[DRAFT] Fair Elections Act

[Hulldom]

A day later than I anticipated (thank you, FA gods), my replacement for the soon-to-be-repealed GAR#579. You’ll notice the provisions are largely the same though I tried to fix some of the obvious errors in 579.

Note: Wym and I are not wedded to the name by any means, so we’d appreciate suggestions.

Note: Category/Strength is Furtherment of Democracy | Mild/Significant

The General Assembly,

Lamenting that sensible laws regarding democratic freedoms have so far been elusive, as evidenced by the repeals of GAR#130 “Elections and Assistance Act” and GAR#579 “Promoting Democratic Stability Act”,

Believing that regulations which protect the right to vote, provide consequences for certain damaging electoral practices, and ensure that member states also maintain a degree of autonomy over their own elections is necessary,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. States shall ensure that the following conditions are satisfied in the conduct of their elections as it pertains to voting for legally competent persons:
   
   1. No person shall be compelled to disclose their vote(s) under penalty or cover of law. However, this right may be abrogated in the case of a judicial ruling or as part of an investigation into electoral practices commensurate with that in clause (3).
   2. All persons must have the opportunity to vote in private and without interference from third parties.
   3. No person shall be denied the opportunity to vote due to any characteristic or status other than citizenship.
2. The Office of Electoral Administration (hereinafter the OEA) may only enter into a state for election monitoring purposes should the state request the OEA’s assistance in monitoring an election or elections.
   
3. If a member state invites the OEA to monitor an election in it, the OEA may investigate claims of practices such as vote-buying, ballot stuffing, discrimination in administration practices, and fraudulent voting.
   
4. Pursuant to clause 3, the Office of Electoral Administration (OEA) may only investigate complaints made by government officials in states whose elections are monitored. If the OEA deems those complaints credible, they will refer the nation to the Compliance Commission for consideration of further sanction.
   
5. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to limit the ability of member states to compel participation in the electoral process.
   
6. Excepting the regulations set out in this resolution and previously, member states have the right to set all other regulations pertaining to elections.

Co-authored by: Wymondham

[Tinhampton]

1c. No person shall be denied the opportunity to vote due to any characteristic or status.

Including citizenship and nationality status?

3. If a member state invites the OEA to monitor an election in it, the OEA may investigate claims of practices such as vote-buying, ballot stuffing, discrimination in administration practices, and fraudulent voting.

4. Pursuant to clause 3, the Office of Electoral Administration (OEA) may only investigate complaints made by government officials in states whose elections are monitored. If the OEA deems those complaints credible, they will refer the nation to the Compliance Commission for consideration of further sanction.

If the OEA finds that acts described in Article 3 have occurred in Hulldomian elections, but Hulldom already bans those acts in its domestic law, why is "refer[ral] to the Compliance Commission" instead of - for example - domestic enforcement of Hulldomian laws necessary?

6. Excepting the regulations set out in this resolution, member states have the right to set all other regulations pertaining to elections.

All other regulations? Even the ones laid out in GA#310 "Disabled Voters Act"?

[Xuanzhang]

1c. No person shall be denied the opportunity to vote due to any characteristic or status.

Including citizenship and nationality status?

How dare you oppose allowing foreign nationals to interfere in your elections, you monstrous tyrant!

[Hulldom]

1c. No person shall be denied the opportunity to vote due to any characteristic or status.

Including citizenship and nationality status?

3. If a member state invites the OEA to monitor an election in it, the OEA may investigate claims of practices such as vote-buying, ballot stuffing, discrimination in administration practices, and fraudulent voting.

4. Pursuant to clause 3, the Office of Electoral Administration (OEA) may only investigate complaints made by government officials in states whose elections are monitored. If the OEA deems those complaints credible, they will refer the nation to the Compliance Commission for consideration of further sanction.

If the OEA finds that acts described in Article 3 have occurred in Hulldomian elections, but Hulldom already bans those acts in its domestic law, why is "refer[ral] to the Compliance Commission" instead of - for example - domestic enforcement of Hulldomian laws necessary?

6. Excepting the regulations set out in this resolution, member states have the right to set all other regulations pertaining to elections.

All other regulations? Even the ones laid out in GA#310 "Disabled Voters Act"?

So all of these are actually valid, and I’ll figure them out. I quibble with the second but that’s because I’m sort of the mind of “if those actions took place in a state being monitored, I have little faith in its courts system to handle those adequately”. The other two things will be fixed shortly.

[Fachumonn]

My suggestion for the name is don't use fair. It's too much of an informal word, Imo.
"Sensible Elections Act" or "Equitable Elections Act" would be my suggestions, but I'm bad with words, so take it with a grain of salt. My main advice is just not to use "Fair".

[Attempted Socialism]

Two short comments:

No person shall be compelled to disclose their vote(s) under penalty or cover of law.

Would this outlaw any sort of caucus (Especially those where you physically move in a room)? And would it apply if an elected assembly itself elects someone (Would MPs be protected by this as well, for instance)?

No person shall be denied the opportunity to vote due to any characteristic or status other than citizenship.

Is voting age a denial of the opportunity to vote based on a characteristic or status other than citizenship?

[Hulldom]

Two short comments:

No person shall be compelled to disclose their vote(s) under penalty or cover of law.

Would this outlaw any sort of caucus (Especially those where you physically move in a room)? And would it apply if an elected assembly itself elects someone (Would MPs be protected by this as well, for instance)?

No person shall be denied the opportunity to vote due to any characteristic or status other than citizenship.

Is voting age a denial of the opportunity to vote based on a characteristic or status other than citizenship?

1) I don’t think so in the instance of a caucus, I would think not in the case of an elected assembly. A more incisive eye might be able to offer a better/firmer answer.

If you think it does and you have a proposed wording change, I’d be happy to hear it.

2) I can see that. My advice remains the same as the last. This, for the record, is why I prefer the current wording of 579 of “immutable characteristics”.

[Floofybit]

About 1c, I get what you are going for but I have another thing to ask about. What would you do about people who have commited crimes and/or are not in the mental state to vote? Similarly, what would you do about election rule breakers? For example, say someone attempts to vote twice. Would you let them have their voting rights if they are trying to abuse them? I don't know though, correct me if I'm blatantly wrong

[Saksoni]

for.

[Hulldom]

About 1c, I get what you are going for but I have another thing to ask about. What would you do about people who have commited crimes and/or are not in the mental state to vote? Similarly, what would you do about election rule breakers? For example, say someone attempts to vote twice. Would you let them have their voting rights if they are trying to abuse them? I don't know though, correct me if I'm blatantly wrong

As for your first point about mentally incapacitated people and voting, I see the point here, and I’ll have to look into it.

As for the second, I think it’s a matter of who one ascribes the responsibility for someone breaking election law too. If you agree with Tinhampton on the subject, this is only a question for domestic courts. I disagree because even if an incentive structure exists such that this sort of thing is considered not just permissible but acceptable, the responsibility for administration still lies with the state. Perhaps it’s simply something I’m too guilty of—having too much faith in people and not enough in society writ large.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

The Princess rules her dominion in the only proper way: with an open mind, an iron fist, and (occasionally) a righteous fury against wickedness. But the tradition of hearing the pleas of her subjects for the intervention of her Grace (which many scholars and observers have called a form of democracy) is deeply imbedded in her government. So, I will assist you in this effort, although I must say it has a long way to go...

States shall ensure that the following conditions are satisfied in the conduct of their elections as it pertains to voting:

1. No person shall be compelled to disclose their vote(s) under penalty or cover of law.
2. All persons must have the opportunity to vote in private and without interference from third parties.
3. No person shall be denied the opportunity to vote due to any characteristic or status other than citizenship.

"A" is intolerable. Those who vote should do so proudly, without hiding what course they would have society pursue (or would pursue for others). If you have concerns about coercion those can be met in other ways than this. The idea of secret voting is undemocratic. Ah, for the good old days when the electors would gather at the forum to discuss the important business of the day, and literally "cross the isle" to show which side of the debate they were on, and prove which side enjoyed the majority. On a less poetic note, "A" is too blunt. "No person" may be compelled to disclose their vote? What about representatives, whose votes must be public so they may be accountable to those they represent. What about juries, whose unanimity may be required to sustain a verdict and who may be polled at the request of the accused? If you think hard about "A," you will see it is extreme in ways you did not consider which make it unworkable in several contexts.

"C" is equally intolerable. You addressed citizenship, sure. What about those guilty of treason or sedition? What about those who persistently engage in fraudulent voting? May the state not deny the vote to those who have abused it? Perhaps there are limits to that, but you've gone too far the other way.

Please accept this commentary in the spirit of friendship, as a start.

Edit: And I whole-heartedly agree with Lord Evif, below, that any effort to block off further debate or action on this subject by this Assembly will earn my vigorous opposition.

[Goobergunchia]

We cannot support clause 6 and will oppose any resolution containing a similar clause.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Hulldom]

“I’m afraid you all are Ambassadors after my own heart, but getting something as comprehensive as I, and it would seem you both, would like through is certainly…a non-starter.”

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

“I’m afraid you all are Ambassadors after my own heart, but getting something as comprehensive as I, and it would seem you both, would like through is certainly…a non-starter.”

Well, if you don't think you can do it at least don't block everyone else off from even trying.

[Hulldom]

“I’m afraid you all are Ambassadors after my own heart, but getting something as comprehensive as I, and it would seem you both, would like through is certainly…a non-starter.”

Well, if you don't think you can do it at least don't block everyone else off from even trying.

It’s not a matter of “can I write it”, I’m positive I could do that.

It’s a matter of “could it pass”, as I’m much less certain there.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Well, if you don't think you can do it at least don't block everyone else off from even trying.

It’s not a matter of “can I write it”, I’m positive I could do that.

It’s a matter of “could it pass”, as I’m much less certain there.

To strive and fail is heroic. To put barriers in the way of others because of your own lack of faith, well, that's something the villains do.

[Fachumonn]

My suggestion for the name is don't use fair. It's too much of an informal word, Imo.
"Sensible Elections Act" or "Equitable Elections Act" would be my suggestions, but I'm bad with words, so take it with a grain of salt. My main advice is just not to use "Fair".

[Hulldom]

It’s not a matter of “can I write it”, I’m positive I could do that.

It’s a matter of “could it pass”, as I’m much less certain there.

To strive and fail is heroic. To put barriers in the way of others because of your own lack of faith, well, that's something the villains do.

Oh, I’m perfectly content being a villain.

But meh, my co- and I will talk and see what we want to do.

My suggestion for the name is don't use fair. It's too much of an informal word, Imo.
"Sensible Elections Act" or "Equitable Elections Act" would be my suggestions, but I'm bad with words, so take it with a grain of salt. My main advice is just not to use "Fair".

I’ve seen your suggestion. I’ve read it. Without getting too snippy: I like neither.

[Hannasea]

"The only way to have fair elections is to require every WA nation to hold elections."

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

[Floofybit]

"The only way to have fair elections is to require every WA nation to hold elections."

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

"Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery."

[Comfed]

No person shall be denied the opportunity to vote due to any characteristic or status other than citizenship.

What about age?

[Hannasea]

"Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery."

Daniella squints, unable to discern of that voice speaking up from the void.

"I'm not proposing 'wholly outlawing' an 'ideology', mainly because I have no idea what that means. Let's just require elections. If we don't, then the WA has absolutely no place dictating rules to democratic nations that non-democratic nations can freely avoid."

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

OOC: One of the good things about the move to pink power rangers is we no longer have to wait months to hear back on rules questions like in ye bad olde days.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“Besides from the vagueness of 1c and 6 that other ambassadors have pointed out, everything checks out.

Now regarding the opinions of the Sparklesian ambassador, by the principles of democracy, would non-secret voting be a violation of the right to privacy that people have if they reside in democratic countries if the multiverse? Of course, my homeland is not democratic, but I learned about that through international studies back in my university. And from those studies, specifically knowledge on the principles of democracy, this argument against secret voting seems to have a major loophole.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

OOC Note:
I obviously don’t have a degree in international studies in real life, since I am in high school and have no intentions on choosing that as a major, but Ms. Schafer certainly would as an ambassador.

[Makko Oko]

"Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery."

Daniella squints, unable to discern of that voice speaking up from the void.

"I'm not proposing 'wholly outlawing' an 'ideology', mainly because I have no idea what that means. Let's just require elections. If we don't, then the WA has absolutely no place dictating rules to democratic nations that non-democratic nations can freely avoid."

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

OOC: One of the good things about the move to pink power rangers is we no longer have to wait months to hear back on rules questions like in ye bad olde days.

The Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs personally walks into the room, sits down, with everybody silent and confused, and they pull out a huge book, and it says "World Assembly General Resolution Archive" and they open it, look through the entire index for a span up to 3 minutes, flips to a page, and then clears their throat and says "In accordance with WAR#2, known formally as the 'Rights And Duties Of WA States', requiring elections is a blatant violation of WA law and even as such, our government strictly opposes elections, and prefers our way of rule."

The Minister then turns to another page and puts on some reading glasses and continues, "Under Section 1, Article 1, it clearly states that 'Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.' and as such within our reasoning, find that forcing elections upon our people, or upon any people, would be a direct violation of the right to choose a form of government, and a violation of the right to independence and self-determination."

They close the book, put their glasses away, stands up, and directs one of the ministry's staff to take their place as they leave the chambers, never to return.

[Hannasea]

The Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs personally walks into the room, sits down, with everybody silent and confused, and they pull out a huge book, and it says "World Assembly General Resolution Archive" and they open it, look through the entire index for a span up to 3 minutes, flips to a page, and then clears their throat and says "In accordance with WAR#2, known formally as the 'Rights And Duties Of WA States', requiring elections is a blatant violation of WA law and even as such, our government strictly opposes elections, and prefers our way of rule."

The Minister then turns to another page and puts on some reading glasses and continues, "Under Section 1, Article 1, it clearly states that 'Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.' and as such within our reasoning, find that forcing elections upon our people, or upon any people, would be a direct violation of the right to choose a form of government, and a violation of the right to independence and self-determination."

They close the book, put their glasses away, stands up, and directs one of the ministry's staff to take their place as they leave the chambers, never to return.

Following their departure, Daniella continues addressing the empty seat.

"That's one of the basic misreadings of Rights & Duties sadly common among those new to this chamber. Article 1 states that nations have this right without dictation of any other NationState. The World Assembly is not a NationState. Article 9 requires that all NationStates carry out any obligations they incur under WA law. That could include the duty to hold elections."

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