alternative to referenda

chewy

is there an alternative to having yes or no referanda as seen with the nice treaty eu constitution and the citizen ship thingy it impossible to solve the problem with a yes or no answer?

Victor

You could have some form of STV referendum or a simple colour scale referendum where a simple majority of options wins (might be slightly complicated).

----------------------------------------
BALLOT PAPER

[u]Option		Preference[/u]
Very Strict 	[_]
Strict 		[_]
Neutral 	[_]
Relaxed 	[_]
Very relaxed 	[_]

----------------------------------------

Results (sample):
Very Strict 	3%
Strict 		15%
Neutral 	40%
Relaxed 	37%
Very relaxed 	5%

In an STV referendum a vote could transfer just like in a presidential election (with no majority “Very Strict” with the least number of votes 3% would be eliminated first, although in practice several options could be eliminated based on my example).

In the colour scale option, there is a distinct bias toward Neutral - Relaxed. Exactly how you would create a majority would need specific rules.

There has been a problem in recent referendums where an all-or-nothing scenario has been presented (deliberately?), which many people have been unhappy with.

rde

victor: I really, really don't like your idea for STV (whatever that is). Sorry.

In you example below, what does 'strict' mean? Remember, referenda are to adopt a specific bill, one that (one hopes) has gone through lots of legal examination to ensure that it does as intended (yeah, I know. Optimistic of me). But the point remains; in order to have five options, you'd have to have five specific bills, each of which has undergone drafting, review, etc, etc, etc. And when transferring, unless the only difference between 'strict' and 'slightly strict' is one of degree (say, a figure of 60% replacing one of 50%), then you can't transfer votes without knowing what the voters intended. Some people may opt for 'strict', but be absolutely opposed to one of the provisions in 'slightly strict'.

The yes/no option sucks, but it's still (if I may paraphrase Winston Churchill), the worst solution except for all the others.

Of course, in something like the European constitution, there's no choice. You either want the treat that 25 countries agreed to, or you don't.

chewy

well the stv might be a ugly method too, but hey if you could get lawyers to check out five options.... they be happy for the work


the eu constitution but there so many aspects to the eu constitution, 144 i believe and although im in favour of eu integration im not in favour of how big business have so much a say in it so which one do i vote for

25 countries agreed, there politcal and business leaders agreed...

and although there suppose to have amandate to act as they see fit once they are voted in.... they often go beyond this a referenda is to check with the people when making a change to the constitution but if neither choices are any good which to do choose?

ah you know what i mean

rde

the eu constitution but there so many aspects to the eu constitution, 144 i believe and although im in favour of eu integration im not in favour of how big business have so much a say in it so which one do i vote for

This isn't really the place to try and convince you to vote 'yes'; I'll simply point out that the surpising thing (for me) about the convention on the constitution was the lack of interest shown by business lobbying groups in its makeup. Those interested in the social aspect of the union, OTOH, were quite vocal, and had quite an impact on the final draft.

The other good thing about the convention (IMO) was its attempt to make the whole thing simpler to read. To that end, there's an explanation of the draft treaty at europa.eu.int (don't have the exact link offhand, sorry).

well the stv might be a ugly method too, but hey if you could get lawyers to check out five options.... they be happy for the work

Given the current antipathy towards lawyers and their fees at the moment, I can't see that going down well. And even with five versions, there are still the other problems I mentioned above.

Victor

Originally posted by chewy
alternative to referenda

Well thought out legislation and proper implementation?

Originally posted by rde
victor: I really, really don't like your idea for STV (whatever that is).

Sorry for having an opinion.

Replace the options with a,b,c,d,e (or whatever number of options) if you want. I was merely trying to tailor it to chewy's question.

Another option would be to hold multiple ballots on the one day as they did in 1992(?)

Originally posted by rde
Given the current antipathy towards lawyers and their fees at the moment, I can't see that going down well. And even with five versions, there are still the other problems I mentioned above.

Who do you think currently fleshes out bills? Moneys on typewriters?

Victor

Originally posted by rde
Remember, referenda are to adopt a specific bill,

Not necessarily, many recent referenda have been framed as "the government may ratify the Xxxxxx Treaty".

Originally posted by rde
one that (one hopes) has gone through lots of legal examination to ensure that it does as intended

Just as any bill

Originally posted by rde
in order to have five options, you'd have to have five specific bills, each of which has undergone drafting, review, etc, etc, etc. And when transferring, unless the only difference between 'strict' and 'slightly strict' is one of degree (say, a figure of 60% replacing one of 50%),

The bills (if necessary) could be quite similar with only a few small changes. Of course you could have one bill with the options scheduled.

Originally posted by rde
then you can't transfer votes without knowing what the voters intended. Some people may opt for 'strict', but be absolutely opposed to one of the provisions in 'slightly strict'.

Then it's up to the government to make sure 'strict' doesn't conflict with 'slightly strict'. Hence I used the term colourscale. Yes / no works. 1/2/3/4/5 works. 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20 doesn't work.

Originally posted by rde
Of course, in something like the European constitution, there's no choice. You either want the treat that 25 countries agreed to, or you don't.

And to a degree that is the crux of such decisions. Several governments sign and ratify through parliament (where parliament is sovereign), where they tend to hold majorities. Others sign and ratify through referendum (where the people are sovereign), where the government may not have majority support.

This means some new method of agreeing EU treaties is needed. The big states want majority voting. Some states will barter to improve their position in one area to compensate for others. I think they should just stop having omnibus treaties where unconnected matters are voted on.

rde

Sorry for having an opinion.

That's okay. Just don't do it again.

The bills (if necessary) could be quite similar with only a few small changes. Of course you could have one bill with the options scheduled.

The european constitution here provides a good example; Spain and Poland have (unfairly) been getting a lot of stick because of their resistance to QMV. All parties accept that vetoes lead to stagnation - particularly in a union of twenty-five (and increasing); the debate is on the percentages. The current figures of 55% of countries and 55% of populations looks like it may win the day, but increasing or decreasing those figures is absolutely out for some governments. They all have their own differing views, but there's no doubt that a compromise - or an average - would leave no-one happy, and most likely favour the big countries.
Then, of course, there's the fact that this is a European decision. Are you content with a Europe-wide referendum, where the dreaded big countries will decide?

Who do you think currently fleshes out bills? Moneys on typewriters?

Ah, bless. Someone who thinks lawyers will do five times the work for the same money.

I think they should just stop having omnibus treaties where unconnected matters are voted on.

This, to my mind, leaves two options; either you have a separate referendum for each article, or you don't have any new treaties. Who'd foot the bill for these hundreds of referenda? You'd have to a) pay for lunch for everyone while they spent hours voting and b) hope it didn't rain on the queues which would doubtless be kilometres long. Or you could just have four or five articles voted on every day for the next six months.

chewy

i didn't have any idea of the the alternatives just throwing it out there...

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
I think they should just stop having omnibus treaties where unconnected matters are voted on.

Why, as a matter of interest? Do you think people are incapable of thinking about multiple issues at once?

The only reason I'm asking is because "omnibus" referenda are about the only type you see over here, and I can't really see a problem with them.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Why, as a matter of interest? Do you think people are incapable of thinking about multiple issues at once?

People are capable of thinking.

However, in say Nice II, why did the main treaty and the additional memorandum go on the same vote? With the EU constitution, why are new trade issues on the same document as new defence issues. In effect it is saying to people "you can have increased trade options and mutual defence" or neither.

There is a slight difference between voting for 5 issues in one vote and 5 issues in 5 votes.

rde

With the EU constitution, why are new trade issues on the same document as new defence issues. In effect it is saying to people "you can have increased trade options and mutual defence" or neither

It's a constitution; therefore it's all-encompassing. It's been under negotiation for years, so that the final result is acceptable (more or less) to all parties.

How many instances can you think of where a new constitution was voted on one article at a time?

We're in a union of twenty-five. We're never going to get something that's totally acceptable to us, so we compromise. If you can come up with a cunning plan that allows all countries to get exactly what they want, then Prodi leaves as head of the EC later this year. I'll nominate you myself.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
There is a slight difference between voting for 5 issues in one vote and 5 issues in 5 votes.

Ah. My mistake. I mistook me.

I thought you were referring to the latter case...not the former.

jc