Chris, --- Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > >>I am very angry when I think about how referendums are conducted in > >>Taiwan. > >> > >>a- stupid 50% rule. > >>------------------- > >> > >>For the result of a referendum to be valid, at least 50% of the > >>*registered voters* must participate. I.e. if at least 50% of the > >>registered couch potatoes stay at home, the referendum will fail even > >>if the vote expressed show 90% + support to the referendum item. > >> > >>Thus, the surest way to kill a referendum is to stay at home. > >>Also, all those registered voters who genuinely don't care about the > >>referendum one way of the other (e.g. the disinterested couch potato > >>group of people), are all automaticall counted in the NO camp, > >>whatever the question asked. !!! > >> > >>How much more undemocratic can that be?? > >> > > > >The rule that a majority of voters must vote is unfortunate because it > >means that by showing up to vote "No" you can cause the proposal to > >succeed. > > > You could avoid that problem by having a rule that says for a > referendum to pass the number of > cast ballots in favour of it must exceed the number of cast ballots > against it and also comprise at > least (say) 25% of the "registered voters". (The 25% figure is > consistent with the intention of the > actual "50% must vote" rule, because if it passes by a narrow margin > then about 50% must have > voted.)
Yes, that would do it. > I think a rule like this is more democratic than having super-majority > requirements that exist in a lot > of places. If the result of the referendum (pass or fail) is definitely binding, then yes, a super-majority requirement is less democratic. > >But in my opinion, to avoid government abuse of referendum, they should > not > >pass or fail only on the opinions of the voters that the government was > >able to convince to participate. > > > > > Kevin, can you explain (and maybe give an example) of what you mean by > "government abuse of referendum" > and how your proposal avoids it? > > >If I choose to not vote in a referendum for some issue, I want this to > be > >interpreted as "have the government make this decision" not "let the > other > >voters make this decision." > > > Since the government derives its authority and legitimacy from being the > voters' representatives, I find > this personal view of yours to be a bit perverse and undemocratic. > Presumably you think this should > be the general view. If so, why? Because I have no confidence that the "other voters" willing to express an opinion are the ones that I think the government should listen to. I don't want the government asking the people to make any decision that the government should be in a better position to be able to answer. Often the local government asks me to say whether my taxes should be raised in order to better fund schools. What do I know about what funds are needed by the schools? Don't I elect a government to deal with that? If the schools really need the funds then I guess I shouldn't be involved in this decision. It seems quite likely that there are situations where the government expects that the number of voters interested in voting to approve a proposal would dwarf the number interested in showing up to vote against it. (Or the opposite.) In that case holding the referendum may be a calculated political move to dodge responsibility or give the decision more legitimacy. To prevent gaming the procedure I would prefer that the measure can't be passed (or definitively defeated) only by a small number of voters who strongly support (or oppose) it. Kevin Venzke _____________________________________________________________________________ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info