[DRAFT] Increasing Political Representation

[States of Glory WA Office]

Increasing Political Representation
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING the right of member states to choose their own form of government,


CONCERNED nonetheless about the dangers of denying individuals the right to political representation,


WISHING to offer a solution that respects both the rights of individuals and the rights of nations,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES the voting age, for the purposes of this resolution, as the age of majority,
   
   
2. REQUIRES all member states to select their head of state through a nationwide election based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age and who are citizens of said member state,
   
   
3. REQUIRES all member states to select the members of their legislature through divisional elections based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age, who are citizens of said member state and who reside in the division that the representative is representing,
   
   
4. MANDATES that only one legislative representative may be elected per division during the course of any election,
   
   
5. REQUIRES all member states to select local representatives based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age, who are citizens of said member state and who reside in the locality that the representative is representing,
   
   
6. COMPELS all member states to establish an electoral commission which shall be independent of the executive, legislature and judiciary and which shall ensure that all elections mentioned above are conducted fairly and without internal or external intrusion,
   
   
7. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution bans non-democratic forms of government.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Reserved for future drafts...

[Tinhampton]

Jimmy McTiernan, an Understudy for Tinhampton's WA Delegation: What exactly will this mean for nations like Tinhampton with nationwide PR - if you can call it that in our case?

[Albrenia]

I think point 2. and 7. disagree with each other.

Point 2 requires 'all member states' to hold national elections.

Point 7 does not ban non-democracies.

[Greater Cesnica]

Increasing Political Representation
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING the right of member states to choose their own form of government,


CONCERNED nonetheless about the dangers of denying individuals the right to political representation,


WISHING to offer a solution that respects both the rights of individuals and the rights of nations,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES the voting age, for the purposes of this resolution, as the age of majority,
   
   
2. REQUIRES all member states to select their head of state through a nationwide election based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age and who are citizens of said member state,
   
   
3. REQUIRES all member states to select the members of their legislature through divisional elections based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age, who are citizens of said member state and who reside in the division that the representative is representing,
   
   
4. MANDATES that only one legislative representative may be elected per division during the course of any election,
   
   
5. REQUIRES all member states to select local representatives based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age, who are citizens of said member state and who reside in the locality that the representative is representing,
   
   
6. COMPELS all member states to establish an electoral commission which shall be independent of the executive, legislature and judiciary and which shall ensure that all elections mentioned above are conducted fairly and without internal or external intrusion,
   
   
7. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution bans non-democratic forms of government.

Well, there goes all monarchies, dictatorships, and revolutionary states in the WA.

[Bananaistan]

I think point 2. and 7. disagree with each other.

Point 2 requires 'all member states' to hold national elections.

Point 7 does not ban non-democracies.

OOC: Correct. There is modly precedent that such internal contradiction is illegal.

Also clause 1 is illegal for contradiction of GAR#299 Legal Competence.

IC: "Just what is it that you lot have against proportional representation?"

- Ted

[States of Glory WA Office]

I think point 2. and 7. disagree with each other.

Point 2 requires 'all member states' to hold national elections.

Point 7 does not ban non-democracies.

OOC: Correct. There is modly precedent that such internal contradiction is illegal.

1) Which precedent?
2) Mod precedent is no longer binding.
3) The proposal isn't internally contradictory.

Also clause 1 is illegal for contradiction of GAR#299 Legal Competence.

In what way?

IC: "Just what is it that you lot have against proportional representation?"

- Ted

Fairburn: Could you imagine a horse race in which the third-place horse wins? One person, one vote; fair is fair is fair.

[Fauxia]

Isn't this illegal for not applying to all nations?

[Albrenia]

Would make more sense if point 7. said "Does not apply to non-democracies" instead of "does not ban".

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Correct. There is modly precedent that such internal contradiction is illegal.

1) Which precedent?
2) Mod precedent is no longer binding.
3) The proposal isn't internally contradictory.

OOC: 1) These are examples:
viewtopic.php?p=18735356#p18735356
viewtopic.php?p=18267847#p18267847
viewtopic.php?p=16891351#p16891351

2) It can be persuasive though. In this instance, were a challenge raised on this point, I would urge my colleagues to affirm the principle that obvious internal contradictions should be illegal.

3) Yes it is. Clause 2 requires that all member states have an election for their head of state which bans non-democratic forms of selecting heads of state. Clause 7 then contradicts this.

In any case, it's an ideological ban as currently stated.

Also clause 1 is illegal for contradiction of GAR#299 Legal Competence.

In what way?

Clause 4 of GAR#299 explicitly grants member nations the right to decide on all such "thresholds of maturity" and explicitly allows member nations the right to choose different thresholds for different matters.

[Eriaroon World Assembly Experiment]

"Such a proposal will require a total restructuring of our entire society, and will ultimately result in nothing more than the reduction of effectiveness of our governing system. Additionally, it is self-contradictory. As a result, we will be firmly against this proposal."

-Maoltao Narulm Shazula-Melikos, Ascendant Scholar

[Bears Armed]

(See below)

[Bears Armed]

1) Which precedent?

OOC; Past rulings provided multiple precedents for this, and none to the contrary. Unfortunately the lack of a complete Rulings Repository or Rulings Depository makes finding the relevant posts difficult, but I've just spent 15 [out of what might well be the only 2 hours that I can spend online today] searching and found these two to start with: viewtopic.php?p=21017717#p21017717,
viewtopic.php?p=18735356#p18735356. I can remember that there were others... and you do recall that experience of past rulings & precedents was a factor in the selection of GenSec members, right?

2) Mod precedent is no longer binding.

OOC: Incorrect. Mod precedent is not automatically binding on GenSec, but GenSec has said -- early in this committee's existence -- that we wouldn't discard significant precedents without wider consultation... which has not taken place in [i]this case.

3) The proposal isn't internally contradictory.

OOC; Clauses 2 & 3 effectively mandate democracy, but clause 7 says that the proposal doesn't ban non-democratic governments. That is an obvious internal contradiction. There have been precedentary rulings that simply saying "This does not contradict Resolution #NN" in a proposal's text does not make proposals that are clearly contradictory legal, and the same principle would seem applicable here.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: 1) These are examples:
viewtopic.php?p=18735356#p18735356
viewtopic.php?p=18267847#p18267847
viewtopic.php?p=16891351#p16891351

1) Which precedent?

OOC; Past rulings provided multiple precedents for this, and none to the contrary. Unfortunately the lack of a complete Rulings Repository or Rulings Depository makes finding the relevant posts difficult, but I've just spent 15 [out of what might well be the only 2 hours that I can spend online today] searching and found these two to start with: viewtopic.php?p=21017717#p21017717,
viewtopic.php?p=18735356#p18735356. I can remember that there were others... and you do recall that experience of past rulings & precedents was a factor in the selection of GenSec members, right?

Fair enough. I concede that there exists strong precedent that self-contradiction is illegal (though why it isn't in the Rules is beyond me).

That said, I disagree that this proposal is self-contradictory. Let's look at Clause Seven:

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution bans non-democratic forms of government.

For this proposal to be self-contradictory, at least one of the clauses must contradict this clause i.e. at least one of the clauses must ban non-democratic forms of government. Now let's go through each clause one by one:

REQUIRES all member states to select their head of state through a nationwide election based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age and who are citizens of said member state,

Nothing in this clause requires member states to give their heads of state any power or even to have a head of state. Figurehead heads of state exist IRL even in many democratic nations; non-democratic nations can simply vest sole power into the head of government. In addition to this, member states can simply allow just one candidate to run for the position, thus establishing a de facto autocracy. Therefore, this clause doesn't ban non-democratic forms of government and therefore doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

REQUIRES all member states to select the members of their legislature through divisional elections based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age, who are citizens of said member state and who reside in the division that the representative is representing,

Once again, there are no requirements that the legislature must have any power, be multi-party or even exist. Once again, then, this clause doesn't ban non-democratic forms of government and therefore doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

MANDATES that only one legislative representative may be elected per division during the course of any election,

This clause does nothing even to restrict non-democratic governments and therefore doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

REQUIRES all member states to select local representatives based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age, who are citizens of said member state and who reside in the locality that the representative is representing,

Unlike the aforementioned clauses, this clause does require nations to hold elections for local representatives, but once again, there is nothing preventing non-democratic governments from restricting or removing all power from local representatives, nor are they prevented from requiring that all candidates are members of the same party. Once again, this clause doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

COMPELS all member states to establish an electoral commission which shall be independent of the executive, legislature and judiciary and which shall ensure that all elections mentioned above are conducted fairly and without internal or external intrusion,

I freely admit that this clause restricts totalitarian governments. However, as per the precedent set by Wallenburg vs. Patent Recognition Treaty, "to hold that mere recognition of a concept that a nation is ideologically opposed to is insufficient to warrant application of the rule". Totalitarian governments can still function with an independent electoral commission; they just have to be more creative with it, which is consistent with the principle that a resolution can restrict a particular form of government without banning it outright. Therefore, this clause doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

For all these reasons, though this proposal imposes restrictions on non-democratic forms of government, it doesn't ban them outright, meaning that it is neither internally contradictory nor a violation of the 'Ideological Ban' rule.

As for contradiction, let's look at Clause Four of GA #299 a.k.a. Legal Competence:

4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that in these cases a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.

This clause guarantees two rights: 1) The right to set a minimum voting age; and 2) the right to assign different thresholds for different minimum ages.

In regards to 1), since member states still retain the right to set an age of majority and since this proposal links the age of majority to the minimum voting age, member states still retain the right to set a minimum voting age. Therefore, this proposal is not contradictory in regards to 1).

In regards to 2), since member states still retain the right to assign different thresholds for, say, gambling and criminal responsibility, member states still retain the right to assign different thresholds for different minimum ages. Therefore, this proposal is not contradictory in regards to 2).

In conclusion, the proposal as written is legal. If anyone has any further legality concerns then please feel free to make them known.

[An Anarcho Syndicalist Commune]

That said, I disagree that this proposal is self-contradictory. Let's look at Clause Seven:

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution bans non-democratic forms of government.

For this proposal to be self-contradictory, at least one of the clauses must contradict this clause i.e. at least one of the clauses must ban non-democratic forms of government. Now let's go through each clause one by one:

REQUIRES all member states to select their head of state through a nationwide election based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age and who are citizens of said member state,

Nothing in this clause requires member states to give their heads of state any power or even to have a head of state. Figurehead heads of state exist IRL even in many democratic nations; non-democratic nations can simply vest sole power into the head of government. In addition to this, member states can simply allow just one candidate to run for the position, thus establishing a de facto autocracy. Therefore, this clause doesn't ban non-democratic forms of government and therefore doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

Well what about kings? You don't vote for kings.

[States of Glory WA Office]

That said, I disagree that this proposal is self-contradictory. Let's look at Clause Seven:

For this proposal to be self-contradictory, at least one of the clauses must contradict this clause i.e. at least one of the clauses must ban non-democratic forms of government. Now let's go through each clause one by one:


Nothing in this clause requires member states to give their heads of state any power or even to have a head of state. Figurehead heads of state exist IRL even in many democratic nations; non-democratic nations can simply vest sole power into the head of government. In addition to this, member states can simply allow just one candidate to run for the position, thus establishing a de facto autocracy. Therefore, this clause doesn't ban non-democratic forms of government and therefore doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

Well what about kings? You don't vote for kings.

OOC: Make the king the head of government and make the head of state a purely ceremonial position. Problem solved.

[Bears Armed]

That said, I disagree that this proposal is self-contradictory. Let's look at Clause Seven:

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution bans non-democratic forms of government.

For this proposal to be self-contradictory, at least one of the clauses must contradict this clause i.e. at least one of the clauses must ban non-democratic forms of government. Now let's go through each clause one by one:

REQUIRES all member states to select their head of state through a nationwide election based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age and who are citizens of said member state,

Nothing in this clause requires member states to give their heads of state any power or even to have a head of state. Figurehead heads of state exist IRL even in many democratic nations; non-democratic nations can simply vest sole power into the head of government. In addition to this, member states can simply allow just one candidate to run for the position, thus establishing a de facto autocracy. Therefore, this clause doesn't ban non-democratic forms of government and therefore doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

REQUIRES all member states to select the members of their legislature through divisional elections based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age, who are citizens of said member state and who reside in the division that the representative is representing,

Once again, there are no requirements that the legislature must have any power, be multi-party or even exist. Once again, then, this clause doesn't ban non-democratic forms of government and therefore doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

MANDATES that only one legislative representative may be elected per division during the course of any election,

This clause does nothing even to restrict non-democratic governments and therefore doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

REQUIRES all member states to select local representatives based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age, who are citizens of said member state and who reside in the locality that the representative is representing,

Unlike the aforementioned clauses, this clause does require nations to hold elections for local representatives, but once again, there is nothing preventing non-democratic governments from restricting or removing all power from local representatives, nor are they prevented from requiring that all candidates are members of the same party. Once again, this clause doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

COMPELS all member states to establish an electoral commission which shall be independent of the executive, legislature and judiciary and which shall ensure that all elections mentioned above are conducted fairly and without internal or external intrusion,

I freely admit that this clause restricts totalitarian governments. However, as per the precedent set by Wallenburg vs. Patent Recognition Treaty, "to hold that mere recognition of a concept that a nation is ideologically opposed to is insufficient to warrant application of the rule". Totalitarian governments can still function with an independent electoral commission; they just have to be more creative with it, which is consistent with the principle that a resolution can restrict a particular form of government without banning it outright. Therefore, this clause doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

For all these reasons, though this proposal imposes restrictions on non-democratic forms of government, it doesn't ban them outright, meaning that it is neither internally contradictory nor a violation of the 'Ideological Ban' rule.

OOC: I'm considering this argument.
But if the proposal would do as little as you say, and bearing in mind that the Assembly's democratic members are likely to be following some of those rules already anyway, then no way is it 'Strong'...

[An Anarcho Syndicalist Commune]

Well what about kings? You don't vote for kings.

OOC: Make the king the head of government and make the head of state a purely ceremonial position. Problem solved.

OOC: That's as ridiculous as passing a resolution mandating that in every nation, including democracies, The Lady of the Lake has to choose a king, but he'll only be a figurehead. Okay, maybe not quite that ridiculous, but that's my point.

[An Anarcho Syndicalist Commune]

OOC: By the way, your proposal would outlaw the real-life electoral college in the USA. Wait. Maybe that's not such a bad thing.....

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I'm considering this argument.

OOC: I appreciate you reading through that large block of text.

But if the proposal would do as little as you say, and bearing in mind that the Assembly's democratic members are likely to be following some of those rules already anyway, then no way is it 'Strong'...

'Some' is rather the operative word here, and neither of us are in disagreement that this proposal would have a material effect on non-democratic nations. That said, I'm not too fussed about the strength; if it has to be made 'Mild' or 'Significant' then I'm fine with that.

OOC: By the way, your proposal would outlaw the real-life electoral college in the USA. Wait. Maybe that's not such a bad thing.....

OOC: The Electoral College is not an ideology.

[Wrapper]

OOC: The Electoral College is not an ideology.

Didn't say it was. Just pointing it out.

(Yes, that's me.)

[Bears Armed]

OOC; Quick comment, before I have to go offline: Some of the work-arounds that you suggest nations might use to avoid changing their governments significantly don't really seem like 'good faith' compliance... and proposals shouldn't assume deliberate non-compliance.

[Bananaistan]

REQUIRES all member states to select their head of state through a nationwide election based on a relative majority of all sapient individuals whose ages are the same as or higher than the voting age and who are citizens of said member state,

Nothing in this clause requires member states to give their heads of state any power or even to have a head of state. Figurehead heads of state exist IRL even in many democratic nations; non-democratic nations can simply vest sole power into the head of government. In addition to this, member states can simply allow just one candidate to run for the position, thus establishing a de facto autocracy. Therefore, this clause doesn't ban non-democratic forms of government and therefore doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

Yes it does. The mere fact that the head of state may be a figurehead is neither here nor there. You want the WA to dictate to all member states that their head of state must be elected. Just how would this fit with a monarchy, for example? It is an ideological ban as it has banned hereditary monarchies. And there’s the internal contradiction as well.

For all these reasons, though this proposal imposes restrictions on non-democratic forms of government, it doesn't ban them outright, meaning that it is neither internally contradictory nor a violation of the 'Ideological Ban' rule.

There may be an arguable point in respect of the legislature clauses. However, while the head of state clause exists, it’s unnecessary to look as far as them.

As for contradiction, let's look at Clause Four of GA #299 a.k.a. Legal Competence:

4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that in these cases a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.

This clause guarantees two rights: 1) The right to set a minimum voting age; and 2) the right to assign different thresholds for different minimum ages.

In regards to 1), since member states still retain the right to set an age of majority and since this proposal links the age of majority to the minimum voting age, member states still retain the right to set a minimum voting age. Therefore, this proposal is not contradictory in regards to 1).

In regards to 2), since member states still retain the right to assign different thresholds for, say, gambling and criminal responsibility, member states still retain the right to assign different thresholds for different minimum ages. Therefore, this proposal is not contradictory in regards to 2).

The proposal is contradictory in respect of point no 1 as you have linked age of majority with age of voting thereby removing the nation’s choice to have different thresholds of maturity for different rights or responsibilities. Clause 4 of GAR#299 specifically mentions political matters as an area in which nations may have a different threshold of maturity, effectively meaning that the voting age can be a standalone age completely unlinked to anything else as the member state’s discretion.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: The Electoral College is not an ideology.

Didn't say it was. Just pointing it out.

(Yes, that's me.)

PLOT TWIST!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g

proposals shouldn't assume deliberate non-compliance.

This ruling says otherwise (though in fairness to you, you were part of the dissent).

Nothing in this clause requires member states to give their heads of state any power or even to have a head of state. Figurehead heads of state exist IRL even in many democratic nations; non-democratic nations can simply vest sole power into the head of government. In addition to this, member states can simply allow just one candidate to run for the position, thus establishing a de facto autocracy. Therefore, this clause doesn't ban non-democratic forms of government and therefore doesn't contradict Clause Seven.

Yes it does. The mere fact that the head of state may be a figurehead is neither here nor there. You want the WA to dictate to all member states that their head of state must be elected. Just how would this fit with a monarchy?

...Have the monarch be the head of government instead?

And there’s the internal contradiction as well.

I went to great lengths to try to prove my argument. I'd appreciate it if you did the same for your counter-argument.

As for contradiction, let's look at Clause Four of GA #299 a.k.a. Legal Competence:

This clause guarantees two rights: 1) The right to set a minimum voting age; and 2) the right to assign different thresholds for different minimum ages.

In regards to 1), since member states still retain the right to set an age of majority and since this proposal links the age of majority to the minimum voting age, member states still retain the right to set a minimum voting age. Therefore, this proposal is not contradictory in regards to 1).

In regards to 2), since member states still retain the right to assign different thresholds for, say, gambling and criminal responsibility, member states still retain the right to assign different thresholds for different minimum ages. Therefore, this proposal is not contradictory in regards to 2).

The proposal is contradictory in respect of point no 1 as you have linked age of majority with age of voting thereby removing the nation’s choice to have different thresholds of maturity for different rights or responsibilities.

How does this proposal prevent nations from having different thresholds of maturity for voting, gambling, sexual matters and operation of weapons?

[Bananaistan]

Yes it does. The mere fact that the head of state may be a figurehead is neither here nor there. You want the WA to dictate to all member states that their head of state must be elected. Just how would this fit with a monarchy?

...Have the monarch be the head of government instead?

You don't get to completely redefine concepts which have existed for hundreds of years (without at least writing something to that effect in your proposal). Nor do you get to force other nations into non-good faith creative compliance. The WA can't just decide that the monarch can no longer be head of state when the whole point of monarchies is that the monarch is head of state. To do so would be an ideological ban via indirect language.

I went to great lengths to try to prove my argument. I'd appreciate it if you did the same for your counter-argument.

It bans monarchies. Therefore it bans at least one form of democratic government (and probably many others too). Therefore there's an internal contradiction.

How does this proposal prevent nations from having different thresholds of maturity for voting, gambling, sexual matters and operation of weapons?

Why just list gambling, sexual matters and operation of weapons? Many different countries have differing rights and responsibilities linked to age of majority. The point is that you would now force such countries to also lump in the voting age with whatever else is considered part of the age of majority. And you can't do that as it entirely left to member states to decide what ages apply to whatever they want those ages to apply to and they can have as many differing thresholds if they wish.