Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
RI Democrat

IRV Scenario: UN Parliamentary Assembly 2020

Recommended Posts

Yes, it's time for another one of my weird alternate-history-type scenarios (in this case more like alternate near-future, as it takes place in 2020). The premise is that, without any other huge sea changes in foreign policy, the UN decides to move ahead with a proposal along these lines for a consultative-only parliamentary assembly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly

The rules are as follows:

  • All members are directly elected by IRV.
  • Every nation gets a minimum of 1 seat and a maximum of 8; otherwise the quota is roughly 1 seat per 20 million people.
  • Both existing and new international organizations can sponsor one candidate per race, acting in the place of political parties.
  • Once elected, the assembly will choose a chairperson by majority vote. This can - but does not have to - be a member of the assembly (party leaders will be the equivalent of candidates for chairperson).
  • Each nation has to submit to the General Assembly a plan for conducting a free election, in the sense that they promise not to interfere with the actual process of voting or qualifying for the ballot. However, that does not mean that censorship, bribes, token opposition parties, and other forms of manipulating the process in authoritarian countries cannot still occur or will not be reflected in the starting percentages, candidate strength ratings, and issue centers. Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, North Korea, Syria, and Vietnam all either declined to participate or failed to qualify.

The following RL international consortiums of political parties are participating as sponsoring organizations: International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties (professed Marxist-Leninists), Progressive Alliance (mainstream center-left), Global Greens (green, naturally), Liberal International (liberal and mostly center or center-right), Centrist Democrat International (initially specifically a Christian Democratic group, now a vaguely center/center-right grouping), and International Democrat Union (center-right and conservative). Most of them are also sponsoring some candidates in parties who are not actually members of their established organizations, e.g. the Global Greens are running nonpartisan candidates in some of the small island countries in Oceania, and the IMCWP is sponsoring Maduro's party in Venezuela (largely because nobody else will put up with them).

There are also the following new organizations:

SI-Left Bloc (center-left to left-wing): The formation of the Progressive Alliance ended up poaching some of the more prominent members of the Socialist International (and in fact there are a number of parties which are members of both). The SI forms a new satellite group called SI-Left Bloc for the purpose of this election, including the remaining SI members, the European GUE-NGL group, and other leftist parties that lack an affiliate and wouldn't fit into the PA. This does include a handful of left-wing parties in developing countries that are the "party of government" and haven't fully committed to democracy the way the most Western socialists have.

National Sovereignty Alliance (right-wing nationalist): Western right-wing populists and other conservative-leaning nationalist parties make up the core of this group. United Russia has also been controversially admitted to their ranks.

Alliance for Islamic Democracy (variable): An organization for parties that are neither entirely secular nor strict fundamentalist - they believe in a special role for Islam in politics, but they support most elements of democratic pluralism and oppose taking coercive measures against non-Muslims or restricting freedom to practice religion.

Islamic Path (fundamentalist Islamist): A more authoritarian brand of Islam-based politics. A number of ruling parties - and their equivalent in countries that don't have parties - in the Middle East and North Africa are in this bloc.

United League (big tent): This is a catch-all group for politicians in countries that don't have strong parties in the first place or for parties that are themselves big-tent and non-ideological. They do well in "micro-countries," and some opposition leaders with broad coalitions in authoritarian countries also decide to run under their banner.

Peace and Unity (authoritarian, statist): Buried under lots of flowery rhetoric, this is home for the non-communist, non-Islamist authoritarian parties. Expect uphill battles to beat them in countries where their affiliate is currently in power.

In terms of party relations, the most viable potential coalitions would be SI-LB/PA/GG/LI, PA/LI/CDI/IDU, and CDI/IDU/NSA, with the United League and the Alliance for Islamic Democracy being wild cards. Relations between the NSA, given the Islamophobia in the ranks of some of their members, and the two Islam-based groups are terrible, as are those of most of the pro-democracy groups with the IMCWP, IP, and P&U.

As you might imagine, this has taken a lot of guesswork, as information on existing politicians and parties and their ideologies can be pretty scarce online for smaller and less wealthy countries. If anyone has any suggestions for issues and centers, I'd be happy to hear them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RI Democrat said:

Yes, it's time for another one of my weird alternate-history-type scenarios (in this case more like alternate near-future, as it takes place in 2020). The premise is that, without any other huge sea changes in foreign policy, the UN decides to move ahead with a proposal along these lines for a consultative-only parliamentary assembly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly

The rules are as follows:

  • All members are directly elected by IRV.
  • Every nation gets a minimum of 1 seat and a maximum of 8; otherwise the quota is roughly 1 seat per 20 million people.
  • Both existing and new international organizations can sponsor one candidate per race, acting in the place of political parties.
  • Once elected, the assembly will choose a chairperson by majority vote. This can - but does not have to - be a member of the assembly (party leaders will be the equivalent of candidates for chairperson).
  • Each nation has to submit to the General Assembly a plan for conducting a free election, in the sense that they promise not to interfere with the actual process of voting or qualifying for the ballot. However, that does not mean that censorship, bribes, token opposition parties, and other forms of manipulating the process in authoritarian countries cannot still occur or will not be reflected in the starting percentages, candidate strength ratings, and issue centers. Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, North Korea, Syria, and Vietnam all either declined to participate or failed to qualify.

The following RL international consortiums of political parties are participating as sponsoring organizations: International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties (professed Marxist-Leninists), Progressive Alliance (mainstream center-left), Global Greens (green, naturally), Liberal International (liberal and mostly center or center-right), Centrist Democrat International (initially specifically a Christian Democratic group, now a vaguely center/center-right grouping), and International Democrat Union (center-right and conservative). Most of them are also sponsoring some candidates in parties who are not actually members of their established organizations, e.g. the Global Greens are running nonpartisan candidates in some of the small island countries in Oceania, and the IMCWP is sponsoring Maduro's party in Venezuela (largely because nobody else will put up with them).

There are also the following new organizations:

SI-Left Bloc (center-left to left-wing): The formation of the Progressive Alliance ended up poaching some of the more prominent members of the Socialist International (and in fact there are a number of parties which are members of both). The SI forms a new satellite group called SI-Left Bloc for the purpose of this election, including the remaining SI members, the European GUE-NGL group, and other leftist parties that lack an affiliate and wouldn't fit into the PA. This does include a handful of left-wing parties in developing countries that are the "party of government" and haven't fully committed to democracy the way the most Western socialists have.

National Sovereignty Alliance (right-wing nationalist): Western right-wing populists and other conservative-leaning nationalist parties make up the core of this group. United Russia has also been controversially admitted to their ranks.

Alliance for Islamic Democracy (variable): An organization for parties that are neither entirely secular nor strict fundamentalist - they believe in a special role for Islam in politics, but they support most elements of democratic pluralism and oppose taking coercive measures against non-Muslims or restricting freedom to practice religion.

Islamic Path (fundamentalist Islamist): A more authoritarian brand of Islam-based politics. A number of ruling parties - and their equivalent in countries that don't have parties - in the Middle East and North Africa are in this bloc.

United League (big tent): This is a catch-all group for politicians in countries that don't have strong parties in the first place or for parties that are themselves big-tent and non-ideological. They do well in "micro-countries," and some opposition leaders with broad coalitions in authoritarian countries also decide to run under their banner.

Peace and Unity (authoritarian, statist): Buried under lots of flowery rhetoric, this is home for the non-communist, non-Islamist authoritarian parties. Expect uphill battles to beat them in countries where their affiliate is currently in power.

In terms of party relations, the most viable potential coalitions would be SI-LB/PA/GG/LI, PA/LI/CDI/IDU, and CDI/IDU/NSA, with the United League and the Alliance for Islamic Democracy being wild cards. Relations between the NSA, given the Islamophobia in the ranks of some of their members, and the two Islam-based groups are terrible, as are those of most of the pro-democracy groups with the IMCWP, IP, and P&U.

As you might imagine, this has taken a lot of guesswork, as information on existing politicians and parties and their ideologies can be pretty scarce online for smaller and less wealthy countries. If anyone has any suggestions for issues and centers, I'd be happy to hear them.

I actually have a similar scenario on the backburner that I started a while back and have a thread for and the files for as far as I've gotten, but assuming an elected General Assembly with more power and authority mandated (but not as much as, say, the European Parliament) and a breakdown by population, but at least one seat for each member nation, but (probably far more realistically) no executive branch responsible in parliamentary tradition to the Assembly as a body, and a LOT more "parties" based on as many extant political party internationals as I could dig, and a bunch of others to fill important gaps. I works by CI, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

I actually have a similar scenario on the backburner that I started a while back and have a thread for and the files for as far as I've gotten, but assuming an elected General Assembly with more power and authority mandated (but not as much as, say, the European Parliament) and a breakdown by population, but at least one seat for each member nation, but (probably far more realistically) no executive branch responsible in parliamentary tradition to the Assembly as a body, and a LOT more "parties" based on as many extant political party internationals as I could dig, and a bunch of others to fill important gaps. I works by CI, though.

I just figured that giving *any* UN organ considerable new powers would be hugely controversial in today's context and would just never get enough support for the big power brokers at the UN to let it happen. The Security Council permanent members are going to be wary of anything that reduces their clout (especially the U.S., Russia, and China), and Europe's reactionary backlash against the EU would probably translate to similar attitudes towards a new UN legislative assembly. I'd have to write at least 5-10 years' worth of alternate foreign policy history for it to feel right, and I'd rather do a scenario where the leaders, parties, and countries have the same priorities and attitudes as they do IRL.

Plus, there would be a lot more opprobrium over the election processes if the assembly had more powers - the authoritarian countries are still doing their best to rig the system in this scenario even if they aren't actively jailing opposition candidates or stuffing ballot boxes. Part of the idea, and maybe the basis for an event or two, is that countries like Russia and China basically bully their way into this and wouldn't have had their election proposals approved if they wielded less clout. 

As for executive power, the Chair of the Assembly would be more like the equivalent of the American Speaker of the House than the British or Canadian Prime Minister. And since it's a consultative body, the Chair is effectively just a prominent lobbyist - (s)he will have no actual authority over UN policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replying to Patine's comments from the other thread here:

  • The reason that they settled on IRV is that FPTP would disadvantage small parties even more, and some sort of MMP or other PR might require negotiating cross-border party lists to be meaningful, since the majority of countries have only one seat and thus an MMP system like, say, Finland's would be indistinguishable from FPTP for their purposes.
  • There's an umbrella group for authoritarian parties that aren't based around communism or Islam called Unity and Peace. This includes many of the post-Soviet ruling parties in the ex-SSRs as well as parties like ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe. However, some of the left-leaning parties with a somewhat complicated (but not blatantly hostile) relationship with democracy are still allowed in the SI-Left Bloc, and a few of them are in fact members of Socialist International IRL if I'm not mistaken. So most of the African parties you asked about would probably be under UP or SI-LB, with a handful also in the big-tent, catch-all United League.
  • The far-left group, retitled the Communist and Radical Workers' Front (so as not to be too centered around the real-life IMCWP) is relatively weak anyway. The Chinese Communist Party is their heavy hitter, and Maduro's party is also a member, but they're either not on the ballot or near the bottom of the polls almost everywhere else except Cyprus.
  • Islamic Path does have the problem of, for example, the ruling factions of both Saudi Arabia and Iran being members. I guess I could divide them up into separate factions of Sunni and Shia Islamists, but I'm trying not to overdo it with all the separate parties - the whole idea could get pointlessly overcomplicated if I start going down that road.
  • North Korea is not participating - all the countries had to submit a plan for a free and fair election for approval by the General Assembly, and NK's got laughed out of the room. The ruling party would probably still ally themselves with CRWF if push came to shove, if only to stay close to China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RI Democrat said:

Replying to Patine's comments from the other thread here:

  • The reason that they settled on IRV is that FPTP would disadvantage small parties even more, and some sort of MMP or other PR might require negotiating cross-border party lists to be meaningful, since the majority of countries have only one seat and thus an MMP system like, say, Finland's would be indistinguishable from FPTP for their purposes.
  • There's an umbrella group for authoritarian parties that aren't based around communism or Islam called Unity and Peace. This includes many of the post-Soviet ruling parties in the ex-SSRs as well as parties like ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe. However, some of the left-leaning parties with a somewhat complicated (but not blatantly hostile) relationship with democracy are still allowed in the SI-Left Bloc, and a few of them are in fact members of Socialist International IRL if I'm not mistaken. So most of the African parties you asked about would probably be under UP or SI-LB, with a handful also in the big-tent, catch-all United League.
  • The far-left group, retitled the Communist and Radical Workers' Front (so as not to be too centered around the real-life IMCWP) is relatively weak anyway. The Chinese Communist Party is their heavy hitter, and Maduro's party is also a member, but they're either not on the ballot or near the bottom of the polls almost everywhere else except Cyprus.
  • Islamic Path does have the problem of, for example, the ruling factions of both Saudi Arabia and Iran being members. I guess I could divide them up into separate factions of Sunni and Shia Islamists, but I'm trying not to overdo it with all the separate parties - the whole idea could get pointlessly overcomplicated if I start going down that road.
  • North Korea is not participating - all the countries had to submit a plan for a free and fair election for approval by the General Assembly, and NK's got laughed out of the room. The ruling party would probably still ally themselves with CRWF if push came to shove, if only to stay close to China.

I still think Unity and Peace is a bit dubious as a single, functional party, too, in my humble opinion. And, even though they're small in support base and no governing parties as affiliates, what's to stop (or even discourage) real, extant political party internationals that exist and have affiliate parties, and are used to underdog status as it is, like the Pirate Parties International, the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties, the Humanist International, or even the International Monarchist Association and International of the Federation of Anarchists, even to play spoiler in a number of races? Plus, dividing the "Islamist Extremist" group between Sunni and Shia wouldn't be sufficient to make it even remotely functional - the Sunni group would have to be split into a more Hizb-ur-Tahrir and a more Muslim Brotherhood like grouping. Just my insights and opinions - certainly not attempts at commandments or denunciations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

I still think Unity and Peace is a bit dubious as a single, functional party, too, in my humble opinion. And, even though they're small in support base and no governing parties as affiliates, what's to stop (or even discourage) real, extant political party internationals that exist and have affiliate parties, and are used to underdog status as it is, like the Pirate Parties International, the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties, the Humanist International, or even the International Monarchist Association and International of the Federation of Anarchists, even to play spoiler in a number of races? Plus, dividing the "Islamist Extremist" group between Sunni and Shia wouldn't be sufficient to make it even remotely functional - the Sunni group would have to be split into a more Hizb-ur-Tahrir and a more Muslim Brotherhood like grouping. Just my insights and opinions - certainly not attempts at commandments or denunciations.

Thanks for the feedback.

There is also the Alliance for Islamic Democracy in the picture for parties that emphasize Islam in a way that secular parties don't, but oppose the kind of theocratic dictatorship that we see in Saudi Arabia or in Iran. They encompasses parties/factions like the Iranian reformists,  Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or Morsi's Freedom and Justice before the Egyptian military ousted him. I might also build into the background some sort of incentive or requirement that parties have to compete in a certain number of countries or regions to get a reimbursement from the UN's budget, thus creating a "live together or die alone" situation for groups that normally wouldn't cooperate with each other.

The idea behind Unity and Peace and Islamic Path is that they don't necessarily agree on much, but they do agree that they don't want those pesky campaigners for democracy, human rights, and religious freedom bothering them about how they do things back home. That doesn't mean that they'll always vote as a single bloc after they get elected, and the fact that Syria and Yemen are also DQed from the election removes two of the big flashpoints of disagreement between majority-Islamic countries.

As for the smaller groups, I guess I'd say that their omission is simply a compromise between realism and gameplay. While I agree that many more parties would contest an election like this if held IRL, the same could be said for all the American scenarios on this site that leave out the Revolutionary Communist Party, or that include a few high-profile independents but omit the ones sitting at the bottom of congressional ballots and winning 0.001% of the vote. I might make some of those groups into endorsers, so that they do have an impact similar to what they might have if they ran and got all their votes redistributed through IRV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 12:16 PM, RI Democrat said:

Thanks for the feedback.

There is also the Alliance for Islamic Democracy in the picture for parties that emphasize Islam in a way that secular parties don't, but oppose the kind of theocratic dictatorship that we see in Saudi Arabia or in Iran. They encompasses parties/factions like the Iranian reformists,  Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or Morsi's Freedom and Justice before the Egyptian military ousted him. I might also build into the background some sort of incentive or requirement that parties have to compete in a certain number of countries or regions to get a reimbursement from the UN's budget, thus creating a "live together or die alone" situation for groups that normally wouldn't cooperate with each other.

The idea behind Unity and Peace and Islamic Path is that they don't necessarily agree on much, but they do agree that they don't want those pesky campaigners for democracy, human rights, and religious freedom bothering them about how they do things back home. That doesn't mean that they'll always vote as a single bloc after they get elected, and the fact that Syria and Yemen are also DQed from the election removes two of the big flashpoints of disagreement between majority-Islamic countries.

As for the smaller groups, I guess I'd say that their omission is simply a compromise between realism and gameplay. While I agree that many more parties would contest an election like this if held IRL, the same could be said for all the American scenarios on this site that leave out the Revolutionary Communist Party, or that include a few high-profile independents but omit the ones sitting at the bottom of congressional ballots and winning 0.001% of the vote. I might make some of those groups into endorsers, so that they do have an impact similar to what they might have if they ran and got all their votes redistributed through IRV.

Another question, if I may? What about geopolitical entities with de jure no, or very limited, recognition internationally, but de facto, administration (sometimes stably so) of their internal affairs to the practical exclusion of the nation de jure recognized as controlling their territory, and (in a few cases) better records of governance, law and order, and human rights than the de jure, recognized governing nation - such as Artsakh (formerly called Nagorno-Karabakh), South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, the Donetsk People's Republic, the Luhansk People's Republic, the Sahralwi Arab Republic/Western Sahara, the Gaza Strip (not so much the West Bank, though), Iraqi Kurdistan, and even, after over 50 years, Taiwan, technically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Patine said:

Another question, if I may? What about geopolitical entities with de jure no, or very limited, recognition internationally, but de facto, administration (sometimes stably so) of their internal affairs to the practical exclusion of the nation de jure recognized as controlling their territory, and (in a few cases) better records of governance, law and order, and human rights than the de jure, recognized governing nation - such as Artsakh (formerly called Nagorno-Karabakh), South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, the Donetsk People's Republic, the Luhansk People's Republic, the Sahralwi Arab Republic/Western Sahara, the Gaza Strip (not so much the West Bank, though), Iraqi Kurdistan, and even, after over 50 years, Taiwan, technically? 

For the most part, the only eligible participants are those officially recognized as members of the United Nations, which most of those areas are not. However, every participating country has to guarantee, at the very least, that everyone in their territory gets to vote (even if authoritarian countries can be expected to manipulate the process in other ways) and have their election plan approved by the General Assembly. Practically, what that means is that some of those de facto autonomous territories are part of a constituency within the countries of which they are officially part, specifically:

  • Hong Kong and Taiwan are both part of a single constituency shared with parts of the Chinese mainland (remember that no country gets more than 8 constituencies, so the Chinese constituencies are *huge*). However, the pro-democracy parties are only on the ballot in Hong Kong and Taiwan, so they stand little chance of actually winning that constituency given how outnumbered they are by Chinese mainland voters.
  • A Kurdish coalition has a real chance at winning the constituency covering most of Iraq north of Baghdad.
  • Similarly, a separatist Somaliland party could well win the one Somali constituency depending on how preference flows shake out.
  • Ukraine and Georgia have pro-Russian parties running strong in the areas that are presently under Russian or pro-Russian rebel control.
  • Israel and the Palestinian Authority agree to hold separate elections with one seat for Israel proper and another for Palestine, as neither of them much like the idea of a single election covering all of both territories.

States that are not UN members, however, simply aren't participating. Equitorial Guinea, Eritrea, North Korea, Syria, Vietnam, and Yemen are all disqualified - their election proposals were rejected by the General Assembly, and in the cases of Syria and Yemen, guaranteeing the safety and security of would-be voters was also deemed near-impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RI Democrat said:

For the most part, the only eligible participants are those officially recognized as members of the United Nations, which most of those areas are not. However, every participating country has to guarantee, at the very least, that everyone in their territory gets to vote (even if authoritarian countries can be expected to manipulate the process in other ways) and have their election plan approved by the General Assembly. Practically, what that means is that some of those de facto autonomous territories are part of a constituency within the countries of which they are officially part, specifically:

  • Hong Kong and Taiwan are both part of a single constituency shared with parts of the Chinese mainland (remember that no country gets more than 8 constituencies, so the Chinese constituencies are *huge*). However, the pro-democracy parties are only on the ballot in Hong Kong and Taiwan, so they stand little chance of actually winning that constituency given how outnumbered they are by Chinese mainland voters.
  • A Kurdish coalition has a real chance at winning the constituency covering most of Iraq north of Baghdad.
  • Similarly, a separatist Somaliland party could well win the one Somali constituency depending on how preference flows shake out.
  • Ukraine and Georgia have pro-Russian parties running strong in the areas that are presently under Russian or pro-Russian rebel control.
  • Israel and the Palestinian Authority agree to hold separate elections with one seat for Israel proper and another for Palestine, as neither of them much like the idea of a single election covering all of both territories.

States that are not UN members, however, simply aren't participating. Equitorial Guinea, Eritrea, North Korea, Syria, Vietnam, and Yemen are all disqualified - their election proposals were rejected by the General Assembly, and in the cases of Syria and Yemen, guaranteeing the safety and security of would-be voters was also deemed near-impossible.

Does that also mean Pro-Armenian parties in the Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan?

 

And I assume Vatican City-State (despite being the seat of the world's largest religious affiliation and wealthiest single entity - above even any individual international mega-corporation or national government) is exempted as well, as they are not a UN member, but only have "observer" status?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Patine said:

Does that also mean Pro-Armenian parties in the Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan?

 

And I assume Vatican City-State (despite being the seat of the world's largest religious affiliation and wealthiest single entity - above even any individual international mega-corporation or national government) is exempted as well, as they are not a UN member, but only have "observer" status?

I'd have to do more research on that before I'd add them. Azerbaijan's elections don't seem to be very competitive, and I have their ruling party under UP at the moment. And yes, the Vatican is not taking part since they are not a UN member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RI Democrat said:

I'd have to do more research on that before I'd add them. Azerbaijan's elections don't seem to be very competitive, and I have their ruling party under UP at the moment. And yes, the Vatican is not taking part since they are not a UN member.

But I think that Armenia would demand that New Azerbaijan be fully challengeable in Artsakh. And given the de facto situation in Artsakh on the ground, Armenia could practically run the elections there themselves without Azerbaijan's consent or cooperation as it stands, even if not de jure. Case in point - despite being recognized as "sovereign Azerbaijani territory," you can only enter Artsakh from Armenia, NOT from Azerbaijan. Artsakh is also rated by many foreign observers as having higher standards of human rights and governance than either Armenia or Azerbaijan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Patine said:

But I think that Armenia would demand that New Azerbaijan be fully challengeable in Artsakh. And given the de facto situation in Artsakh on the ground, Armenia could practically run the elections there themselves without Azerbaijan's consent or cooperation as it stands, even if not de jure. Case in point - despite being recognized as "sovereign Azerbaijani territory," you can only enter Artsakh from Armenia, NOT from Azerbaijan. Artsakh is also rated by many foreign observers as having higher standards of human rights and governance than either Armenia or Azerbaijan. 

I guess what I'd say to that is that as soon as they say yes to something like that once, there would be another 15 or 20 regions demanding their own separate elections, and at least two of the UN' s big hitters - Russia and China - have a vested interest in not encouraging the rest of the membership to look *too* closely at issues of fairness and human rights in the context of this election. The negotiations to even have this election in the first place would have been fraught, and so the General Assembly would need a very good reason to start granting exceptions to the rules. That's not to say that everyone is 100% happy with the process that was eventually agreed upon or that there won't be boycotts and protests.

(And practically, I don't have the background knowledge, or the time to accumulate it, to determine how reasonable and practical each of these hypothetical requests would be.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RI Democrat said:

I guess what I'd say to that is that as soon as they say yes to something like that once, there would be another 15 or 20 regions demanding their own separate elections, and at least two of the UN' s big hitters - Russia and China - have a vested interest in not encouraging the rest of the membership to look *too* closely at issues of fairness and human rights in the context of this election. The negotiations to even have this election in the first place would have been fraught, and so the General Assembly would need a very good reason to start granting exceptions to the rules. That's not to say that everyone is 100% happy with the process that was eventually agreed upon or that there won't be boycotts and protests.

(And practically, I don't have the background knowledge, or the time to accumulate it, to determine how reasonable and practical each of these hypothetical requests would be.)

But will Armenian parties run there, or will it just be a 0% ballot for Azerbaijani parties in a region Azerbaijani authorities can't even monitor and manage the polling booths in without Armenian cooperation - because there are no Azerbaijani authorities there? And will Armenia jig the residency rules (West Berlin style, in the Cold War) to have everyone in Artsakh vote in Armenia instead? That's the question, there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RI Democrat said:

I guess what I'd say to that is that as soon as they say yes to something like that once, there would be another 15 or 20 regions demanding their own separate elections, and at least two of the UN' s big hitters - Russia and China - have a vested interest in not encouraging the rest of the membership to look *too* closely at issues of fairness and human rights in the context of this election. The negotiations to even have this election in the first place would have been fraught, and so the General Assembly would need a very good reason to start granting exceptions to the rules. That's not to say that everyone is 100% happy with the process that was eventually agreed upon or that there won't be boycotts and protests.

(And practically, I don't have the background knowledge, or the time to accumulate it, to determine how reasonable and practical each of these hypothetical requests would be.)

Artsakh is very interesting territorial dispute, and one whose lines are not at all drawn on the typical Western World vs. Russia and China line in the least. Also, ironically enough, both New Azerbaijan, the "party-of-power" of Azerbaijan since the mid-'90's, and the Republican Party of Armenia the "party-of-power" of Armenia from 1999 to 2018, when it was unexpectedly removed from power by a coalition of then-opposition parties in an upset election, but it still remains a powerful opposition party, would both fit in your description of the "Unity and Peace Party," despite being vicious enemies of each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a fair question about how the voting will work in Artsakh, and I will look into it further before the scenario gets published. Right now I have New Azerbaijan under Unity and Peace and ahead of its competitors by a large margin. The Republican Party I put under National Sovereignty Alliance, as their wiki entry suggests that they at least pose as national-conservatives, and I have them behind in the polls but not completely marginalized.

On a related note, any advice on what to do with Rodrigo Duterte's PDP-Laban party? I know they claim to espouse some form of democratic socialism, but I simply can't imagine either the Progressive Alliance or the SI-Left Bloc tolerating them, and they wouldn't fit with the Communists either. They also seem too authoritarian for United League and not quite authoritarian enough for Unity and Peace. As things stand I plan to put them under NSA but with a more left-leaning bent on some of the domestic economic issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RI Democrat said:

That's a fair question about how the voting will work in Artsakh, and I will look into it further before the scenario gets published. Right now I have New Azerbaijan under Unity and Peace and ahead of its competitors by a large margin. The Republican Party I put under National Sovereignty Alliance, as their wiki entry suggests that they at least pose as national-conservatives, and I have them behind in the polls but not completely marginalized.

On a related note, any advice on what to do with Rodrigo Duterte's PDP-Laban party? I know they claim to espouse some form of democratic socialism, but I simply can't imagine either the Progressive Alliance or the SI-Left Bloc tolerating them, and they wouldn't fit with the Communists either. They also seem too authoritarian for United League and not quite authoritarian enough for Unity and Peace. As things stand I plan to put them under NSA but with a more left-leaning bent on some of the domestic economic issues.

I've seen a lot of comparison of Duterte to be calling a "left-wing Trump," and he does very much seem to fill the bill. However, he does not have a grip in Filipino politics, or having immasculated the opposition parties, to the degree most parties you've put in the Unity and Pace grouping have. It is a very good question.

As a sidenote, but related, I am planning a series of scenarios for Armenian, Artsakh, and Azerbaijani elections starting with after the collapse of Soviet Power. But, though the Presidential series are no real problem, I hope you've kept your K4E, because it'll needed to play the Armenian and Artsakh Parliamentary ones, and the Azerbaijani Parliamentary ones before a return to FPTP in 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...