(Rejected) Amend "WA Security Council Act"

Section 3 - Functions
The WASC shall have the de facto supranational powers over the executive, legislative, and judicial matters in the WA which shall be enforced through a seventy five percent concurrence of all its member states. Being a member state of the WASC, Eurussia, as the Founder, may exercise veto power on the WASC while the nation holding the Delegacy may exercise veto power over matters about the World Assembly but shall never be allowed to possess executive controls over the World Alliance. The WASC shall also have the authority over the administration of all WA Neutral Territories in the world.

Section 3 - Functions
The WASC shall have the de facto supranational powers over the executive, legislative, and judicial matters in the WA which shall be enforced through a sixty six percent or two thirds concurrence of all its voting member states. Member states that issue an "Abstain" vote, will be excluded from the final tally, although counted as "activity" from the voting member nation. Being a member state of the WASC, Eurussia, as the Founder, may exercise veto power on the WASC while the nation holding the Delegacy may exercise veto power over matters about the World Assembly but shall never be allowed to possess executive controls over the World Alliance. The WASC shall also have the authority over the administration of all WA Neutral Territories in the world.

1. Ratify the "Emergency Measure on WASC Act Amendment", thus officially entering it as a passed legislation, as opposed to an Executive Action. Basically, this will further legitimize the Executive Action as it will now be voted in by the WASC.
   
2. Amend the "WA Security Council Act" to allow for Abstention votes to be made, but not counted in the final tally, which will keep from providing proposals a negative impact when the abstention vote is suppose to show neutrality to begin with.
   

Great Eurussia wrote:

Eurussia is against. We believe that only those nations that are not voting should be excluded from the final tally. And abstention votes shall remain counted since we believe that votes of abstain remains a vote since it could be interpreted as a sign of neutrality, a sign of being undecided at the moment, or practically unsure about the topic or proposal being voted upon.

Thus, abstentions must still be considered a vote.

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:

Eurussia is against. We believe that only those nations that are not voting should be excluded from the final tally. And abstention votes shall remain counted since we believe that votes of abstain remains a vote since it could be interpreted as a sign of neutrality, a sign of being undecided at the moment, or practically unsure about the topic or proposal being voted upon.

Thus, abstentions must still be considered a vote.

They're considered a vote but won't be counted against the approval of a proposal. Perhaps the proposal needs a little re-wording? Or are you completely against the idea of not having an abstention, a neutral vote, count against the final tally?

Great Eurussia wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:

Eurussia is against. We believe that only those nations that are not voting should be excluded from the final tally. And abstention votes shall remain counted since we believe that votes of abstain remains a vote since it could be interpreted as a sign of neutrality, a sign of being undecided at the moment, or practically unsure about the topic or proposal being voted upon.

Thus, abstentions must still be considered a vote.

They're considered a vote but won't be counted against the approval of a proposal. Perhaps the proposal needs a little re-wording? Or are you completely against the idea of not having an abstention, a neutral vote, count against the final tally?

Why consider abstention a vote if it will have no bearing anyway? Eurussia believes that explicitly refusing to vote is different from making a vote of abstention. Thus, we are completely not in favor of not counting a vote of abstain since we believe that nations taking time to make an abstention vote made the effort of reaching a decision rather than those which didn't vote at all.

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Like I've said, I'm all for an abstention vote, but currently it is exactly equal to making an "Against" vote, but doing it in a "Nice" way. If someone abstains from something, I feel that it should be recognized, but shouldn't effect the final tally, as it only hurts the vote.

Great Eurussia wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:
Like I've said, I'm all for an abstention vote, but currently it is exactly equal to making an "Against" vote, but doing it in a "Nice" way. If someone abstains from something, I feel that it should be recognized, but shouldn't effect the final tally, as it only hurts the vote.

Like what you've said, you are still assuming that a vote of abstention could be an against vote. But sometimes it could be supportive of a proposal. Thus, an abstention should remain counted since it is still an expressed vote.

Wirbanskia wrote:Let me get the dictionary out for both of you.

Abstain: formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion.

Which means you basically opt out of making an official yes or no vote. Thus making your say in the matter not count as a yes or a no.

Wirbanskia wrote:Let me get the dictionary out for both of you.

Abstain: formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion.

Which means you basically opt out of making an official yes or no vote. Thus making your say in the matter not count as a yes or a no.

Muchos Estados Unidos wrote:Against

Empire of Russia wrote:

Wirbanskia wrote:

Muchos Estados Unidos wrote:Against

Your vote holds no water as I have already voted.

He is the primary seat holder and thus his vote is more powerful than yours

New Rhodinia wrote:

Republic of New Korrea wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Republic of New Korrea wrote:

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Empire of Russia wrote:

Wirbanskia wrote:

Muchos Estados Unidos wrote:Against

Your vote holds no water as I have already voted.

He is the primary seat holder and thus his vote is more powerful than yours

Not according to the "WA Secondary Seats Act"

I move to remove secondary seats. They are nuisance Seats and do not help WASC but prevents legitimate country like MEU from voting.

You were one of the first to vote in favor... Also, let's not discuss this here, you may want to start a new thread about this.

Yeah can you do that?

It wasn't his idea, so why would he have to do it?

Seriously, this isn't the place to just spawn up side discussions; if you truly are against the secondary seats act, listen to Scouting and make a thread about it.

That said, I'd like for these off topic messages to be deleted.

New Rhodinia wrote:Considering we (that is, me and Xolox) initially pushed for this to get where it is now, New Rhodinia is in favor.

Abstentions are just that: abstentions. You are deciding that your nation is not going to officially vote. Thus, why be counted? I will say this, however: if a nation states that they are abstaining and claim they will make a decision later on, it shouldn't immediately be excluded from the final vote. You either decide or you don't; that's how stuff gets done.

Great Eurussia wrote:

Looking at this example of the vote of New Rhodinia in pending issue at the WASC, the same country is so supportive of removing abstentions but it is also making abstention votes which we believe New Rhodinia has the privilege to make with in the first place. This means that vote of abstentions carries its own weight.

New Rhodinia wrote:Xolox: Against
Artite: Against
Wirbanskia: Against
Zanland: Abstaining, but may lean toward against.

Again, we only view this as a reactionary response against enemies of war. You can't just say you did absolutely nothing wrong and demand your opponents be banned.

Thank you.

New Rhodinia wrote:
This was an abstention under the guise of "we're not yet ready to decide yet, but we WILL make a decision. Simply putting out an abstention vote and not saying anything else on the matter is where that line is drawn, so maybe that's where we need to focus: countries that just put "abstain" and don't give a reason. In the name of "not offending a nation" is fine, "not being involved" is fine, but we're seeing nations using abstentions for the fact that they are simply uninterested in the proposal. And if they do this, they shouldn't be counted since they don't care.

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Rhodinia wrote:
This was an abstention under the guise of "we're not yet ready to decide yet, but we WILL make a decision. Simply putting out an abstention vote and not saying anything else on the matter is where that line is drawn, so maybe that's where we need to focus: countries that just put "abstain" and don't give a reason. In the name of "not offending a nation" is fine, "not being involved" is fine, but we're seeing nations using abstentions for the fact that they are simply uninterested in the proposal. And if they do this, they shouldn't be counted since they don't care.

Still, it is an abstention vote with purpose. You should not generalize all WASC members and say that nations are 'abusing' abstentions to show they are not interested in a proposal since none of us will never know why a country chooses to abstain in the first place. As we have said, abstention votes are even more powerful than yes or no vote because it has lots of implications.

And Eurussia wishes to contradict your argument since if you are so sure that these countries are abstaining just because you are sure that they are not interested in the proposal, why did they vote at all? When they can simply ignore the issue? The answer is simple, because nations wants their voices and positions to be heard And not because they abstain for an unbelievable reason of ignoring the issue.