[GA - PASSED] Repeal: "Elections and Assistance Act"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
-
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Boston Castle
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Repeal: "Elections and Assistance Act"
Category: Repeal | GA #130
Proposed by: Hulldom | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Promoting Democratic Stability Act


General Assembly Resolution #130 “Elections and Assistance Act” (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Noting that promoting democratic transitions and democracy is a noble goal and is indeed the purpose of this resolution, but

Believing that this resolution, while well intentioned, falls well short in a variety of ways in regards to promoting democratic transitions,

Acknowledges that the “encouragement” of Article 2, Section 3 is self-defeating in that the lack of mandate on member states to have an independent, even if state-affiliated, body to conduct elections can lead to abuse by interested parties on their favored candidate or side’s behalf thus undermining the very principle of free and fair elections and opening up the potential for manipulation of elections through corrupt practices;

Notes that the lack of an explicit mandate to be rid of electoral systems with an in-built “disproportionate advantage”, as in Article 2, Section 4 allows for the creation of election systems which, while ostensibly fair, do in the end bias some constituency over another and that the lack of a mandate for fair electoral systems here undermines considerably the creation of fair systems as noted in Article 3, Section 2 by the Organization for Election Assistance (hereinafter the OEA) as member nations could conceivably cite obviously flawed systems as fair as there are no mandates to the contrary;

Recognizes that the non-binding nature of Article 3, Section 2 undermines Article 3, Section 3 as while the OEA may assist in the creation of electoral systems, there is no mandate for nations which call on the OEA's assistance to craft fair electoral systems, thus defeating any purpose that the OEA’s advisory capacity may have in establishing “democratic principles”;

Observes that Article 3, Section 4’s provisions for voluntary election monitoring, on the proviso that the OEA is asked, is contradicted by Sections 5 and 6 which set up mandatory oversight and monitoring provisions which do not require a nation’s consent for implementation;

Discerns that Article 3, Section 5’s provisions for the monitoring of unfair practices do not provide for an investigatory role, only an oversight one, thus hindering the ability of the OEA to deem elections as “free and fair” as there is no mechanism to prove definitively that voter fraud, voter intimidation, or vote buying occurred as there is no way for the OEA to effectively gather data except for through non-compliance proceedings;

Sees that “reasonable consideration” as noted in Article 3, Section 7 is not defined in non-binding OEA vote counts, thus leaving the door open for malign member state actors to potentially disregard the OEA’s tally in electoral disputes, thereby throwing earlier mandates for fair conduct into doubt and disrupting any utility that the monitoring powers granted to aforementioned body in Article 3, Section 6 might have in ensuring that "transitioning nations" successfully conduct free and fair elections; and

Noticing these faults with this resolution as a whole and deeming it unsatisfactory;

Hereby repeals GA #130 “Elections and Assistance Act”.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!

[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]8[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]

"Repeal: 'Elections and Assistance Act'" has passed 11,691 votes (83.4%) to 2,319 (16.6%).
 
Last edited:
IFV

Overview
This proposal seeks to repeal GA#130, "Elections and Assistance Act" for a variety of reasons. Namely, the author points out issues with the mandates laid down on the Office of Electoral Administration (OEA) created by the act and how the proposal contradicts itself with its labyrinths of suggestions, recommendations, and mandates. Further, this resolution also contains an assault on the sweeping powers given the OEA when it contains mandates on admittedly pithy subjects and simply recommendation power over subjects highly consequential to election administration.

Recommendation
Admittedly, our recommendation might be different were there not a replacement on the way through the drafting process. However, this resolution does represented a tangled mess with weak powers for a vital organization where there ought to be strong ones and strong ones where the powers ought to be weak powers for individual action. It is hard for us to countenance the idea that an organization meant to promote democratic transitions could have sweeping powers to invite itself in but minimal powers to investigate cases referred to it. It is those sorts of contradictions that undermine this resolution's goal of promoting successful democratic transitions and renders us amenable to repeal. For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Repeal: 'Elections and Assistance Act'".

Our IFV Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!
 
Last edited:
Non-WA opposed.
Repeal is all voluntary this, non-binding that, but no replacement is ensured. Bizarre
 
Non-WA opposed.
Repeal is all voluntary this, non-binding that, but no replacement is ensured. Bizarre
If you read the thread, where I clarified this, I will be working on a replacement. I need to find the time in my RL schedule to actually work on something unique right now. My hope is to have a replacement first draft by the time this gets to vote, should it.
 
If you read the thread, where I clarified this, I will be working on a replacement. I need to find the time in my RL schedule to actually work on something unique right now. My hope is to have a replacement first draft by the time this gets to vote, should it.
This is still unacceptable. There is no pressing urge that needs this resolution to be repealed. The repeal should had waited until the replacement was ready to go before being submitted.
 
This is still unacceptable. There is no pressing urge that needs this resolution to be repealed. The repeal should had waited until the replacement was ready to go before being submitted.
Alright, let's lay this one out.

I'd been sitting on this repeal for months now and did a substantial re-write. I chose to submit it today largely for the reasons IA submitted his repeal on.

As for why no replacement is ready: 1) I had only thought up an idea for a novel re-interpretation of the idea in the last week or so and I'm still trying to mold it in my head before putting it on paper, 2) I'm working a real-life job which requires my real-life time which has real-life responsibilities, 3) I'm completing my degree this year and I'm taking multiple classes this semester which are time intensive to the point they stifle any time I have for anything overly creative, 4) I'll also begin, shortly, the process of applying to get my PhD in Political Science, something which will be an additional drain on time. While I can be around to bug you all about IFVs and to work on some smaller projects of mine, I cannot just conjure up things on the drop of a hat and I'm sorry I don't have all of the time and energy you require of me.

I will be writing one, but I am quite sorry that original proposals in a fictional assembly in an online game is not necessarily my number one priority at the moment. Going forward, I'll be sure to prioritize this game like I did during the January-May term, maybe then we'll recognize the results of an almost sycophantic dedication to one thing.
 
Alright, let's lay this one out.

I'd been sitting on this repeal for months now and did a substantial re-write. I chose to submit it today largely for the reasons IA submitted his repeal on.

As for why no replacement is ready: 1) I had only thought up an idea for a novel re-interpretation of the idea in the last week or so and I'm still trying to mold it in my head before putting it on paper, 2) I'm working a real-life job which requires my real-life time which has real-life responsibilities, 3) I'm completing my degree this year and I'm taking multiple classes this semester which are time intensive to the point they stifle any time I have for anything overly creative, 4) I'll also begin, shortly, the process of applying to get my PhD in Political Science, something which will be an additional drain on time. While I can be around to bug you all about IFVs and to work on some smaller projects of mine, I cannot just conjure up things on the drop of a hat and I'm sorry I don't have all of the time and energy you require of me.

I will be writing one, but I am quite sorry that original proposals in a fictional assembly in an online game is not necessarily my number one priority at the moment. Going forward, I'll be sure to prioritize this game like I did during the January-May term, maybe then we'll recognize the results of an almost sycophantic dedication to one thing.
Why would you submit a proposal prematurely for such an inane reason? There are like 3 proposals waiting to go to vote, and another one once Morover submits his replacement for his proposal. Doing something because IA did it is not a 'pressing urge'. You could had just waited until you had the time to draft your replacement before going forward with this, and no one would complain about it. It's a cliché yes, but proposal writing is a marathon not a sprint. If it's not ready, it's not ready, don't submit it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has told you it would be a good idea to submit this, so you've done no one any favours with this sloppiness. I would recommend withdrawing this proposal until you have the time to properly campaign and argue for it and the replacement.

Also, antagonising me/throwing yourself a pity party when you're in the wrong: not appreciated.
 
Why would you submit a proposal prematurely for such an inane reason? There are like 3 proposals waiting to go to vote, and another one once Morover submits his replacement for his proposal. Doing something because IA did it is not a 'pressing urge'. You could had just waited until you had the time to draft your replacement before going forward with this, and no one would complain about it. It's a cliché yes, but proposal writing is a marathon not a sprint. If it's not ready, it's not ready, don't submit it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has told you it would be a good idea to submit this, so you've done no one any favours with this sloppiness. I would recommend withdrawing this proposal until you have the time to properly campaign and argue for it and the replacement.

Also, antagonising me/throwing yourself a pity party when you're in the wrong: not appreciated.
Not really throwing myself a pity party, simply explaining what's on my plate at this point. And for the record, I don't need any other person's approval to submit anything--it's nice to have, but it's definitely not required.
 
This proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being marked illegal, this will go to a vote at Major Update on either Saturday, September 11 or Wednesday, September 15, this will be dependent on whether or not Repeal: "Marine Protection Act" makes the queue which it has not just yet.
 
With all due respect, is that even a viable career choice? I mean, other than in academia.
Keep it to the bounds of the resolution, but I'd rather be happy and modestly well-off than have pursued something explicitly for the money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top