One suggested proposal for voter registration. Decided to get a draft up, although whether we actually want to do this or not is up for the question. If we do decide against this, I will look into removing the WA requirement and returning to IP-based cit checks with once-in-life-time per nation tg as suggested by Lib.
This basic idea was brought to you by Altys in the Magi channel, although the idea of a one week waiting period is mine that I borrowed from Refugia.
While I find the waiver implementation to be too long to accomodate for R/D needs, this is a system I would push for for the simple fact it removes the “registration” process for most people.
I was convinced by your earlier question of removing the need for WA membership in order to Register to Vote, so I think pursuing that might perhaps be a more convenient choice in this regard? Just my thought, although I’m following the subject loosely so take it with a pinch of salt lol
It is probably more convenient, but I drafted this under the more general idea of removing as many restrictions as feasible while maintaining our security apparatus.
In the other thread, I suggested removing the WA-requirement so that all was left was the IP check and application. In this thread, I’m removing the application for most people (beyond the people who can’t keep their WAs here for whatever reason). The general goal is to open up political engagement for both ideas, I’m just interested to see people’s thoughts on this.
Normal Registered Voters will take a week anyways, so it probably won’t be much longer for waivered Voters.
In any case, this is a one-time process and a week or two isn’t an obscenely long time, so I feel it’s a moot point for R/D people who arent in EPSA. Chances are most non-EPSA R/Ders are already doing R/D and therefore can wait out the implementation period, considering they don’t have voter registration in the first place.
If my understanding is correct, the Praesidium must have a 2/3 vote on every individual nation they must prohibit, but said nation has to not have a registered vote. We must publicly post all individuals or groups prohibited, but it doesn’t say we can prohibit groups. Conclave can decrease the length of prohibition So basically, (a) we can’t prohibit groups, (b) we can’t prohibit anyone who’s voted before, (c) we have to, before anyone even tries to vote, come up with a list of everyone we’d want to prohibit, and (d) we have to set a time frame for every prohibition. If I have not made any mistakes in interpretation: Is this intentional? If so, may I ask why?
It’s really peak TEP for a glaring issue to be noticed when a different part of the act is being amended. I think this fix works, VI.1 is missing a “may” or “can” but legally sound I think. There still is the weird thing where Conclave can decrease the length but there is nothing else about length of prohibition, so idk, but I guess that just means “make it temporary” or smth.