NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Promoting Democratic Stability Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Hulldom
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

[DRAFT] Promoting Democratic Stability Act

Postby Hulldom » Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:15 am

I think I have a reputation for being aspirational in this Assembly, I also think this strikes a fair balance between respecting national sovereignty and fulfilling my wildest IntFed dreams.

Yes, this is a #130 replacement. I thought of this sort of thing the other day and I think it goes back on #130 in ways that tighten it and also advances civil rights in a strong way.

Finally, if someone can help me tighten the language in clause 4 as it pertains to allowing MMPR, would appreciate it.

"As our Delegation is finally realizing its desire to repeal Resolution 1-3-0, we invite our fellow Ambassadors and interested staff to review a draft of our proposed replacement."
Image

Promoting Democratic Stability Act

Area of Effect: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the late repeal of GA#130,

Believing that promoting democratic transitions is a noble goal and one that should continue to be a priority, hereby:

  1. The following terms are defined for the purpose of this Act:
    1. ”Ballot” as any national vote held specifically to determine what policy or policies a Government is to adopt.
    2. “Election” as any vote held for the purposes of acclaiming an individual into a governmental office.
  2. Member states are bound to the following policies in the conduct of all local, regional, and national ballots and elections:
    1. No person shall, under penalty or cover of law, be forced to disclose for whom or what position they voted or be discriminated against on those grounds.
    2. All persons shall have the opportunity to cast their vote in private and without interference from outside parties.
    3. No person shall be discriminated against in casting their vote by virtue of when and how they choose to cast their vote or for not casting a vote.
    4. 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.
  3. Member states are encouraged to monitor for, and prosecute, fraudulent or dishonest practices relating to elections or ballots held in their state.
  4. The Office of Electoral Administration (hereinafter the OEA) will only enter a member state to assist with or monitor an election or ballot if that member state requests it.
  5. However, individual member states are reserved the right to set all further regulations pertaining to elections.
  6. OEA officials must 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 and must report any and all violations of the practices found in (2) to the World Assembly Compliance Commission for consideration of further sanction.
Last edited by Hulldom on Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:21 am, edited 25 times in total.
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3156
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:22 am

"Add something to the effect that all other regulations pertaining to elections are solely a matter for member states and not the WA and we'd consider supporting."
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Hulldom
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Hulldom » Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:51 am

Bananaistan wrote:"Add something to the effect that all other regulations pertaining to elections are solely a matter for member states and not the WA and we'd consider supporting."

OOC: That's not a terrible idea, though I do worry if such a provision would violate applicability rules.

"We'll be adding something to that affect, Ambassador."

Edit: maybe? I don't think clauses 4 and 5 necessarily matter, but I can definitely add "if member states hold elections" there as well.
Last edited by Hulldom on Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7992
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:34 am

"Very well-put-together, Ambassador. On a cursory read-through, it appears without issues, save for one concern I have. In Article 2(d), you provide protection against discrimination based on immutable characteristics. I believe that this should be expanded to also provide protection against discrimination based on political orientation and beliefs. Other than that, no issues for now."

User avatar
Gonswanza
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Aug 13, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gonswanza » Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:41 am

"As effective as this may be, it does leave many questions. For example, local laws may have it to where the ruling party would simply lack the ability to run a campaign so as to offer a level playing field to other parties in some countries, while the opposite holds true in other regions. Would that, technically, be in violation of Article 8 and/or 9? Especially when Gonswanzan elections tend to rely upon such a law (majority/ruling party campaigns ahead of the rest) to uphold order through a majority rule despite holding democratic elections in a system with multiple parties competing for control, given various and conflicting ideals among said parties."
Totally not another SEA nation, I swear...

Praise our glorious president Mawar Al-Sherbak!

Nuke moment

Amistad Declaration signatory! Down with slavery!

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9057
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:46 am

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: No support while the OEA is allowed to dictate, under any pretext, how any member state's legislature or executive ought to be elected.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart

User avatar
Comfed
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1198
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:51 am

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: No support while the OEA is allowed to dictate, under any pretext, how any member state's legislature or executive ought to be elected.

The OEA only has authority under jurisdictions where they are invited.

User avatar
Hulldom
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Hulldom » Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:03 am

Gonswanza wrote:"As effective as this may be, it does leave many questions. For example, local laws may have it to where the ruling party would simply lack the ability to run a campaign so as to offer a level playing field to other parties in some countries, while the opposite holds true in other regions. Would that, technically, be in violation of Article 8 and/or 9? Especially when Gonswanzan elections tend to rely upon such a law (majority/ruling party campaigns ahead of the rest) to uphold order through a majority rule despite holding democratic elections in a system with multiple parties competing for control, given various and conflicting ideals among said parties."

"As with the Honorable Ambassador from Tinhampton, my answer is the same. Provisions which deal with the OEA are only in force and enforceable on your nation if you invite the OEA into your nation. Otherwise, we only ask you respect clauses 2-5."
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Gonswanza
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Aug 13, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gonswanza » Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:07 am

Hulldom wrote:
Gonswanza wrote:"As effective as this may be, it does leave many questions. For example, local laws may have it to where the ruling party would simply lack the ability to run a campaign so as to offer a level playing field to other parties in some countries, while the opposite holds true in other regions. Would that, technically, be in violation of Article 8 and/or 9? Especially when Gonswanzan elections tend to rely upon such a law (majority/ruling party campaigns ahead of the rest) to uphold order through a majority rule despite holding democratic elections in a system with multiple parties competing for control, given various and conflicting ideals among said parties."

"As with the Honorable Ambassador from Tinhampton, my answer is the same. Provisions which deal with the OEA are only in force and enforceable on your nation if you invite the OEA into your nation. Otherwise, we only ask you respect clauses 2-5."

"And hence it is so... Even as it does seem a bit odd and mildly intrusive. For now, I withhold my support."
Totally not another SEA nation, I swear...

Praise our glorious president Mawar Al-Sherbak!

Nuke moment

Amistad Declaration signatory! Down with slavery!

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10767
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:28 am

How does this interact with something like a bicameral assembly?

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Hulldom
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Hulldom » Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:33 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:How does this interact with something like a bicameral assembly?

This is why I asked for help with clause 4.

I will admit that frankly this idea slipped my mind. I think it could be addressed even given the current wording, will edit it later.
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Hulldom
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Hulldom » Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:42 pm

Updating this, though not precisely a bump.

I have removed this clause to avoid duplication with GAR#310.
"Accommodations must be made so that the disabled are better able to cast a vote, though member states are bound to follow the provisions in 2(a) and 2(b) for their casting a vote should elections or ballots be held."

I have added a subclause under the "one person, one vote" clause to encompass multicameral legislatures. Finally, I merged the drawing of boundaries clause with its subclause.
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Hannasea
Diplomat
 
Posts: 549
Founded: Jul 23, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hannasea » Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:45 pm

"Add some language requiring all nations hold such elections and we will support this. Otherwise we will under no circumstances support legislation that dictates to democracies specific rules they must obey while allowing automcracies to entirely disregard them."

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

User avatar
Hulldom
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Hulldom » Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:48 pm

Hannasea wrote:"Add some language requiring all nations hold such elections and we will support this. Otherwise we will under no circumstances support legislation that dictates to democracies specific rules they must obey while allowing automcracies to entirely disregard them."

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

"We cannot do that for a variety of reasons."

OOC: Such would almost certainly make this DOA due to the Ideological Ban rule. No can do.
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Hannasea
Diplomat
 
Posts: 549
Founded: Jul 23, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hannasea » Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:53 pm

Hulldom wrote:
Hannasea wrote:"Add some language requiring all nations hold such elections and we will support this. Otherwise we will under no circumstances support legislation that dictates to democracies specific rules they must obey while allowing automcracies to entirely disregard them."

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

"We cannot do that for a variety of reasons."
"Yes, you can. That you are not willing to do so does of course mean we will not support this crushingly stupid imposition on democracies."

User avatar
Hulldom
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Hulldom » Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:26 pm

Hannasea wrote:
Hulldom wrote:

"We cannot do that for a variety of reasons."
"Yes, you can. That you are not willing to do so does of course mean we will not support this crushingly stupid imposition on democracies."

From the Rules Compendium:
"Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies."

That knife cuts both ways. I cannot do so and have it be legal.
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Scalizagasti
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 192
Founded: Jun 15, 2019
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Scalizagasti » Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:02 pm

Hulldom wrote:If a member states conducts elections or ballots, they are bound to the following policies in the conduct of all local, regional, and national ballots and elections:
  1. No person shall, under penalty or cover of law, be forced to disclose for whom or what position they voted or be discriminated against on those grounds.
  2. All persons shall have the opportunity to cast their vote in private and without interference from outside parties.
  3. No person shall be discriminated against in casting their vote by virtue of when and how they choose to cast their vote.
  4. 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.

Because you have defined ballot as "any vote held for the purposes of determining whether or not a Government shall take a course of action or adopt a specific policy," this would include legislative votes. Mandating that legislatures have all their votes held secretly is probably not your intention with this resolution, but with the current definition + clause 2 I would argue it is a side effect. You should make the definition of ballot more clearly reflect the idea of it being about referenda.

Hulldom wrote:This provision shall not apply in those member states which adopt a model which requires, or allows, individuals to cast multiple types of votes insofar as individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote in one electoral division.

What about in mixed-member proportional systems where there is more than one electoral division in which you vote? For instance voting for both your constituency and a larger, regional list.

Hulldom wrote:The Office of Electoral Administration (hereinafter the OEA) will only enter a member state to assist with or monitor an election or ballot if a member state requests it.

Just wondering, why only if a member state requests it? If a government is attempting to rig an election wouldn't OEA presence be most beneficial?
Last edited by Scalizagasti on Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Scalizagasti | iiwiki page | he/him

URA WA Affairs Department Head
Senator in Mariner Trench
Former President of The Great Experiment

Don't let them tell you it can't be done - Jack Layton

User avatar
Hulldom
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Hulldom » Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:08 pm

Scalizagasti wrote:
Hulldom wrote:If a member states conducts elections or ballots, they are bound to the following policies in the conduct of all local, regional, and national ballots and elections:
  1. No person shall, under penalty or cover of law, be forced to disclose for whom or what position they voted or be discriminated against on those grounds.
  2. All persons shall have the opportunity to cast their vote in private and without interference from outside parties.
  3. No person shall be discriminated against in casting their vote by virtue of when and how they choose to cast their vote.
  4. 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.

Because you have defined ballot as "any vote held for the purposes of determining whether or not a Government shall take a course of action or adopt a specific policy," this would include legislative votes. Mandating that legislatures have all their votes held secretly is probably not your intention with this resolution, but with the current definition + clause 2 I would argue it is a side effect. You should make the definition of ballot more precise to make it reflect the idea of referendum more clear.

Hulldom wrote:This provision shall not apply in those member states which adopt a model which requires, or allows, individuals to cast multiple types of votes insofar as individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote in one electoral division.

What about in mixed-member proportional systems where there is more than one electoral division in which you vote? For instance voting for both your constituency and a larger, regional list.

Hulldom wrote:The Office of Electoral Administration (hereinafter the OEA) will only enter a member state to assist with or monitor an election or ballot if a member state requests it.

Just wondering, why only if a member state requests it? If a government is attempting to rig an election wouldn't OEA presence be most beneficial?

1. Noted. That makes sense.
2. See my original note in the OP where I requested help in that. Though I believe 3(a) should help with that.
3. One of the issues in replacing 130 is that any positive mandate for international intervention would either (1) rely on self-reporting, which while not preferable, at least is sort of the point--our goal is ensuring that democratic transitions are successful, not that they are necessarily more likely (though the latter is, in my opinion, the correct opinion and the best course of action) or (2) necessarily have a mandate for intervention, which would lead, I'm almost certain, to the scurrilous accusation I'm embarking on a regime change effort (I'm not) and would imperil a replacement's passage period since the national sovereigntist block, lamentably, holds a sufficient number of votes to sink this. I agree with you on the notion that OEA presence would be beneficial in the event of outright fraud, but I'm also a realist, and see that a positive mandate for action when requested is better than no enforceable mandate as is the present.
Last edited by Hulldom on Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Scalizagasti
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 192
Founded: Jun 15, 2019
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Scalizagasti » Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:21 pm

Hulldom wrote:2. See my original note in the OP where I requested help in that. Though I believe 3(a) should help with that.

The OP mentioned clause 4 so I thought MMPR meant something else :p
Perhaps you could change "individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote in one electoral division" to "individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote once per category of electoral division." Or something like that. The idea is that you can vote once for the local constituency and once for the regional list, which are different "categories" of electoral divisions. Perhaps there is a better word for "category" that you could use.

If you want to be lazy, you could also mention MMP by name. Throw in a "... does not apply to systems such as mixed-member proportional" somewhere in the exceptions subclauses.

Hulldom wrote:3. One of the issues in replacing 130 is that any positive mandate for international intervention would either (1) rely on self-reporting, which while not preferable, at least is sort of the point--our goal is ensuring that democratic transitions are successful, not that they are necessarily more likely (though the latter is, in my opinion, the correct opinion and the best course of action) or (2) necessarily have a mandate for intervention, which would lead, I'm almost certain, to the scurrilous accusation I'm embarking on a regime change effort (I'm not) and would imperil a replacement's passage period since the national sovereigntist block, lamentably, holds a sufficient number of votes to sink this. I agree with you on the notion that OEA presence would be beneficial in the event of outright fraud, but I'm also a realist, and see that a positive mandate for action when requested is better than no enforceable mandate as is the present.

That makes sense.
Last edited by Scalizagasti on Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Scalizagasti | iiwiki page | he/him

URA WA Affairs Department Head
Senator in Mariner Trench
Former President of The Great Experiment

Don't let them tell you it can't be done - Jack Layton

User avatar
Hulldom
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Hulldom » Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:25 pm

Scalizagasti wrote:
Hulldom wrote:2. See my original note in the OP where I requested help in that. Though I believe 3(a) should help with that.

The OP mentioned clause 4 so I thought MMPR meant something else :p
Perhaps you could change "individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote in one electoral division" to "individuals shall still only be allowed to cast their vote once per category of electoral division." Or something like that. The idea is that you can vote once for the local constituency and once for the regional list, which are different "categories" of electoral divisions. Perhaps there is a better word for "category" that you could use.

If you want to be lazy, you could also mention MMP by name. Throw in a "... does not apply to systems such as mixed-member proportional" somewhere in the exceptions subclauses.

Hulldom wrote:3. One of the issues in replacing 130 is that any positive mandate for international intervention would either (1) rely on self-reporting, which while not preferable, at least is sort of the point--our goal is ensuring that democratic transitions are successful, not that they are necessarily more likely (though the latter is, in my opinion, the correct opinion and the best course of action) or (2) necessarily have a mandate for intervention, which would lead, I'm almost certain, to the scurrilous accusation I'm embarking on a regime change effort (I'm not) and would imperil a replacement's passage period since the national sovereigntist block, lamentably, holds a sufficient number of votes to sink this. I agree with you on the notion that OEA presence would be beneficial in the event of outright fraud, but I'm also a realist, and see that a positive mandate for action when requested is better than no enforceable mandate as is the present.

That makes sense.

I believe it should be fixed now, I made that wording exactly or near enough. For broader consumption: This necessitated adding a sub-clause which concerns STV/AV systems.

Also believe I fixed the ballot problem with the addition of a word. :p
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Tsaivao
Diplomat
 
Posts: 506
Founded: Apr 07, 2020
Anarchy

Postby Tsaivao » Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:46 am

Delegate Manhu chuckled to himself. "Someone let Baije in the Assembly behind my back? This sounds like a stepping stone closer to his brand of radical anti-monarchism. In any case, I do find this proposal palateable, and I am thankful of the necessary optionality in some parts."

"I would recommend including under Clause 2 protections for individual who do not choose to vote, as no-shows or spoilt ballots aren't explicitly protected. In One-Party states, often one's only resort to oppose is to avoid voting in the first place, but an individual who has been discovered to have not shown up to the ballot box can be... Persuaded. The protections in this legislation should cover those cases as well."
Last edited by Tsaivao on Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
~::~ May the five winds guide us to glory ~::~
OPERATION TEN-GO: Tsaivao Authority confirms wormhole drives based on alien designs are functional | Gen. Tsaosin: "Operational integrity is the key to our success against the xenic threat. In a week, we will have already infiltrated into their world." | All leaders of Tsaivao send personal farewells to Ten-Go special forces unit Tsaikantan-8
Nation doesn't reflect my personal beliefs, NS stats aren't really worried about except for Nudity because "haha funny"
The symbol on my flag is supposed to be a typhoon
Pro: LGBT, BLM, Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Rationalism
Neutral: Gun Rights, Abortion, Centrism
Anti: Trumpism, Radicalization, Fundamentalism, Fascism

User avatar
Hulldom
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Hulldom » Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:14 am

Tsaivao wrote:Delegate Manhu chuckled to himself. "Someone let Baije in the Assembly behind my back? This sounds like a stepping stone closer to his brand of radical anti-monarchism. In any case, I do find this proposal palateable, and I am thankful of the necessary optionality in some parts."

"I would recommend including under Clause 2 protections for individual who do not choose to vote, as no-shows or spoilt ballots aren't explicitly protected. In One-Party states, often one's only resort to oppose is to avoid voting in the first place, but an individual who has been discovered to have not shown up to the ballot box can be... Persuaded. The protections in this legislation should cover those cases as well."

“Duly noted. I shall add a provision or amend the language to that effect.”
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1704
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:49 am

“Electoral division” as a geographical area which exists for the purpose of electing a person into office.


is an odd definition, no? If I bought a square foot of land and plopped a sign saying Walrus 2024 on it, would that be an electoral division? Also, if I'm not mistaken, it would be that exists.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12662
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Outer Sparta » Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:55 am

Minskiev wrote:
“Electoral division” as a geographical area which exists for the purpose of electing a person into office.


is an odd definition, no? If I bought a square foot of land and plopped a sign saying Walrus 2024 on it, would that be an electoral division? Also, if I'm not mistaken, it would be that exists.

Electoral divisions are predetermined by a districting committee (or in the US, by politicians and you get extremely weird blobs and shapes as a result of gerrymandering). So no, you cannot just have a square foot of land especially since electoral divisions take population into account.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Hulldom
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Hulldom » Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:56 am

Minskiev wrote:
“Electoral division” as a geographical area which exists for the purpose of electing a person into office.


is an odd definition, no? If I bought a square foot of land and plopped a sign saying Walrus 2024 on it, would that be an electoral division? Also, if I'm not mistaken, it would be that exists.

The that/which distinction has never been my strong suit. On the second point, I disagree, but I can tighten the definition further.
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads