[DRAFT] Fair Election Laws

[Neocity]

Fair Election Laws

Category: Political Stability

Strength: Mild

DEFINING elections as a political process in which more than one political organisation participates to formolu a ruling government for a country.

ADMITTING the fact, that election is the base core of a democratic rulership, and it encourages all citizens of a country to actively participate in the system and allows the citizens to feel a sense of control on their own country.

However, CONCERNED that despite being democratic in paper, many countries or rather certain individualsituations or political organization's in a country misusing the gaps left in a democracy to increase their power and hold it for an unusually a long amount of time, which often exceed their elected term. This increases the corruption within the system and render it null and void.

STRESSED, that in under-developed, developing and sometimes even in developed countries, the elections are not held fairly, in that case, the democratic aim is violated and as a result, the citizens suffer most. It is also notable, that often votes are bought by money and negative adventicement about candidates confuse the general public and often robs a qualified candidate of his or her desired position.

HEREBY enacts the resolution "Fair Election Laws", which;

1) Urges all WA nations with democratic aim and tradition to hold non-aligned, fairly contested elections.

2) Requires the government of a nation, if necessary, to form an Election Committee in the time of an election. The responsibility of this committee is to supervise the election and must be non-aligned.

3) November negative advertisements about any candidate should be allowed. The involved individuals should be punished accordingly.

4) The government or Election Committee should not allow any candidates with questionable background or charges against him or her to be nominated for a position.

5) The government or Election Committee will allow a fixed fund to be donated for advertising and other costs of the campaign to each political organisations.

6) The government or Election Committee will take full responsibility for any unfavourable incidents during the election campaign and election day and will punishment the involved individuals accordingly. They will also not tolerate an post-election mishaps and will punish the involved individuals accordingly to promote tolerance and patience toward the opponent.

7) No other nations will not intercept in the election of a nation in any way.

[San Hieronymi]

(( OOC Possibly illegal as an ideological ban against corrupt oligarchy. What is a "November Negative"? If this is in relation to US elections this could well be an illegal RL reference))

[Araraukar]

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum!

In case you are an actual newbie around here, this proposal attempt is pretty good for a first try, but I'm fairly sure that we already have a resolution that requires fair elections in nations that have elections.

[Neocity]

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum!

In case you are an actual newbie around here, this proposal attempt is pretty good for a first try, but I'm fairly sure that we already have a resolution that requires fair elections in nations that have elections.

Sorry. Yeah i am new.

[Tinhampton]

HEREBY enacts the resolution "Fair Election Laws", which;

Typically, GA resolutions only use the word "HEREBY" (in this case).

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ideological bans ban ideologies. It’s quite restricted in its application. People who want to spout things about the rules should take a look at the ruleset and then at my spreadsheet of GenSec rulings.

[San Hieronymi]

Ideological bans ban ideologies. It’s quite restricted in its application. People who want to spout things about the rules should take a look at the ruleset and then at my spreadsheet of GenSec rulings.

((OOC: Free Speech goes to the heart of an ideology. You simply couldn't run an oppressive dictatorship with American style free speech laws, can you point to any dictatorship that has absolute free speech? Certain things go to the heart of an ideology, if you take them away then it is simply impossible to have that type of state. There are only a small number of such issues but they do exist. This would be an ideological ban by the back door. That rule is there as far as I am aware to allow all the different sorts of nations to have a home here and allow them to participate in the WA.))

[Grays Harbor]

Fair Election Laws

Category: Political Stability

Strength: Mild

DEFINING elections as a political process in which more than one political organisation participates to formolu a ruling government for a country.

ADMITTING the fact, that election is the base core of a democratic rulership, and it encourages all citizens of a country to actively participate in the system and allows the citizens to feel a sense of control on their own country.

However, CONCERNED that despite being democratic in paper, many countries or rather certain individualsituations or political organization's in a country misusing the gaps left in a democracy to increase their power and hold it for an unusually a long amount of time, which often exceed their elected term. This increases the corruption within the system and render it null and void.

STRESSED, that in under-developed, developing and sometimes even in developed countries, the elections are not held fairly, in that case, the democratic aim is violated and as a result, the citizens suffer most. It is also notable, that often votes are bought by money and negative adventicement about candidates confuse the general public and often robs a qualified candidate of his or her desired position.

HEREBY enacts the resolution "Fair Election Laws", which;

1) Urges all WA nations with democratic aim and tradition to hold non-aligned, fairly contested elections.

2) Requires the government of a nation, if necessary, to form an Election Committee in the time of an election. The responsibility of this committee is to supervise the election and must be non-aligned.

3) November negative advertisements about any candidate should be allowed. The involved individuals should be punished accordingly.

4) The government or Election Committee should not allow any candidates with questionable background or charges against him or her to be nominated for a position.

5) The government or Election Committee will allow a fixed fund to be donated for advertising and other costs of the campaign to each political organisations.

6) The government or Election Committee will take full responsibility for any unfavourable incidents during the election campaign and election day and will punishment the involved individuals accordingly. They will also not tolerate an post-election mishaps and will punish the involved individuals accordingly to promote tolerance and patience toward the opponent.

7) No other nations will not intercept in the election of a nation in any way.

I don't see this as "Political Stability"
Political Stability - A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Also;

3) November negative advertisements about any candidate should be allowed. The involved individuals should be punished accordingly.

Why only November? That seems rather random and unnecessarily specific. The two sentences also appear to contradict each other.
(OOC: NS =/= US)

4) The government or Election Committee should not allow any candidates with questionable background or charges against him or her to be nominated for a position.

Well, this is rather vague.
Charges? Speeding ticket? It's a charge.
Questionable background? According to whom?

6) The government or Election Committee will take full responsibility for any unfavourable incidents during the election campaign and election day and will punishment the involved individuals accordingly. They will also not tolerate an post-election mishaps and will punish the involved individuals accordingly to promote tolerance and patience toward the opponent.

Vague and micromanagement at the same time. That's pretty special.

7) No other nations will not intercept in the election of a nation in any way.

Intercept what? Flyers and letters?

[The First German Order]

“... we don’t have elections.”

[Stoskavanya]

((OOC: Free Speech goes to the heart of an ideology. You simply couldn't run an oppressive dictatorship with American style free speech laws, can you point to any dictatorship that has absolute free speech? Certain things go to the heart of an ideology, if you take them away then it is simply impossible to have that type of state. There are only a small number of such issues but they do exist. This would be an ideological ban by the back door. That rule is there as far as I am aware to allow all the different sorts of nations to have a home here and allow them to participate in the WA.))

If that's the case then with the sheer amount of human rights legislation that the WA has, dictatorships are basically impossible.

[San Hieronymi]

((OOC: Free Speech goes to the heart of an ideology. You simply couldn't run an oppressive dictatorship with American style free speech laws, can you point to any dictatorship that has absolute free speech? Certain things go to the heart of an ideology, if you take them away then it is simply impossible to have that type of state. There are only a small number of such issues but they do exist. This would be an ideological ban by the back door. That rule is there as far as I am aware to allow all the different sorts of nations to have a home here and allow them to participate in the WA.))

If that's the case then with the sheer amount of human rights legislation that the WA has, dictatorships are basically impossible.

((OOC Free Speech is a bit more of an issue. It would be hard to effectively run a dictatorship but not impossible. I think of china here that has a lot of laws about these matters but still manages to be an effective oligarchy / dictatorship. Free Speech though is much more restricted even though it exists, so one can have it yet it could be pushed too far and make playing anything other than a democracy quite implausible. TBH I imagine a lot of WA members actually ignore WA resolutions though they are technically compliant, so that they can actually run an oppressive government, lets not make that more the case by passing this sort of legislation.))

[Araraukar]

If that's the case then with the sheer amount of human rights legislation that the WA has, dictatorships are basically impossible.

((OOC Free Speech is a bit more of an issue. It would be hard to effectively run a dictatorship but not impossible.))

OOC: Not difficult or impossible at all, and you don't even have to get very creative with your compliance. A lot of the resolutions, like Freedom of Expression, don't actually do what people think they do. Authoritarian dictatorships are completely possible. True communism might not be, because of the copyright/patent fuckery that GenSec declared legal, but even there you need just a little creativity to make it possible again.

[Masurbia]

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum!

In case you are an actual newbie around here, this proposal attempt is pretty good for a first try, but I'm fairly sure that we already have a resolution that requires fair elections in nations that have elections.

I second what Araraukar has said, and you can find the resolutions that covers this here.

[San Hieronymi]

((OOC Free Speech is a bit more of an issue. It would be hard to effectively run a dictatorship but not impossible.))

OOC: Not difficult or impossible at all, and you don't even have to get very creative with your compliance. A lot of the resolutions, like Freedom of Expression, don't actually do what people think they do. Authoritarian dictatorships are completely possible. True communism might not be, because of the copyright/patent fuckery that GenSec declared legal, but even there you need just a little creativity to make it possible again.

(( OOC I am not talking so much about current resolutions but on what would happen if a slow creep advanced with proposals like the one drafted above and the other draft proposal currently being worked on))

[Araraukar]

(( OOC I am not talking so much about current resolutions but on what would happen if a slow creep advanced with proposals like the one drafted above and the other draft proposal currently being worked on))

OOC: That "slow creep" has already happened pretty much as far as it can, without tripping over the ideological ban rule. EDIT: I suggest looking at the copyright and patent law resolutions' debate threads to see what I meant with the resistance, and there's at least one Legality Challenge thread somewhere on one of them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

(( OOC I am not talking so much about current resolutions but on what would happen if a slow creep advanced with proposals like the one drafted above and the other draft proposal currently being worked on))

OOC: That "slow creep" has already happened pretty much as far as it can, without tripping over the ideological ban rule. EDIT: I suggest looking at the copyright and patent law resolutions' debate threads to see what I meant with the resistance, and there's at least one Legality Challenge thread somewhere on one of them.

Or just go to my GenSec rulings catalogue, hit the column that says 'rules applied', go to the one that says 'Ideological Ban', and bam: viewtopic.php?p=31219662#p31219662

[Araraukar]

OOC: That "slow creep" has already happened pretty much as far as it can, without tripping over the ideological ban rule. EDIT: I suggest looking at the copyright and patent law resolutions' debate threads to see what I meant with the resistance, and there's at least one Legality Challenge thread somewhere on one of them.

Or just go to my GenSec rulings catalogue, hit the column that says 'rules applied', go to the one that says 'Ideological Ban', and bam: viewtopic.php?p=31219662#p31219662

OOC: That works for the challenge and the ruling, but the resolutions' debate threads, before they passed into resolutions, are valuable for understanding the pro-and-against stances, as well.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Or just go to my GenSec rulings catalogue, hit the column that says 'rules applied', go to the one that says 'Ideological Ban', and bam: viewtopic.php?p=31219662#p31219662

OOC: That works for the challenge and the ruling, but the resolutions' debate threads, before they passed into resolutions, are valuable for understanding the pro-and-against stances, as well.

Also linked my GenSec rulings catalogue, see the 'Proposal thread' column. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=394978 If you want the GenSec internal discussion thread, see that column too. If you want a short summary, see the Comments column. Everything is populated for [2017] GAS 4.

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 3 doesn't make sense, if November negative adverts are allowed, why are the candidates involved being punished? Also what is a November negative."

[Kenmoria]

“... we don’t have elections.”

"Then you shouldn't have to do anything."

[Mazemba]

Until such time as the Assembly mandates that all nations hold elections it's absurd to continue passing resolutions on how elections are to be conducted. It leaves us with allegedly pro-democracy legislation that finds fault with democratic nations while dictatorships and absolute monarchies are automatically compliant.

[Tinfect]

((OOC: Free Speech goes to the heart of an ideology. You simply couldn't run an oppressive dictatorship with American style free speech laws,

OOC:
Oh you sweet summer child.

can you point to any dictatorship that has absolute free speech?

Hi! This is the Imperium of Tinfect, your friendly, neighborhood Fascist Dictatorship! Won't you be my neighbor?

Certain things go to the heart of an ideology, if you take them away then it is simply impossible to have that type of state.

Unfortunately, the standing interpretation of the ideological ban rule doesn't agree with that.

There are only a small number of such issues but they do exist.

Mate ,government corruption isn't an ideology.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.
– Idi Amin

Q: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both of them guarantee freedom of speech.
A: Yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.
– Radio Yerevan

[Kenmoria]

"In the first clause, there should be an “s” on the end of “organisations” and I believe “formulu” should be “formulate”."