[GA - Passed] Debtor Voting Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sil Dorsett

Sil Dorsett

The Belt Collector
-
-
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
sil_dorsett
Discord
sildorsett
ga.jpg

Debtor Voting Rights
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly hereby bars member nations from invoking a person's debts as reason to deprive that person of the right to vote.
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
The premise I'm for... But what a load of crap. Why are we letting something like this pass? I thought we voted against on resolutions that were too short or had bad grammar. Against
 
For...
...tentatively. My concern here is that this proposal will become one in a series, each attempting to limit a state's ability to suppress individual's rights to vote for every conceivable reason. Theoretically great, but with a cumulative effect of eventually making it impossible for nations to operate under dictatorship. While I am in full support of the most democratic possible forms of government for nations, it remains my belief that the WA should not be used as a hegemonic tool to make one (and only one) form of governance mandatory throughout the Assembly. I strongly feel that this cautionary caveat should be included in any IFV we generate.
 
It's short, which makes it controversial. I'm For. But based on previous voting tendencies, it really feels like there are a lot of hypocrites in the WA.
 
I count 12-4 so the vote is set to remain For.

I find Toast’s input very interesting. I personally don’t thinking dictatorships are the best form of government. I believe certain things should be prevented or opposed as a general matter. The resolution is stopping a practice that I do not believe should exist, and if that is hard for dictatorships that’s a bonus for me, but ultimately not a concern for me since I’m concerned with the subject matter.

There’s no grammar issue here Bob. The resolution is just short. That’s unusual for the WA, and for good reason. There aren’t many subjects that could be handled with such a straightforward approach without needing to consider other factors. Whenever a short one is proposed, it eventually becomes much longer after input and additional points are considered. I didn’t see that happen in the drafting of this resolution. Had I been there to try to extend the length, I honestly can’t think of what I would have added to it.

What would you, or others concerned with length, have added? A preamble condemning the practice and giving a monologue? Is there a time when this practice is okay or an exception that was missed?

Toast I will say that I share your concern to an extent. I don’t think there’s a lot of situations where this short resolution would work, and I’m not sure it’s something many people can pull off. I believe we are capable of drawing distinctions between these situations, we’ve done it before and we’ll do it again. If the resolution had merit, and I agree with its aim, I support it. The fact it is unusually short doesn’t change that for me, as long as it being short doesn’t interfere with its aims and sufficiently addressed the issue. If you guys don’t think it does that’s fine, but just because it’s short doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t meeting that standard.

And this is exactly why you guys should say more than just how you’re voting. A short resolution is particularly vulnerable to missing something, if I’m missing something let me know and I’ll reconsider my own take on the resolution.
 
The resolution assumes the right to vote in order for it to apply, if you have no elections or bar people in other ways... Then it really doesnt apply

For
 
bowloftoast:
For...
...tentatively. My concern here is that this proposal will become one in a series, each attempting to limit a state's ability to suppress individual's rights to vote for every conceivable reason. Theoretically great, but with a cumulative effect of eventually making it impossible for nations to operate under dictatorship. While I am in full support of the most democratic possible forms of government for nations, it remains my belief that the WA should not be used as a hegemonic tool to make one (and only one) form of governance mandatory throughout the Assembly. I strongly feel that this cautionary caveat should be included in any IFV we generate.
Click to expand...

Much as I dislike agreeing with the above, I have to do so.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Against. It's a bad resolution. How did something so poorly drafted get this far?
Click to expand...
How is it poorly drafted? Is your objection simply that it’s too short, or that it is too short because it’s missing key provisions? I don’t find the argument that resolutions must be a certain length to be a compelling one but I would be interested in exploring specific deficiencies this particular one may have.
 
I think the proposal is elegant in its brevity. It says no more than it intends to. More resolutions should be like this, and I do not think length should even factor in to an effort to repeal.
 
El Fiji Grande:
I think the proposal is elegant in its brevity. It says no more than it intends to. More resolutions should be like this, and I do not think length should even factor in to an effort to repeal.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but with the caveat, already stated, that the short resolution better not give short shrift to an issue by virtue of being short. That’s where the length becomes important, and a crucial factor. In my judgment it isn’t the case here, and I am still waiting for those against to explain how I may be mistaken about that.
 
Pallaith:
How is it poorly drafted? Is your objection simply that it’s too short, or that it is too short because it’s missing key provisions? I don’t find the argument that resolutions must be a certain length to be a compelling one but I would be interested in exploring specific deficiencies this particular one may have.
Click to expand...
There are no preambular clauses, and thus no justification as to why this particular resolution is needed. Is this a widespread problem? Do the voting requirements of individual member nations impact the global community? How so?
It also assumes all nations conduct general elections, saying nothing of monarchies, dictatorships and the like. Or are they exempt? It does not make sense to say if you have a dictatorship, you'll be left alone, but should you decide to hold elections, the WA will be all up in your business.
 
Aganist.

The WA has never reconciled why countries that offer any sort of enfranchisement must conform to such standards, yet countries that offer no enfranchisement whatsoever are free to restrict political rights as they please.
 
Great Bights Mum:
There are no preambular clauses, and thus no justification as to why this particular resolution is needed. Is this a widespread problem? Do the voting requirements of individual member nations impact the global community? How so?
It also assumes all nations conduct general elections, saying nothing of monarchies, dictatorships and the like. Or are they exempt? It does not make sense to say if you have a dictatorship, you'll be left alone, but should you decide to hold elections, the WA will be all up in your business.
Click to expand...
Well that’s a much more coherent argument against that suggests some things were not properly considered. I’m still not big on the “bad for dictatorships” angle but I guess I get it. The argument does remind me a lot of the “this isn’t an international issue” one that comes up a lot. I’m not sure a preamble would have made a ton of difference in laying that out, but I can see why it had value in this case.
 
For. In the wake of PtEoI, which was written to be deliberately misleading, and Preventing Financial Crises, which is written entirely in financialese, Imperium Anglorum has finally done the sensible thing and cut down massively on word count and indecipherable jargon. Kudos to him.

IC: In our humble opinion, dictatorships and absolute monarchies have no place in the WA. If they don't like it, they can leave.
 
Voting Against.

The nation of Buckerino, despite upholding the sacrosanctity of democratic principle, believes that there are edge cases in which this resolution would fail to capture. The resolution fails to consider and clarify the cases where,

a) the debtor is incarcerated for the sole reason of debt,
b) the debtor has declared bankruptcy,
c) the debtor fails to pay their taxes, and whether that falls another category of taxation crime

and whether all the above are implicitly covered under this resolution.

Hence, considering the facts above, the nation of Buckerino votes against this resolution unless a proper amendment is made later on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top