While some criminals and those that have gone to prison might have done horrible acts, most of the criminals are generally not that bad. Just like what Cocao has said, many of these criminals will serve long times in prison so that they will turn into better person and turn into a new leaf instead. Therefore, I believe that they should have the right just like any other individuals to be able to vote in the democratic process.
The quality of proposals has taken a huge drop lately. Yeah no, just because some crap proposal hit the voting floor in the SC (and got stomped accordingly) doesn't mean you can make some 2-liner repeal and expect it to pass.
I need more than one reason, or maybe I'm just bored and want to see some proposal die on the voting floor
There seems to be a general misunderstanding among the current votes cast by my region mates. Anatasha: This proposal's purpose is to replace this resolution with legislation that is pretty much identical, but will make it illegal to prevent incarcerated individuals from voting. If your stance is that criminals should be allowed to vote, you should be voting For. Doge Land: Just because a proposal is short does not mead it is bad. I personally find its argument to be quite compelling. :P
Anyway, I agree that prisoners should have the right to vote, and Article 3 of the target resolution could prevent them from having this right. Thus, the delegation from Concrete Slab is pleased to cast a For vote.
GA#419 allows almost all "Former Criminals," including "Killers," to vote in elections. I have a replacement that would expand the right to vote to all individuals who have been imprisoned for any reason at any point.
Prisoners should be allowed to vote for their political representatives just like any other citizen, and the repeal target currently prevents the WA from passing a resolution to this effect, which is a solid-enough argument for repeal in my eyes. Nonetheless, I'm not the biggest fan of the proposed replacement in its current form, and thus not really comfortable with supporting this repeal (which would strike the protections for ex-inmates the original resolution already provided, possibly for a longer period of time should the replacement fail at vote) at this time, without a promising replacement ready for submission - contrary to repeals, which (as Tinhampton has pointed out) may indeed argue their case convincingly in very few words, regular legislation should consist of more than a couple of lines, in order to be able to properly and thoroughly address a topic without leaving sneakily exploitable loopholes.
Where are the "sneakily exploitable loopholes" in my proposed replacement, the full text of which is reproduced below?
Believing that those member states which choose to hold democratic elections should ensure that all eligible people can take part in those elections, no matter their circumstances, the General Assembly hereby:
requires members to ensure that no person within their jurisdiction is prevented (or otherwise unduly restricted) from voting in a election for public office simply because they currently are, or have previously been, imprisoned as punishment for a crime, and
clarifies that Article a does not require elections for public office to be organised in any member state.
Proposal title:'Freedom of Dress' Author:Tinhampton Purpose: To reserve the question of whether to permit clothing to the individual member states and guarantee citizens of such non-nudist states a right to dress freely provided they cover body parts considered greatly private and don't impersonate officials.
Seeking to outlaw arbitrary and discriminatory clothing guidelines for member states' citizens - in itself an admirable goal -, the at-vote resolution "Freedom of Dress" carries a number of problems that ultimately render it unfit for passage by the General Assembly. The point brought up most often is the incredibly marginal issue being legislated on - clothing-based discrimination could just as well be addressed by individual member states themselves in accordance with extant, broader WA law against discrimination. Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding the wording of clause a, allowing member states to force their citizens to be nude - ultimately defeating the proposal's goal of allowing every individual to dress freely from state interference. Thus, OWL recommends a vote AGAINST the at-vote resolution, "Freedom of Dress".
I'm not really an avid loophole-hunter - I meant that more in a general sense, as the shorter a proposal is, the less ground it can cover, and the more likely it is that due to some technicality emerging from lacking details a nation not willing to comply with the intended spirit of the law can instead creatively comply with the hard letter.
But for example here - where the repeal target banned "criminal activity" in general from being invoked as justification for excluding ex-inmates from the right to vote (thus including the mere conviction), your proposed replacement only refers to imprisonment - the sentence, not the conviction - in this capacity. I think that could be seen as dropping those original protections from discrimination on the grounds of one's criminal record in general. That would mean a nation could then theoretically strip prisoners of their suffrage because they've been convicted of a crime - invoking the conviction - and not because they're imprisoned for that crime - the sentence. Even if we interpret the letter of the law more broadly, in its current form it would be completely legal to exclude, say, a pickpocket from the right to vote because they've been convicted and fined and therefore cannot ever possibly become an upstanding citizen again - this would have been illegal under the repeal target as it invoked past criminal activity, but not so with your replacement, as it wouldn't invoke them being/having been imprisoned as reason. (Also I believe preambles should be a bit longer than a single line, but that's more of a personal thing.)
I agree with The United Protectorate of Tepertopia and others that the currently suggested replacement proposal needs to be a bit more fleshed out. I support voting rights for inmates and formerly incarcerated persons, so I would not want to repeal the protection that exists for formerly incarcerated persons under the current resolution without a strong replacement waiting and ready to go. Will wait to see if the author is receptive to feedback and makes any changes. :)
NEW SECURITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL DISCUSSION AND VOTE ---------------------------------------------------
Title:Commend The Atlae Isles Author:Zukchiva (co-authored by Libertanny) Purpose: To honor The Atlae Isles' achievements, which generally include Issues-authoring and prominent participation in R/D, and in particular their service to TEP such as reviving the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army or building TEP's regional card program, with a shiny badge of commendation.
Please discuss and vote on how regional nations and the Delegate should vote on this proposal. Always remember to include the name of the resolution you are talking about in your posts to avoid confusion!
Good ambassador from The Langburn Islands, I'm curious as to what requirements nations must meet in order to earn a commendation under your standards. The Atlae Isles is a three-time issues author and, if the proposal is true, has helped to strengthen ties between the militaries of the South Pacific and The East Pacific. Furthermore, The Atlae Isles played a pivotal role in the defense of South Pacific, a region with a special place in my heart. The delegation from Concrete Slab is proud to cast a For vote.
Well written draft to Commend a long-time region builder in a close ally of the Coalition. Atlae has extensive contributions in multiple areas of The East Pacific including military, foreign affairs, culture, mentorship, cards, and more. Further, it's in the foreign affairs interests of the Coalition to support Commendations for prominent members of long-time allies, especially in the East.
I don't agree with this. First of all, I think Atlae is pretty well known outside of TEP in the military gameplay sphere and in the cards sphere. Second of all, using a "one region's contributions" standard for a Commendation is bad because it proactively encourages floating cosmopolitanism and punishes people who have intensively dedicated themselves to building one specific region, which is what Atlae has done for the most part. You shouldn't have to have changed allegiances 5 times to be Commended, you should have to demonstrate depth of contributions somewhere.
All the work that Atlae has done throughout NationStates, makes him well worthy of a Commendation. Whether it's with work in the realm of cards leading the TEP Card Program, or whether it's his work in the realm of R/D re-storing the East Pacific Sovereign Army and strengthening ties with other large military orgs, or for his work in the Issues community authoring 3 Issues. Furthermore, he is also a fantastic person to be around. Always kind and generous, and never really getting mad at people, and always doing their best to try to help improve and assist the overall NationStates community. Atlae 200% deserves this.
While I do think Atlae is bordering on commend-worthy, this is a good proposal that highlights their accomplishments well. I also think that their command of the Phoenix Flock Fleet and the incredible turnout they got for it from TEP adds a lot to this Commend. Ultimately - for.
While one goal of OWL is of course to determine the South Pacific's initial stance on proposals, and thus voting naturally is a prime purpose of this RMB, we think that, as long as conducted orderly, a more fleshed-out debate about a given proposal - including criticizing others' arguments - only benefits this and helps regional nations make up their minds in an informed way. As the Discussion/Voting Instructions note, all South Pacifican nations may post their thoughts on the Voting Center RMB, so this would also cover non-voting nations participating in the debate, as Tinhampton did.