WA Voting Regulation Act

The following Act shall be added to Chapter 6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific (the Legal Code):

Section 6.7: WA Voting Regulation Act

35. The Delegate's vote on all World Assembly (WA) resolutions shall be determined by referendum conducted on The North Pacific's offsite forum and open to all residents of The North Pacific.

36. The Delegate may require residents to disclose any other region(s) in which they have voted or will vote upon a particular WA resolution. The Delegate must clearly indicate that such disclosure is required before voting begins.

37. The Delegate shall penalize failure to disclose WA voting in other regions through the following "three strikes" system:
a) Strike 1: The Delegate will issue a warning that the resident has failed to disclose other regions in which he or she has voted.
b) Strike 2: The Delegate will reject the resident's vote on that particular WA resolution.
c) Strike 3: The Delegate will bar the resident from voting on WA resolutions for a temporary period of time, up to three months.

38. The Delegate shall be empowered to override the results of a referendum on a WA resolution when:
a) A majority of votes cast were cast by residents who have voted in multiple regions; and
b) The Delegate judges that the vote determined by the referendum would be detrimental to the interests of The North Pacific.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that this is a compromise that will address the concerns of both sides of the WA voting policy debate:

1. It will restore the right of every citizen -- indeed, every resident -- of The North Pacific to vote on WA resolutions.

2. It will require disclosure of and hopefully discourage WA voting in other regions and will enforce disclosure without criminal charges.

3. It will allow the Delegate to reject the outcome of referendums in which those voting in multiple regions are the majority when the Delegate judges that the outcome would be detrimental to TNP interests.

Thoughts are welcome.

Cormac and I discussed the various thoughts people had on the current system of WA voting and on the previous way of doing things. We agreed on this plan and were able to reach what I think is a reasonable compromise. I agree with him on the listed benefits of this method.

It is my understanding that Eluvatar will also support this plan. Though he can elaborate on this further.

It's possible we could enact this as another council of five policy, without having to go down the legislative path. The positive of legislating it, is that it should be longer lasting than simply who is the delegate at the time.

A complete capitulation which isn't that much better than the previous policy. It feeds this idea that cosmopolitanists are somehow bad, or don't have the regions interests at heart, and also feeds this addiction to information that the delegate and government has no right to have.

I will not be following this law.

Ever.

Absolute garbage and undermines everything you've stood for, Cormac.

The required "disclosure" information is irrelevant information meant to further stigmatize multiple-region voters -- like putting a scarlet letter or a pink triangle on them. In addition to giving election fodder to shock-and-awe regionalist politicians.

You want to have a safety mechanism against voter infiltration? There's no need for the disclosed information to be displayed publicly unless you want to stigmatize them. The whole system for mandatory disclosure should have an arbiter in between. The delegate, MoWA or Co5 should go to the Court with probable cause that there has been an attempt to undermine the North Pacific through the WA. The Court then decides if there is probable cause to think that and can demand the individual disclose privately to the court where the citizen also voted. This information should never be released publicly until a trial occurs for voter infiltration.

But what needs to be distinguished is between the dude who has strong convictions about something and votes in several of his regions and the dude who is ordered by X to go vote for Y in A, B and C. This isn't easy and cannot be distinguished with just knowledge of what regions they posted in -- which is why the whole public disclosure method was too unbalanced to begin with because it gave you information that by itself wasn't really telling you if there was a true infiltration or not -- but certain Regionalists would have used this information as though it was.

The whole notion of "discouraging WA voting in other regions" is meddling in social engineering where the government does not belong -- is does not effect the North Pacific and it does not concern the North Pacific. It's simply a pet peeve of Regionalists that is the -right- of our residents to do. If they want to "discourage" it, these people can rationally discuss the merit of it and try to convince people not to do it -- not pass red tape laws or stuff that overrides their vote.

Finally, the idea that one individual can decide the regions' interests is completely contradictory to the point of having a vote on the WA affairs in the first place. In the system I have laid out -- true criminals would have their vote simply removed, but otherwise, depicting people who have voted elsewhere as "not caring about the regions' interests" is a faulty and gross assumption and it's scary that it's being used as pretense for authoritarian intervention to "keep the region inline" -- gawd only knows what will happen when Regionalists design whole political policies along these lines (well.. look no further than the Pacific).

unibot:

The required "disclosure" information is irrelevant information meant to further stigmatize multiple-region voters -- like putting a scarlet letter or a pink triangle on them. In addition to giving election fodder to shock-and-awe regionalist politicians.

Click to expand...

Godwin fail.

That, by the way, is what is absolute garbage here.




On the OP, it isn't wasn't I'd ideally like to see but it does seem like a reasonable compromise. Thanks to Cormac and McM for working through this and producing a sensible solution.

I'm not too comfortable myself with having sole decision power to ignore a vote. I suppose I'll just implement it in practice as a Council discussion.

My concern is the language of the Court's ruling, which I consider unfortunate and not helpful in other ways.

We may need to add a couple of definitions to the Legal Code as a first step, and if that doesn't do the trick with the Court, then we'll aim for Constitutional amendments.

Seems overly complicated. I'll review it further tonight. I agree with Elu's sentiments regarding the ability of the Delegate to override a vote on his own.

Perhaps this Could be enacted as a council of five policy first.

the Council of Five is unlikely to adopt this motion.

'tis a fact.

Mahaj:

the Council of Five is unlikely to adopt this motion.

'tis a fact.

Click to expand...

What makes you say that?

madjack:

A complete capitulation which isn't that much better than the previous policy.

Click to expand...

unibot:

Absolute garbage and undermines everything you've stood for, Cormac.

Click to expand...

I think we had very different goals and you've been assuming that I shared yours. My goal was to ensure that every citizen of The North Pacific has a vote on WA resolutions, not to advance a cosmopolitan agenda that makes voting in multiple regions easy and comfortable while aiming for an elusive "total victory" that would take months to achieve if it ever could be achieved -- all the while leaving a large number of citizens without a vote on WA resolutions.

Would I prefer that we simply return to the previous WA voting policy? Yes, I would, but a large number of RA members obviously do not favor a return to that policy. Compromise is necessary unless one would rather see a large number of TNP citizens indefinitely disenfranchised in the pursuit of cosmopolitan ideology, which I would not.

In regard to implementing this as a Co5 policy rather than legislation, I'm fine with that.

Seems unneeded. Would it not simply be better to vote on whether to reverse the policy?

This is a compromise between the current two proposals (old system and WA in TNP or NPA membership). Rather than keeping the current system, or reverting to the old one, and keeping a significant amount of people unhappy.

mcmasterdonia:

Mahaj:

the Council of Five is unlikely to adopt this motion.

'tis a fact.

Click to expand...

What makes you say that?

Click to expand...

Just the dynamics of the group.

But who knows.

mcmasterdonia:

This is a compromise between the current two proposals (old system and WA in TNP or NPA membership). Rather than keeping the current system, or reverting to the old one, and keeping a significant amount of people unhappy.

Click to expand...

Even though it is clear that many people (myself included) don't support this compromise? I don't oppose it to be awkward, more because I think it's unworkable.

I am seeking an undoing of everything that has taken place on this topic by reiterating who has residency and citizenship in TNP, and thereby assure that all of those who are residents and citizens in TNP are entitled to participate in the determination of how the region's WA vote(s) are cast.

As I've pointed out in the thread proposing to add a definition of residency, citizenship, and governmental authorities to the Legal Code, there is nothing that prevents someone from having a homeland outside TNP and having TNP be their home as far as their TNP nation is concerned. (Not a novel idea, it's been part of TNP via Court decision for over two years now.)

I believe that is the way to get much closer to a middle ground than this bill or the Co5 policy, and reasonably get this issue behind us.

Sorry for lack of understanding but could you explain your last post means Grosse?


Who would be against simply reverting the policy? That would avoid ill effects of changing the laws.

Chasmanthe:

Sorry for lack of understanding but could you explain your last post means Grosse?


Who would be against simply reverting the policy? That would avoid ill effects of changing the laws.

Click to expand...

Chasmanthe, rather than hijack this thread, it might be better to take this to the other thread at Defining Terms.

I hate clause 35. It forces non-forum residents to come here and I don't like that much at all.

I applaud the effort to compromise, but I will continue to fight for all RA members to have a vote on WA issues regardless of their extra-regional affiliation.

punk d, then you should be supporting my proposal to define certain terms in our fundamental laws in the other thread.

I'm still not inclined to support any version of the WA Voting Regulation Act offered so far.

Grosseschnauzer:

I am seeking an undoing of everything that has taken place on this topic by reiterating who has residency and citizenship in TNP, and thereby assure that all of those who are residents and citizens in TNP are entitled to participate in the determination of how the region's WA vote(s) are cast.

As I've pointed out in the thread proposing to add a definition of residency, citizenship, and governmental authorities to the Legal Code, there is nothing that prevents someone from having a homeland outside TNP and having TNP be their home as far as their TNP nation is concerned. (Not a novel idea, it's been part of TNP via Court decision for over two years now.)

I believe that is the way to get much closer to a middle ground than this bill or the Co5 policy, and reasonably get this issue behind us.

Click to expand...

Your proposal does not accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. Also what is the deal with the sudden desire to place residency in the Legal Code? Did the Court try to take that away at some point without me knowing?

I would like to point out until this gets to the voting floor, which it has NOT, Eluvatar has no right to put strikes out on anyone.

Yes, he does.

flemingovia:

Yes, he does.

Click to expand...

That's an egregious use of authority.

And yet still allowed.

Govindia:

flemingovia:

Yes, he does.

Click to expand...

That's an egregious use of authority.

Click to expand...

It's a proper use of the authority given him by current law. He can vote on WA resolutions however he wants, ergo he can establish any criteria for counting people's votes since he doesn't actually have to count anyone's votes in the first place and is, under current law, basically doing so as a courtesy. But if you really disagree feel free to file a petition with the Court so they can tell you the exact same thing.

Gov,

he's got the authority to do it. You gotta let this go man. I don't like not being able to vote, but the court has ruled (again, I don't agree) but wth, what are laws for if we cannot follow the ones we don't like?

This body is here to persuade others to our position, but if we lose a battle, we need to be able to demonstrate the maturity that comes from being members of a civil society.

/rant

You can vote now Punk. You just need to disclose where else you have voted.

Thank you McM, I guess that's better.

Do you still wish to propose this matter to the RA Cormac or shall I shelve this, since as you said legislating on something that is already in practice is a bit redundant?

In regard to implementing this as a Co5 policy rather than legislation, I'm fine with that.

Click to expand...

If you are fine with people with having their privacy harassed and receded to meet fearmongers' demands, I expect your resignation from the Liberty Party effective immediately.

As I have stated, if you want the information collected of where people have voted -- this information needs to be kept private to the courts. The only purpose this information serves to be made public is to stigmatize them and cause further cannon fodder for the Regionalist argument. The fact that you yourself recognized this then but now do not acknowledge this, is saddening and I think you have to explain to the Liberty Party why you received a lobotomy over this past week without informing your party members because I seriously think you're missing a piece of your previously-possessed intellect if you think this is an acceptable compromise.

I don't think the opposition to the Salem Witch-Hunts solved their political problem by going "let's make a compromise: everyone must say if they're a witch or not, but we promise not to burn you or whatever". It ended with people realizing witch-hunts are -stupid- and done by smart people in -stupid- public phenomenons that escalate and get out of control and -always- end up torching society metaphorically or in practice, so any compromise simply feeds more information to The Irrational and escalates things more and gives their unreasonable positions' too much public credibility.

This witch-hunt is going to conclude in one of two ways: people are going to leave and TNP is going to be empty for a few months because the Regionalists didn't play nice OR people are going to realize this fighting is stupid and equally enfranchise their colleagues who they should have listened to months ago because they had the greatest stake in whether non-WA members should be able to vote freely or not. If you go for compromise, you go for the former -- I'd like that not to happen. But compromises at this point WILL only escalate the problem, not resolve it.

Kingborough:

Do you still wish to propose this matter to the RA Cormac or shall I shelve this, since as you said legislating on something that is already in practice is a bit redundant?

Click to expand...

Feel free to shelve it; now that it's been adopted as executive policy I see no need to legislate it. Leaving it as executive policy will allow this Delegate and later Delegates the flexibility to fine tune it or to scrap it completely if they believe it is ineffective.

Unibot - I have no intention of resigning from the Liberty Party based on the demands of one member. I have not violated the Liberty Party platform in any way by seeking this compromise; in fact, this compromise has ensured that citizens can vote on WA resolutions regardless of their WA status much more quickly than absolutism and refusal to compromise would have. I would encourage you to take any further public discussion of my status in the Liberty Party to the Liberty Party's thread (here) since this is an internal Liberty Party matter and has no business in the Regional Assembly.

I have split as much of the discussion of the Flemingovian proposal into its own thread, and I will now be locking this as it is no longer valid.