elected) and many recall elections (which only ask voters whether to remove an individual from office without immediately electing a successor),

Concerned that, regardless of Article 2's scope:

1. Article 2c may be read to forbid "discriminat[ion] for not casting a vote," acting as an unwarranted ban on compulsory voting, a long-established and popular policy intended to counteract electoral distortion caused by certain demographics being more (or less) likely to vote in elections than others, and
2. Article 2d only prohibits discrimination against voters based on "immutable characteristic[s]" or membership of "any other class which may be protected under national or international law," definitions blurry enough to nonetheless empower nations to arbitrarily disenfranchise non-landowners, as property ownership status is neither a "protected class" by resolution nor necessarily by national law, nor is it strictly immutable,

Outraged that Article 5 prohibits this august body from taking any action to address shortcomings such as these, or otherwise ensure electoral fairness in member states,

Incensed, furthermore, at Article 6 requiring the Office of Electoral Administration (OEA) to "investigate allegations of voter intimidation, voter fraud, and other fraudulent or dishonest practices relating to elections", a mandate so vague and indiscriminate that it effectively:

1. requires the OEA to follow up on any such claims regardless of how baseless or inconsequential they actually are, and
2. gives the OEA oversight and even censuring power over candidates' manifestos on the grounds that possible misleading claims within them constitute "dishonest practices relating to elections," and

Convinced that, since flawed resolutions cannot be amended but must be repealed in full, GA#579 ought to be struck from the record...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#579 "Promoting Democratic Stability Act."

Co-author: Tepertopia

Aware that while GA#579's efforts to advance democratic integrity and equality are very much laudable, how it actually goes about doing so - by shockingly overshooting some mandates while wholly undermining others - is not,

Confused at how Article 2 applies to "all local, regional, and national ballots and elections," even though Article 1 defines a ballot as a "national vote" and an election as intending to "elect[] an individual into a legislative or executive office" (ignoring, for example, closed-list proportional representation systems where only slates of candidates can be elected, as well as recall elections which ask voters whether or not to remove an individual from office without immediately electing a successor),

Concerned that, regardless of Article 2's scope:

1. Article 2c may still be read to forbid "discriminat[ion] for not casting a vote," which acts as an unintentional but unwarranted ban on compulsory voting, a long-established and popular policy intended to counteract electoral distortion that can be caused from certain demographics being more (or less) likely to vote in elections than others, and
2. Article 2d only prohibits discrimination against voters because they possess "immutable characteristic[s]" or are a member of "any other class which may be protected under national or international law," definitions vague enough that they nonetheless may still empower member states to arbitrarily and capriciously disenfranchise non-landowners (who are likely to be poorer than landowners), because property ownership status is not a "protected class" by resolution and may not be protected by member states,

Outraged that Article 5 prohibits this august body from taking action to ensure electoral fairness in member states - including to prevent unwarranted discrimination against voters on the grounds of incarceration, employment status, trade union membership, or indeed property ownership - for any reason,

Incensed that Article 6 requires the Office of Electoral Administration (OEA) to "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," regardless of how baseless or inconsequential those allegations actually are, nor with regards to whether they actually break the law of the nation in which that election was organised,

Believing that Article 6 could thus task the OEA with monitoring the manifestos of candidates in elections they are observing to check for misleading claims on the grounds that such claims are "dishonest practices relating to elections," and even censuring them if such claims are found - which should not be the job of a committee primarily intended to monitor actual elections, and

Convinced that, since flawed resolutions cannot be amended but must be repealed in full, GA#579 ought to be struck from the record...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#579 "Promoting Democratic Stability Act."

Co-author: Tepertopia

Noting that Article 2d of GA#579 requires that members not restrict the right of anybody to vote in their elections because of their possession of "any other class which may be protected under national or international law," and that Articles 1c and 2a of GA#35 forbids discrimination on the grounds of nationality in many contexts (although not explicitly including electoral contexts),

Concerned that GA#579 therefore prevents member states which choose to organise elections from requiring that only their own citizens be allowed to vote in them, a perfectly sensible position that was taken by many democratic member states before GA#579 passed,

Additionally baffled that Article 6 of GA#579 requires the Office of Electoral Administration's "officials [to] 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," regardless of how baseless or inconsequential those allegations actually are, nor with regards to whether they actually break the law of the nation in which that election was organised, and

Believing that while GA#579's goals are highly admirable, how it goes about implementing them is unsatisfactory...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#579 "Promoting Democratic Stability Act."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Compelling practical purposes.

Also why wasn't this raised during drafting?

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: Compelling practical purposes.

Also why wasn't this raised during drafting?

Yeah, cmon. Really Tinhampton?

[South St Maarten]

Technically I suppose one could say that discrimination on citizenship is allowed because citizenship is not immutable, but if a nation practices strictly jus soli/sanguis and does not allow anyone else to become a citizen, then that could demonstrate how the law can actually restrict the ability of a democracy to regulate its own elections in a justifiable way. General support, ambassador.

[Tinhampton]

Smith: The Maartenian ambassador - whatever your name is - I'd personally argue that if you do not allow non-citizens to vote in your elections, that would - under the at-vote resolution and so on - be considered discriminating against them due to their lack of your nation's "nationality." Cheers anyway.

---

OOC: Compelling practical purposes.

As far as I know, CPP applies only to GA#35 and its provisions (which do not extend to political rights). Article 2d of the at-vote resolution's provisions are applicable to all elections held in all member states under all circumstances.

Also why wasn't this raised during drafting?

Because I honestly did not notice it until a few hours ago.

[Bananaistan]

Smith: The Maartenian ambassador - whatever your name is - I'd personally argue that if you do not allow non-citizens to vote in your elections, that would - under the at-vote resolution and so on - be considered discriminating against them due to their lack of your nation's "nationality." Cheers anyway.

---

OOC: Compelling practical purposes.

As far as I know, CPP applies only to GA#35 and its provisions (which do not extend to political rights). Article 2d of the at-vote resolution's provisions are applicable to all elections held in all member states under all circumstances.

Also why wasn't this raised during drafting?

Because I honestly did not notice it until a few hours ago.

OOC: If COCR does not extend to political rights, then there's no problem here and the whole argument is an honest mistake.

Leaving that aside, the target states that immutable characteristics cannot be used to stop someone from casting a vote. As South St Maarten says, nationality and citizenship are not immutable characteristics. Therefore a state can restrict the right to vote on these bases and the first and second arguments remain honest mistakes.

[Thassala]

Ambassador Callan taps her e-highlighter thoughtfully against the desk. "Delegate Smith, the phrase 'in many contexts' seems to be doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. If it is not explicitly protected in electoral contests under GA#35, then surely a reasonable reading of #579 would not expect it to apply here? If so, both the first and second sentences here are unnecessary - and if I might say, 'perfectly sensible' reads like you're padding a word count.

"I'm uncertain how the Office of Electoral Administration would be able to make a judgement on how baseless and/or inconsequential allegations brought to them are, without first investigating them. The section of your clause here which states 'nor with regards to etc etc' also seems confusing: the OEA surely would not be called upon to investigate allegations of that which is not illegal? It does state 'relating to elections in which they have been invited' - if something is not illegal with regards to the election in question, then the OEA would not have cause to investigate."

Jocasta rubs her eyes, taking off her hyperfocals for a few moments to give her eyes chance to relax. "My apologies, it has been some time since Thassala weighed in on any legislation but its own. These are merely my unfiltered thoughts, I suppose. I am certainly not impressed by #579's wording in specific parts, but I'm not sure you've yet convinced me this is the repeal we need."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't think you understand how the elections monitoring provision works. Not anyone can request the involvement of the WA committee.

[Tinhampton]

If COCR does not extend to political rights, then there's no problem here and the whole argument is an honest mistake.

Nationality is a "class... protected under national or international law." The at-vote res does not state to what extent those classes should be protected (i.e. whether or not CoCR should extend to political rights).

Leaving that aside, the target states that immutable characteristics cannot be used to stop someone from casting a vote. As South St Maarten says, nationality and citizenship are not immutable characteristics. Therefore a state can restrict the right to vote on these bases and the first and second arguments remain honest mistakes.

Article 2d says that "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." I interpret this as meaning any other protected class - not (necessarily) any immutable characteristic and nothing else.

I don't think you understand how the elections monitoring provision works. Not anyone can request the involvement of the WA committee.

My concerns are with Article 6, not Article 4: anyone can make an accusation of voter fraud - or complain that somebody broke one of their manifesto promises - in an OEA-observed election, even without evidence, and the OEA will have to investigate it. Refer to the URA recommendation.

(It's 3:30pm in the UK, I'm going to be very busy shortly and can't be on NS until midnight BST - if not later. Don't expect immediate responses to your concerns until then.)

[Bananaistan]

Leaving that aside, the target states that immutable characteristics cannot be used to stop someone from casting a vote. As South St Maarten says, nationality and citizenship are not immutable characteristics. Therefore a state can restrict the right to vote on these bases and the first and second arguments remain honest mistakes.

Article 2d says that "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." I interpret this as meaning any other protected class - not (necessarily) any immutable characteristic and nothing else.

Why? It's clearly only a list of examples. The active part of the clause is clear that it only refers to "immutable characteristics".

[Bears Armed]

If COCR does not extend to political rights, then there's no problem here and the whole argument is an honest mistake.

Nationality is a "class... protected under national or international law." The at-vote res does not state to what extent those classes should be protected (i.e. whether or not CoCR should extend to political rights).

OOC
Previous GenSec opinion -- I don't recall offhand whether matters ever progressed to the stage of a formal ruling being needed -- is that the COCR applies only to 'Civil Rights' (in the sense that Nationstates uses that term for a stat) and not also to 'Political Freedoms'. This is not just because of the resolution's name, and (as the rules say that they have no legal force) the author's stated intentions at the time of its drafting & passage but also because of -- as I understand it, anyway -- the following [main] factors:
1. The interaction between Category/[Strength, or Area of Effect] and stats: If the resolution had the same level of IC effectiveness in both fields then logically it also should have had the same level of OOC [stats-altering] effectiveness as well, which it did not -- and, as the game is coded, could not -- do.
2. If the COCR did apply to political rights as well then it would effectively be an Ideological Ban against multiple forms of government because effectively it would rule out -- to mention only those cases that spring to mind while I'm typing this -- governments based on inherited leadership of specific families (Monarchy, oligarchic Aristocracy), membership of specific political parties (single-party states), holding rank in specific religions (Theocracy), or holding rank in the nation's armed forces (Stratocracy)... which would make it so Illegal that it should never have been allowed to go to vote in the first place.

[Sandaoguo]

Nationality is a "class... protected under national or international law." The at-vote res does not state to what extent those classes should be protected (i.e. whether or not CoCR should extend to political rights).

OOC
Previous GenSec opinion -- I don't recall offhand whether matters ever progressed to the stage of a formal ruling being needed -- is that the COCR applies only to 'Civil Rights' (in the sense that Nationstates uses that term for a stat) and not also to 'Political Freedoms'. This is not just because of the resolution's name, and (as the rules say that they have no legal force) the author's stated intentions at the time of its drafting & passage but also because of -- as I understand it, anyway -- the following [main] factors:
1. The interaction between Category/[Strength, or Area of Effect] and stats: If the resolution had the same level of IC effectiveness in both fields then logically it also should have had the same level of OOC [stats-altering] effectiveness as well, which it did not -- and, as the game is coded, could not -- do.
2. If the COCR did apply to political rights as well then it would effectively be an Ideological Ban against multiple forms of government because effectively it would rule out -- to mention only those cases that spring to mind while I'm typing this -- governments based on inherited leadership of specific families (Monarchy, oligarchic Aristocracy), membership of specific political parties (single-party states), holding rank in specific religions (Theocracy), or holding rank in the nation's armed forces (Stratocracy)... which would make it so Illegal that it should never have been allowed to go to vote in the first place.

OOC: I'm confused at the premise here. It really doesn't make a ton of sense, since rights and freedoms are synonymous. The ideology ban rule has, to my knowledge, always been rather strictly interpreted as only applying to explicit bans on specific ideologies. I remember being involved in quite lengthy rules debates on that, because if you extend this logic then the WA can only pass so many Civil Rights resolutions because certain ideologies are basically impossible to hold due death by a thousand cuts.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Previous GenSec opinion -- I don't recall offhand whether matters ever progressed to the stage of a formal ruling being needed -- is that the COCR applies only to 'Civil Rights' (in the sense that Nationstates uses that term for a stat) and not also to 'Political Freedoms'. This is not just because of the resolution's name, and (as the rules say that they have no legal force) the author's stated intentions at the time of its drafting & passage but also because of -- as I understand it, anyway -- the following [main] factors:
1. The interaction between Category/[Strength, or Area of Effect] and stats: If the resolution had the same level of IC effectiveness in both fields then logically it also should have had the same level of OOC [stats-altering] effectiveness as well, which it did not -- and, as the game is coded, could not -- do.
2. If the COCR did apply to political rights as well then it would effectively be an Ideological Ban against multiple forms of government because effectively it would rule out -- to mention only those cases that spring to mind while I'm typing this -- governments based on inherited leadership of specific families (Monarchy, oligarchic Aristocracy), membership of specific political parties (single-party states), holding rank in specific religions (Theocracy), or holding rank in the nation's armed forces (Stratocracy)... which would make it so Illegal that it should never have been allowed to go to vote in the first place.

OOC: I'm confused at the premise here. It really doesn't make a ton of sense, since rights and freedoms are synonymous.

Presumably you haven't somehow forgotten that Nationstates has two separate stats -- and ones that actually are displayed on each nation's main page, at that -- for these?!

A reminder, for the sake of any new-ish layers reading this thread as well as in case you somehow have forgotten: As coding goes in Nationstates, rather than as the terms may be used in in RL_
'Civil Rights', as protected by the COCR = personal rights (e.g. anti-discrimination in general matters, sex & drugs & rock-&-roll, freedom of movement) => tied to the 'Civil Rights' (formerly 'Human Rights') stat.
'Political Freedoms' = specifically protection of rights directly involved in the political process (e.g. fairness of elections -- where those are actually held -- or freedom to criticize the government) = tiled to the 'Political Freedoms' stat.
Any resolution can affect only one or the other of those two (if it affects either of them at all), AFAIK, and whilst some overlap is possible a proposal or resolution that is effectively 'Strong in both of them IC -- as the COCR would be if its scope was as wide as you claim -- really should have 'Strong' stat effects in both of them OOC as well... which it cannot do, as things work, and which the COCR of course did not do.
(You could perhaps write a legal proposal that was 'Strong' overall because of being slightly above 'Significant' in one of those fields and about as far below 'Significant' in the other one, but that would be the upper limit... and the COCR contained no such distinction.)
Oh, and note that all of the examples actually specified in the COCR belong under the 'Human Rights'/'Civil Rights' stat rather than under the 'Political Freedoms' one.

The ideology ban rule has, to my knowledge, always been rather strictly interpreted as only applying to explicit bans on specific ideologies.

To my knowledge it has always been interpreted as applying to bans on government-types, as well, especially as a high proportion of "specific ideologies" could not actually be mentioned legally in proposals/resolutions due to the rules against RL References, Meta-gaming (for ideologies such as Violetism that exist only within NS), or even Branding. There have certainly been proposals ruled as Illegal (or dropped before submission, because of official advice that such rulings would be made if they were submitted) because they tried to mandate that all member nations must be democracies.
As I recall the Mods' arguments, this is partly for game-mechanics/meta-gaming reasons: Resolutions cannot change the fact that nations' players can choose from a wide range of pre-titles (even before they gain the ability to customize those), some of those options clearly define the nation's political type, and so a resolution that tried to ban certain types would require players to change the pre-titles in order to avoid non-compliance. There was also the fact that Max himself wanted the NS-UN, like the RL UN, to be open to nations of all types.

I remember being involved in quite lengthy rules debates on that, because if you extend this logic then the WA can only pass so many Civil Rights resolutions because certain ideologies are basically impossible to hold due death by a thousand cuts.

Personally I'm inclined to agree with that argument, although I might not have agreed with some of its other supporters about just where those lines fall, but back in pre-GenSec times the Mods always said "No".

[Sandaoguo]

OOC: I think that's a lot of rewriting history and the CoCR has pretty much always been understood to apply to what you're calling "political freedoms." If you look at the original debate thread, the right to vote was specifically called out by the author (search for the post with the timestamp "05-02-2009, 22:51"): https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1225/567124

"Deny the right to vote to individuals with no legitimate interest in doing so by all means honoured Ambassador, but should this resolution pass it will be illegal to do so to punish or exclude large sections of your nation's inhabitants with a legitimate interest in doing so simply because these groups have been intentionally marginalised on a discriminatory basis."

I think Urgench would've been very surprised to learn that the Charter of Civil Rights didn't apply to civil rights. :\

That's not to say Tin's argument is convincing, since there are compelling practical purposes in defining who can vote (i.e citizens vs non-citizens). CoCR prevents member states from determining citizenship or the right to vote based on "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorizations" of people. But saying only citizens can vote isn't a violation of the CoCR.

[Hulldom]

My $0.02 here, but if CoCR took the absurd position that states can't regulate who votes in their elections, it would be worth repealing that.

[Sandaoguo]

My $0.02 here, but if CoCR took the absurd position that states can't regulate who votes in their elections, it would be worth repealing that.

What CoCR does is say, if you grant the right to vote at all, it must be granted equally without discrimination, with discrimination being defined as being based on "sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes." So while nationality is a legally protected category, there is a compelling practical purpose in denying non-citizens the right to vote*. Radicals could disagree, but that's up to individual governments to debate.

* In a round-about way. Technically citizenship isn't a protected category, so you can say "only citizens have the right to vote." But citizenship can't be limited to only specific nationalities, races, ethnicities, etc. If a Rhodesian national immigrates to Hulldom, for example, you can't have a law that says Rhodesian nationals can't become citizens because of their Rhodesian nationality. But it's completely legal under CoCR to have a law saying that person can't vote in your elections until they actually do become a citizen.

[Hulldom]

My $0.02 here, but if CoCR took the absurd position that states can't regulate who votes in their elections, it would be worth repealing that.

What CoCR does is say, if you grant the right to vote at all, it must be granted equally without discrimination, with discrimination being defined as being based on "sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes." So while nationality is a legally protected category, there is a compelling practical purpose in denying non-citizens the right to vote*. Radicals could disagree, but that's up to individual governments to debate.

* In a round-about way. Technically citizenship isn't a protected category, so you can say "only citizens have the right to vote." But citizenship can't be limited to only specific nationalities, races, ethnicities, etc. If a Rhodesian national immigrates to Hulldom, for example, you can't have a law that says Rhodesian nationals can't become citizens because of their Rhodesian nationality. But it's completely legal under CoCR to have a law saying that person can't vote in your elections until they actually do become a citizen.

Thanks for the explanation.

I should note though that I wasn't really saying that it didn't. The emphasis was on the if in my original contention.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I think that's a lot of rewriting history and the CoCR has pretty much always been understood to apply to what you're calling "political freedoms." If you look at the original debate thread, the right to vote was specifically called out by the author (search for the post with the timestamp "05-02-2009, 22:51"): https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1225/567124

"Deny the right to vote to individuals with no legitimate interest in doing so by all means honoured Ambassador, but should this resolution pass it will be illegal to do so to punish or exclude large sections of your nation's inhabitants with a legitimate interest in doing so simply because these groups have been intentionally marginalised on a discriminatory basis."

I think Urgench would've been very surprised to learn that the Charter of Civil Rights didn't apply to civil rights. :\

OOC
It clearly applies to 'civil rights' in the sense that the game's coding now uses that term, i.e. for what NS labelled as 'Human Rights' instead at the time of the COCR's passage. Its ban on discriminatory recognition of the right to vote, if the nation has elections, could be taken as falling either under that heading (on the basis that it is only part of a wider ban on unreasonable discrimination, and all of the other situations specifically listed as ones where such discrimination is forbidden clearly belong there rather than as 'Political Freedom' instead) or -- because it is about voting -- under 'Political Freedoms'... but if the latter is the case then, as it is only one item in a long list, that would lie within the level of acceptable overlap in Categories that I said would [I think...] be considered officially okay.
The point that I was trying to make was that if the ban on discrimination applied to all political matters, as you seemed to be suggesting, then that would also extend to the right to hold legislative &/or executive political office which would rule out government types in which such offices were reserved to members of specific groups (e.g. royal families, aristocracies, members of a single party's inner cadre,religious hierarchies, military hierarchies)... and that would be, effectively, an Ideological Ban on all of those government types.

But saying only citizens can vote isn't a violation of the CoCR.

On that much, we agree.

________________________________________________________________

With respect to established policy on the 'Ideological Ban' rule protecting types of governmental system, not just specific ideologies: This is also why neither the NS-UN nor the GA has ever passed a resolution requiring separation of church and state... I've seen several attempts at drafting ones, and in each case they were shot down by the Mods as an Ideological Ban on Theocracies.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The category of a resolution does not confine or dilute its textual effect.

[Tinhampton]

Draft #2.

[Fachumonn]

Support.

[Hulldom]

Still opposed. Not just because it’s my resolution because some of the points are plainly absurd.

I don’t see how it would be reasonable to say 2(c) constitutes a ban on compulsory voting when it simply says “don’t discriminate against people because they choose not to vote.”

Same with 2(d) and staying that it’s protections might still allow nations to return to a veritable rotten Borough system.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

Character count: 3,030
Word count: 461

.
ICly by Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly.

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)
Repeal "Promoting Democratic Stability Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#579

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #579 “Promoting Democratic Stability Act” (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Concerned that, regardless of Article 2's scope:

1. Article 2c may still be read to forbid "discriminat[ion] for not casting a vote," which acts as an unintentional but unwarranted ban on compulsory voting, a long-established and popular policy intended to counteract electoral distortion that can be caused from certain demographics being more (or less) likely to vote in elections than others, and
2. Article 2d only prohibits discrimination against voters because they possess "immutable characteristic[s]" or are a member of "any other class which may be protected under national or international law," definitions vague enough that they nonetheless may still empower member states to arbitrarily and capriciously disenfranchise non-landowners (who are likely to be poorer than landowners), because property ownership status is not a "protected class" by resolution and may not be protected by member states,

Outraged that Article 5 prohibits this august body from taking action to ensure electoral fairness in member states - including to prevent unwarranted discrimination against voters on the grounds of incarceration, employment status, trade union membership, or indeed property ownership - for any reason,

Believing that Article 6 could thus task the OEA with monitoring the manifestos of candidates in elections they are observing to check for misleading claims on the grounds that such claims are "dishonest practices relating to elections," and even censuring them if such claims are found - which should not be the job of a committee primarily intended to monitor actual elections, and

Co-author: Tepertopia

“Ambassador, I have three major complaints. First, the Hulldonian delegate is correct, your interpretation on 2c and 2d is overtly assumptive, while the actual 2c and 2d do not show much correlation to your claims.

Second, regarding your claim on Article 5, even though the WA does have the ability to deal with issues regarding discrimination in any form, attempts at interfering in elections within one nation is far beyond the scope of the WA’s power. Recall that GAR#2, Section 1, Article 2 states: ‘Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law’. Furthermore, Section 1, Article 3 of that same resolution states: ‘Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.’ The articles, as I interpret it, give nations the full right to regulate their own elections and prohibit WA members from intervening in said elections.If this proposal goes through, therefore, you will dishonor GAR#2 in the process.

Lastly, regarding Article 6, if the OEA would not be able to monitor manifestó claims and such, who will? The police? The army of each nation? This is a question that must certainly be addressed.

For these reasons, the Clevesian people will not support this proposal until the claims on 2c and 2d are correct, the claim on article 5 is dropped in its entirety, and the claim on article 6 is clarified.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Tinhampton]

Smith: To steal a turn of phrase from Lydia, please read the extracts you quoted again. WA regulation of elections - and, for that matter, WA regulation of anything - is an immunity recognised by international law, and widely accepted to be such by ambassadors more experienced than I.
Regarding non-discrimination for non-voters, the now-retired Ambassador van Rooy admitted that compulsory voting was a meaning, but not an intended meaning, of Article 2c.
Regarding the disenfranchisement of non-property-owners, it is clear that property ownership is a non-immutable characteristic. Therefore, if it is to be protected by Article 2d, it must be a class that is "protected under national or international law." Since no "international law" bars discrimination on the grounds of property ownership status, the task of such protection falls to member states. There is no guarantee that member states will introduce this protection, and thus no guarantee that - as my Tepertopian friend and I make clear - they will not "arbitrarily and capriciously disenfranchise non-landowners."
Regarding factchecking of manifestos, that is typically the job of the news media and concerned civil society organisations - it is, at least, in Tinhampton. I see no need to clarify who should take over the job in this proposal; if I did, I would almost certainly be legislating in a repeal.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'A ban on forced voting is certainly beneficial, and we do not believe that specific argument to be compelling grounds for repeal. However, other than that, this repeal seems strong. Support.'