How often should referendums be run?

Coriolanus

So, the current referendum brings the matter to the fore, but I don't particularly want to discuss it with exclusive reference to that. There was a judgement (I think it was in reference to divorce, but can't find the thread where I read a quote from the judgement) that affirmed that repeat referendums were legal because without them, one generation could effectively disengranchise the next be denying them their own decisions on the issue.

So, what I'm wondering is, should we have statutory repeat referendums? Say, put divorce back up for referendum every 15 or 20 years? If not statutory, then how to determine when something should be placed back within the public vote? I don't think the Dáil can be trusted to judge the public mood properly in this regard, so perhaps the referendum commission could be granted new powers to poll and observe opinions over a period of years. Say divorce is now pretty much accepted, but if they noticed 20 years hence that we were becoming more conservative, submit that it should be put to the vote.

Anyway, interested in what other's think.

Akrasia

We should have direct democracy. We should have referendums for all major policy changes. I know this wasn't the point of your topic, but we should have referendums once a month, and there should be no bar against the same issue being brought to the people more than once. There ought to be a mechanism whereby the people can force a referendum by collecting a quorum of signatures from registered voters.

If referendums were a mundane regular part of democracy (lets say the first Saturday of each month) and required for laws to become binding then people would get used to being politically engaged.

The professional legislators would be able to call referendums for every piece of proposed legislation, this would be their entitlement as elected representatives, but the provision for the people to call referendums by collecting signatures would ensure that the legislature were never in a position to ignore the will of the people (because the people could call a referendum demanding that the government disbands)

If a decision is made that we then come to regret, we could overturn it by another referendum.

There could be multiple issues on each ballot, but only the issues that have a quorum of support would be put to the people.

It is possible that there could be an abortion referendum every single month (in an extreme example, in practice it probably would not occur) but there could be mechanisms where repeat polls would require higher quorums to get to the ballot, or would require a higher percentage of the vote to carry (eg, first time abortion is put to vote, quorum is 5% of the electorate need to sign a petition and a simple majority would see it carried. For the second poll, a 10% quorum of signitures would be required with maybe a 55% majority required to have the motion carried. (to discourage nuisance ballots, and to prevent the law frequently swinging for and against controversial issues)

bonkey

Nevore wrote: »

If not statutory, then how to determine when something should be placed back within the public vote?

I like the Swiss approach.

If you can collect a specified number of signatures (in teh Real World, not on some petition site) within a specified amount of time, supporting an issue, then the government is obliged to put said issue to a referendum within 4 years.

This way, the public get to decide when something needs to go back to a public vote.

Coriolanus

I haven't read into it fully but isn't that what they do in Cali, and it's working out to be rather dysfunctional fiscally?

Then again, my biggest issue would be with logistics. With the old pencil and paper method, there's huge disruption to school time and just the fact of so many civil servants collected and paid to count the votes. Technology could change that and make it easier to have multiple nationwide votes a year. Not sure how it'd work with private ballots, public would be less fraud-prone. That's a whole other topic.

As for the collect signatures idea you both mentioned, I like that, though what kind of threshholds are we talking about? 100k in Ireland would be what I'd have in mind.

bonkey

Nevore wrote: »

I haven't read into it fully but isn't that what they do in Cali, and it's working out to be rather dysfunctional fiscally?

Well, the Swiss have rederenda about 4 times a year...and it works pretty well.

Then again, my biggest issue would be with logistics. With the old pencil and paper method, there's huge disruption to school time and just the fact of so many civil servants collected and paid to count the votes.

To be honest, the "old pencil and paper" method doesn't cause any disruption to school time. Using schools during the week as polling stations causes the disruption. The Swiss hold votes on a Sunday. They have the results by the end of the day. The majority of votes are cast two ways...a postal vote, which is only counted on the day, and a pencil-and-paper vote.

As for the collect signatures idea you both mentioned, I like that, though what kind of threshholds are we talking about? 100k in Ireland would be what I'd have in mind.

Switzerland, with a population somewhere around 8 million, requires 100,000 signatures collected within 18 months.

aftermn

Do they pay any heed to the results in Switzerland?

Coriolanus

That's pretty impressive. Do they run the actual voting and the counting concurrently? Maybe delayed by an hour or two? I just can't see the Irish managing a vote and count all in one day.

InReality

Its a great question.

I think that there should be some mechanism for stopping "repeat" referendums.

Say no referendum on the same issue for 5-7 years.

Its difficult to put into practise of course , i.e who decides if its the same issue , but it beats goverments repeating referenda until they get the result they want.

Akrasia

InReality wrote: »

Its a great question.

I think that there should be some mechanism for stopping "repeat" referendums.

Say no referendum on the same issue for 5-7 years.

Its difficult to put into practise of course , i.e who decides if its the same issue , but it beats goverments repeating referenda until they get the result they want.

Should be the other way around, much easier to call referendums, where the citizenry have the power to call no confidence votes in the government (essentially a referendum on whether the government should stand down or continue to rule)

The government should fear the people, If the people could collapse a government at any time through a popular vote, there is much lower risk of the government abusing the election cycle (as they certainly do under the current system, bribery before the election, self serving cronyism for 4 years before a giveaway budget timed for the next GE)