NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, this jsut came up in Fernyland and it made me think. Britain rarely has referendums, we had one when we chose to join the EU (an important decision by all accounts) and I think there's going to be/has been one on the euro, but i don't follow that much.

Option 1:
But as a concept, does it enable the people to vote for what they want on specific, important decisions where the polititians we voted for revert power back to the electorate for big decisions. This would be selective direct democracy on big issues.

Option 2:
Or does it simply cut out the political debate which accompanies parliament and fast track a dictatorship of the majority?

Option 3:
Other, explain, or some sort of both


If we'd had a referendum about Iraq, an important decision, we might not have gone to war, but then if we have a referendum on immigration we might not let anyone in, so...

Good as long as the voting public are well informed. Hell i might aswel ask hell to freeze over

I think that in order for America to go to war not only should Congress have to vote to do so, but a referendum should also confirm the will of the people to do so and should less than 50% of registered voters vote in favor of war it there should not be any war.

dont listen to metzia he is a dumb american muslim who has no concept of the U.K and the E.U

I feel that they can be a useful gauge for issues where public opinion is strongly polarized in each direction (Quebec anyone?)

Otherwise, they are a waste of tax dollars

Otherwise, they are a waste of tax dollarsnot if done simultaneously...or at elections time.

If you hold one referedum per issue...yes its expensive.

In general, I dislike them, largely because of the law of unintended consequences--ideas that sound good in a commercial don't always wind up so well in practice, even assuming that the commercials aren't misrepresenting what the new law would do (which they often don't). I had good experiences with them on the city level when I lived in San Francisco, but bad experiences on the statewide level. For some issues, especially those involving social justice, they can be a very useful tool, but they can also enshrine bigotry. It's a tough call.

dont listen to metzia he is a dumb american muslim who has no concept of the U.K and the E.U

Odd, I haven't said a thing about the EU or the UK, or perhaps it was more my religion you didn't like... which has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

dont listen to metzia he is a dumb american muslim who has no concept of the U.K and the E.U

please don't flame.

I'm curious what various politically affiliated forum members would say. what would be a libertarian attitude, a socialist attitude, conservative attitude etc?

I am fully against referendums.
-it harm the govermental legitimacy by the fact it prevent the goverment from decide on the important issues, that for them it have been chosen.
-bad wording of the question will change the result, and therefore I doubt it can be trusted.
-the public had no enough knowledge about many issues (because they are security secrets, or because he had no time or interest), and it easily affected by propaganda. it mean the decision will be based more on emotions, than on thought.
-most of the issues, I know, can't be answered by "yes or no question". the results may be biased by every charismatic politicians before and even after the vote.
-the referendums are expensive, take long time (which is problem in issues that need rapid answer), and increase the polarization and the dual hate in the society, while the propoganda months.
-most important, the democracy based on mutual understanding, conviction and compromise. simple decision of "yes or no", prevent possibility to get agreement that will considers the wills of the minorities and will reduce the conflicts at the society. in that circumances, referendums had the risk to become tool of the "tyranity by majority".

Fernyland, the plural of referendum is referenda, not referendums.