Is Someone Who Plays With An Airsoft Gun...
Family & Relationships2 mins ago
Illegal "Referendum"?
218 Answers
https:/
Why is the SNP wasting effort and resources on pursuing an illegal "referendum" when they should be fighting the war on COVID-19 with the rest of the UK?
Why is the SNP wasting effort and resources on pursuing an illegal "referendum" when they should be fighting the war on COVID-19 with the rest of the UK?
Answers
All you English"
14:46 Wed 03rd Feb 2021
Most Referendums are FPTP for the pure reason that there are only two choices. Alternative Vote reduces to FPTP in that case, because perforce one candidate will get an absolute majority of valid votes cast if there is only one other competitor -- AV also reduces to FPTP in the case that no voter chooses any more than a first preference, because in that case candidates are systematically eliminated from last to third, leaving only two candidates again, of whom one gets 50%+1 (assuming no tie).
It's also worth stressing that AV is not a proportional system either, because it still has constituencies, and still has only one winner per constituency.
It's also worth stressing that AV is not a proportional system either, because it still has constituencies, and still has only one winner per constituency.
And, as I think you're hinting at, it also doesn't address any issues about tactical voting, and to an extent can even make those issues worse, because tactical voters are effectively free to vote for all candidates apart from the one they don't want in some order, and so hopefully find the best "AN Other" candidate.
I will try a final attempt. DAVEBRO said the TERMS on which Scotland would leave the UK should be explicit and agreed prior to an independence referendum.
My point is that is more than what happened for the Brexit vote. Clearly there was no consent required from the EU to have the vote.
However, had the terms agreed by the UK and EU in December been the basis upon which folk voted to leave of remain, the outcome might have been different.
In the Brexit vote, no-one knew what the final terms would be and if took almost four year to get them. Even when we got them, there was no vote on them by the public.
All I am saying is, it is an attempt to introduce another step that was felt not to be needed for the Brexit vote.
My point is that is more than what happened for the Brexit vote. Clearly there was no consent required from the EU to have the vote.
However, had the terms agreed by the UK and EU in December been the basis upon which folk voted to leave of remain, the outcome might have been different.
In the Brexit vote, no-one knew what the final terms would be and if took almost four year to get them. Even when we got them, there was no vote on them by the public.
All I am saying is, it is an attempt to introduce another step that was felt not to be needed for the Brexit vote.
Continuing from my original "essay"...
The situation on Referendums is radically different in Switzerland, for the following key reasons:
1. The Government has no say over whether a referendum on a given question is or is not held. Referendums there are held in two circumstances:
a. Proposed change to the Constitution or to international relations eg on joining the EU;
b. popular initiative with sufficient support amongst the people (50,000) or the Cantons (any 8 from 26), if this threshold is reached within 100 days from the first signature.
2. The threshold required is well-specified: both a majority of the People who vote and a majority of the Cantons must support a given measure for it to pass. I don't think there is a turnout requirement, however.
3. The questions posed in referendums are often fairly narrow, which makes it rather more clear what the immediate consequences of the vote will be. Compare with eg the Scotland Referendum, which merely asked whether Scotland should be an Independent Country, without any concrete proposals on how, or when, that was to be achieved.
4. As far as I can tell, there is also no legal restriction on time between any given question being revisited. There are clear practical and political considerations, of course, because you'd have to meet the same thresholds again, and people would presumably be less inclined to ask the same question having been soundly beaten the first time. Nevertheless, as long as you meet the threshold, then presumably you could in theory revisit an issue once a year arbitrarily often.
5. You could also take a rejection on one issue and return with a narrower question, or a different but related one, and sometimes find a different answer. As case in point, there have been 13 referendums since 1972 that relate in some way to Swiss-EU relations, and the results have swung all over the place depending on the precise question asked. Switzerland has, for example, voted *for* joining Schengen (in 2005), then re-affirmed that in effect in 2006 and 2009; but in 2014 it voted to tighten the border; and in 2020 voted not to tighten it further still. Switzerland also voted *for* signing a free trade agreement (1972), but has several times rejected full EU or EEA membership (1992, 1997,2001).
* * * *
I would not propose that we adopt the Swiss model, because it also holds referendums for such considerations as whether there should be a Capital Gains Tax, whether and how to reform the Judiciary, and other policy matters that belong in this country, and should always belong, to Parliament to decide, but the real point to make is that if the procedure behind referendums is codified, in particular to remove from Parliament the power to decide when they are called, that would give them the purpose you seek. It would then no longer be a question as to what popular issue of the day the Government seeks to kill: a Referendum would be launched, automatically, because enough people want to have the question asked and answered.
The situation on Referendums is radically different in Switzerland, for the following key reasons:
1. The Government has no say over whether a referendum on a given question is or is not held. Referendums there are held in two circumstances:
a. Proposed change to the Constitution or to international relations eg on joining the EU;
b. popular initiative with sufficient support amongst the people (50,000) or the Cantons (any 8 from 26), if this threshold is reached within 100 days from the first signature.
2. The threshold required is well-specified: both a majority of the People who vote and a majority of the Cantons must support a given measure for it to pass. I don't think there is a turnout requirement, however.
3. The questions posed in referendums are often fairly narrow, which makes it rather more clear what the immediate consequences of the vote will be. Compare with eg the Scotland Referendum, which merely asked whether Scotland should be an Independent Country, without any concrete proposals on how, or when, that was to be achieved.
4. As far as I can tell, there is also no legal restriction on time between any given question being revisited. There are clear practical and political considerations, of course, because you'd have to meet the same thresholds again, and people would presumably be less inclined to ask the same question having been soundly beaten the first time. Nevertheless, as long as you meet the threshold, then presumably you could in theory revisit an issue once a year arbitrarily often.
5. You could also take a rejection on one issue and return with a narrower question, or a different but related one, and sometimes find a different answer. As case in point, there have been 13 referendums since 1972 that relate in some way to Swiss-EU relations, and the results have swung all over the place depending on the precise question asked. Switzerland has, for example, voted *for* joining Schengen (in 2005), then re-affirmed that in effect in 2006 and 2009; but in 2014 it voted to tighten the border; and in 2020 voted not to tighten it further still. Switzerland also voted *for* signing a free trade agreement (1972), but has several times rejected full EU or EEA membership (1992, 1997,2001).
* * * *
I would not propose that we adopt the Swiss model, because it also holds referendums for such considerations as whether there should be a Capital Gains Tax, whether and how to reform the Judiciary, and other policy matters that belong in this country, and should always belong, to Parliament to decide, but the real point to make is that if the procedure behind referendums is codified, in particular to remove from Parliament the power to decide when they are called, that would give them the purpose you seek. It would then no longer be a question as to what popular issue of the day the Government seeks to kill: a Referendum would be launched, automatically, because enough people want to have the question asked and answered.
Corbyloon //KHANDRO, that's about 24p per person in the UK. If you want, I'll pay your 24p for you.//
The usual specious argument dragged out about any national expenditure, I don't know if your math is true, but even so, instead of 'per person' it can also be looked at per family, in my case that would add up to a couple of pounds, & the answer is no, I wouldn't want to pay that (or even 24p) for an an illegal, non-binding referendum, on an issue to which I am opposed anyway.
The usual specious argument dragged out about any national expenditure, I don't know if your math is true, but even so, instead of 'per person' it can also be looked at per family, in my case that would add up to a couple of pounds, & the answer is no, I wouldn't want to pay that (or even 24p) for an an illegal, non-binding referendum, on an issue to which I am opposed anyway.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Travel5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
