Resolution 2013/05 - A Proposal to Reform the Security Council Elections

I like the sound of this bill a lot. I'm going to put something out there and see what response it gets.

If we are switching who has seats on the SC then I see no reason why we should bother actually switching which countries we represent. It is easier to switch which countries are on the SC. This may seem radical but if we are reforming the SC then we might as well go all the way and change the old fashioned system of the 6 powerful countries deciding on security matters.

People probably enjoy representing their country and don't, for example, want to go from being UK rep to being rep for Federated States of Micronesia or something like that. The whole idea of permanent members is old fashioned.

I suggest a re-write of the resolution to something along the lines of a biannual (or Triannual) election of 6 non-permanent members.

As for the terms for non-permanent members, I agree with that too since some of the non-perm countries can get a big stagnant as well. However I can see in there when the non-perm elections are to take place. Did you state which month and have I just missed it?

Can you explain 4b,c, and D a bit clearer to me please?

As for the layout of the election as mentioned and described in point 5, it looks like a good plan. My first thought was to also include details of limits about the manifestos but I suppose that could always be down to the discretion of the SG.
About 5c, I think 7 days for voting is too long. I think it ought to be 5 days. If the SG sends reminders every day or every other day including two reminders on the last day then I think we will get all the votes we'll get in those 5 days. After 5 or 6 days the votes may cool off and we'll just be hanging around waiting for the poll to close so I think it should be 5 days.

Regarding 6a, so am I right in thinking that if the rep for Congo won the election for the Rep for the UK then they would stop being Congo rep and the outgoing UK rep would become the Congo rep? If so, what if the Congo rep wanted to dual rep? Surely then it's the outgoing rep's problem to find themselves a new role?

Regarding 6b, doesn't that contradict 7a? Also I don't like the idea of a SC rep winning another SC seat, changing from one to the other. I think that if a SC rep wants to run for another SC seat they should resign and enter the election as an outside candidate. I really don't like the idea of SC reps swapping from one role to another.

And lastly, in regards to 7b, I think I understand why you would want new MUN members to wait until after the election to dual rep. I assume that's to allow everyone to find their place.

I like the sound of this bill a lot. I'm going to put something out there and see what response it gets.

If we are switching who has seats on the SC then I see no reason why we should bother actually switching which countries we represent. It is easier to switch which countries are on the SC. This may seem radical but if we are reforming the SC then we might as well go all the way and change the old fashioned system of the 6 powerful countries deciding on security matters.

People probably enjoy representing their country and don't, for example, want to go from being UK rep to being rep for Federated States of Micronesia or something like that. The whole idea of permanent members is old fashioned.

I suggest a re-write of the resolution to something along the lines of a biannual (or Triannual) election of 6 non-permanent members.

I like this resolution, it will probably force me to be more active and productive However, it may allow relatively inexperienced members to become reps of SC seats which to me seems unfair, I know you said Cheese that members shouldn't have to be members for a long time but I do believe that a certain amount of time should be spent here before being allowed to contest an SC seat, perhaps 3 months?

It seems what I would like to see is too radical but I'll still vote yes on this resolution.

However, is it fair to force people to swap seats instead of allowing the outgoing rep to choose an empty seat? (at least whilst there are still lots of empty seats)

I like the general outset of this proposal. My only real qualms are potential voter fatigue because of the frequency of the elections and possibly new people strolling into SC positions too soon. Perhaps we could allow the newer people in the GA to runs after around six months or something like that.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Glad to have your support. It's a fail safe to ensure the outgoing SC member isn't without a nation to represent. They can obviously resign the seat and apply for another if they wish.

Makes sense I guess. I'm a safe yes vote but as a new member I think PB's suggestions of a waiting period for newbies and staggered elections are a good idea to add as an amendment.

If I'm reading this proposal correctly it would mean those that hold seats and are active would have to re-run every time an election comes around and face the possibility of losing their seat due to a personal grudge perhaps unless of course they've actually done nothing in which case I'm sure they'd have been removed sooner.

Personally I'm/the UAE* against this, it doesn't bring any real benefit as far as I can tell

*Not sure whether this is in character or not.

It seems what I would like to see is too radical but I'll still vote yes on this resolution.

However, is it fair to force people to swap seats instead of allowing the outgoing rep to choose an empty seat? (at least whilst there are still lots of empty seats)

I agree with both of these points, I've already brought up the second but with the first, this is a fair point, should the elections be staggered, like have 2 in the first two months, then another 2, two months later etc?

Glad you agree but yeah, definitely a balance of election frequency and newbies needs to be sorted out.


Posted from TSR Mobile

How do you feel about yearly elections? I'm a bit unsure about staggering them, because that would massively prolong the uncertainty in the Council. It's important to make sure that the reps have time to work together and get some resolutions out, which can't happen if the rep keeps changing every couple of months.

As for newbies, I'm fairly confident that the system of elections and voting will weed out inexperienced people (as the recent elections have shown). If someone's too new, hasn't been around very long, then people won't vote for them.

Yearly, may be a good idea, but perhaps every 4-6 months may be better


Posted from TSR Mobile

As the resolution stands, it's six monthly.