Well during all my years in my high school's Model UN club, I never once got assigned to do Security Council at a conference (meaning I usually ended up with boring ************ and entertained myself by declaring war on my friends' countries, splitting into 2 and declaring civil war when working with a partner, and hitting on the hot girl from Nigeria), so I'm not exactly sure how the voting works, so if anyone could answer a few questions I'd appreciate: 1.Why do you need 9 votes to pass? That seems a pretty arbitary number, seeing as how most voting bodies require either a simple majority (which would be 8 votes) or a 2/3 majority (10) to pass. Did they just decide to split the difference or what? 2.Along those lines, since 9 votes are required for a resolution to pass, rather than a certain percent of votes cast, how is a country abstaining really any different from casting a "no" vote? Seems to me a better system would be to require any resolution to recieve at least a certain percentage of votes cast, since it seems to me under the current rules there's no difference between voting no and abstaining. 3.Is it possible for a permanent member to vote "no" on a resolution but not veto it? If so, why would they do this? Alex
Not sure, but my best guess would be so that the country(ies) voting "no" would have their stand on the record, as opposed to simply abstaining.
There's no difference. Abstaining allows nations to vote "no" without having a "no" vote on record... In some cases, a nation might disagree with a proposed resolution but doesn't feel strongly enough about it to ensure it doesn't pass if it would have otherwise (i.e. getting the 9 votes)...
i think it's cute when dave and sofla say the same thing. like twins (i am not a axis alex supporter)
The same thought crossed my mind when I read Alex's comment. But I even restrained myself from telling you all I was restraining myself.
people have already gotten to the abstain but not "no". it's a diplomatic tool to state opposition but not kill. gives more options to the countries, especially the permanent members. A "no" vote by a permanent member is a veto. If a permanent member wants to state opposition but doesn't want to kill something, it has to abstain.
Being forced to postpone their UN vote because they can't wring enough votes out of other countries just shows how poorly the Bushies have managed this whole war build-up. Even if they eventually manage to buy or coerce enough votes to force a veto from France and/or Russia, they've already humiliated themselves through their own mismanagement. And these are the same people who want to be trusted with "winning the peace"?
Wasn't it last Thursday when Bush said he wanted the other countries to put their cards on the table?
Can we officially call this another Bush lie? I believe he did say "regardless of the outcome" at his press conference.
Re: Re: Security Council voting I'm sure you thought of this all on your own Anyway, we were assigned to stuff randomly. Alex
Re: Re: Re: Security Council voting And Ryan Seacrest really couldn't read that card on American Idol last week.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Security Council voting Metros fan, American Idol viewer, anal sex aficianado (not that I'm opposed to it myself, as long as I can find someplace warm and wet for my fingers to go)...a lot of the puzzle pieces are starting to fall into place... Alex
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Security Council voting TOO MUCH INFORMATION!!! Excuse me, I need to go vomit after that mental image.
Undecided Votes Offer 45 Day Plan At the risk of drawing a line then backing off of it, this is a concept that, in theory, I think I could get behind.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Security Council voting That's right Alex. I'm a patriotic American, doing every day things that every day Americans and those who love Americans love to do.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Security Council voting i bet you don't even sing the national anthemn before baseball games. nazi.
Interesting idea. But given the PR offensive Bush has been on the last few weeks, I think the sudden braking would cause several million cases of whiplash. I think this would kill Bush politically. If he's gonna do it, he's gotta do it now. If he waits, his "fanbase" won't be behind him enough, and the anti-war people get another month and a half to mobilize. By the time that deadline passes, I just can't see Bush being able to get the American people behind him enough to pull it off.