[GA - Passed] Repeal: "Debtor Voting Rights"

Status
Not open for further replies.
bowloftoast

bowloftoast

Not Just For Breakfast
Discord
bowloftoast

ga.jpg

Repeal: Debtor Voting Rights
Category: Repeal | GA #454
Proposed by: Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar | Onsite Topic​
General Assembly Resolution #454 “Debtor Voting Rights” (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the efforts of GA Resolution #454 to prevent debts from inhibiting a citizen's right to vote,

Understanding though brevity is important in many cases, the extreme it was brought to in this resolution was counter productive,

Seeing numerous loopholes in the resolutions that more cruel states could employ, such as, but not limited to:

  • Criminalizing outstanding debt under specific conditions to imprison the individual for the duration of the voting,

  • Making outstanding debt punishable by law through a choice of forfeiture of voting rights or imprisonment,

  • Passing legislation revoking the citizenship of a citizen, and thus their right to vote if they are indebted,
Understanding that the rights of those living in autocratic nations in regards to their political rights are not addressed,

Noticing the resolution does not specify on what debtors can not be stripped of the right to vote on,

Seeing that such a loosely worded clause is open to exploitation,

Believing the World Assembly Delegation of the nation which passed the legislation could write a more conclusive piece of legislation for this issue,

Hoping that member nations will create thoughtful and articulate legislation with regards to unforeseen consequences and in consideration to the variety of member states' cultural normalities on this issue,

Wishing that in the period the legislation is active its loopholes will not be exploited at the expense of the citizenry of nations across the multiverse,

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #454.
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!
 
Information For Voters: Foundationally, the target proposal remains sound. That it does not address every conceivable scenario where it may be skirted by nefarious governments does not preclude the possibility of future, enhancing proposals to address those vulnerabilities. The recent passage of GAR#450 (Don’t Kill the Poor Act) addressing an oversight in GAR#38 (Convention Against Genocide) shows how scenarios not considered at the time of passage of a law can be later addressed, without a wholesale repeal and replace. Although the ideas outlined in this repeal and the ideas outlined in DVR are linked, they remain separate issues: One relating to debt and imprisonment. One relating to debt and voting rights. As a result, and provided any supplementary legislation enhancing DVR does not tread on precisely the same ground, the concerns raised in this proposal can be addressed without the repeal. While some may see DVR as incomplete, incomplete is not the same as defective. In what it sets out to do, DVR still makes it very clear that no nation shall bar member nations from invoking a person's debts as reason to deprive that person of the right to vote. Legislation relating to debt and incarceration can, and likely will, come later.

For this reason, The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this proposal.
 
Last edited:
For
The third bullet is a bit of a stretch, but the first two are probable enough to support the repeal.
 
Pallaith:
Am I the only one who doesn’t consider these “loopholes” to actually be loopholes?
Click to expand...
Probably. When viewed in tandem with GAR#419, Nations have the right to deny prisoners a vote. By criminalizing debt and incarcerating those in debt prior to an election, 'Debtor Voting Rights' is easily usurped. The second possibility flows out of the first. For the same reason both the target and #419 can coexist, and to quote SL "...the law is silent on what people may be imprisoned for".
 
Leaning against, though I understand the possible loopholes and am still mulling over that.

Newbie question: what does "Reserved for IFV" mean, and why is there a "Reserved for ..." after each post?
 
I'm going to throw my own vote Against.

I find the repeal problematic in a variety of ways, but other than my belief the term "loophole" is misused here, I think the biggest problem is a belief that because this resolution didn't address every possible angle of the subject, it must be repealed in favor of one that does. As long as subsequent resolutions do not duplicate this one, they can coexist. If there are areas in the debtor issue that the WA wants addressed, they are welcome to draft and support legislation that does. Personally, a larger resolution that covers as much ground as possible is my preference, and is the norm in the WA, but it is not the only way we can handle business in the WA and is not in itself an automatic justification for opposing a resolution that doesn't. Short resolutions are fine if they do what they are designed to do and do it effectively and completely. This resolution, in my opinion, met that criteria, even if more angles to the issue of debtors could have been considered and the resolution expanded to take on more weight. Ultimately, of course, if the WA wants to insist that a resolution be as complex and consider all related aspects of its subject, they can do that and pass a repeal on those grounds. I think that is what is happening right now, but only the Believing and Hoping clauses in this repeal specifically make that case. I think more work on it could have been done to make that case more strongly and obviously, but instead it framed this as accidental deficiencies in the original resolution which simply is not an accurate reading of it.

Vote is now 9-7, so WA vote is still For.
 
Last edited:
Orven:
Leaning against, though I understand the possible loopholes and am still mulling over that.

Newbie question: what does "Reserved for IFV" mean, and why is there a "Reserved for ..." after each post?
Click to expand...

Sorry, should have addressed this. Every vote has an Information for Voters message provided by the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs. We put that IFV in the second post of these threads, but it wasn't written yet so we reserved the post for it.
 
Against.

Sure. This resolution is not ideal and can be used for malicious reasons as stated in above document. But repealing this only worsens the problem of protecting the voters in debt.

A flawed resolution is better than nothing.
 
I vote AGAINST. I think there can be a conversation about this, but it looks really foolish and targeting to literally repeal a resolution just passed.
 
Well, as the author of the repeal you are voting on, I can tell you we aren't against the concept. The idea is to repeal the flawed resolution so IA can implement better legislation on the subject, not strip rights from voters.
 
I vote for. (entirely on how hilariously wishywashy the whole god damned GA is with all these downright ridiculous proposal making it and then immediate overturns by these massive margins that originally got the damned thing passed in the first place.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top