Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> plebiscite

> the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution.

> ROMAN HISTORY: a law enacted by the plebeians' assembly.

saved you a click



sort by: page size:

I had to look up plebiscite, which turns out to be a synonym for referendum (as far as I can tell). As a result, your comment is kind of cryptic.

FWIW, a plebiscite is a yes/no popular vote of the whole population, not the population itself. Also, totally agreed.

Don't do plebiscites.

If that was the case it would have been called a plebiscite rather than a referendum.

That it was in actual fact a plebiscite to those who actually understand this nuance isn't relevant to the "Brexit means Brexit" hordes who don't. Or to your friends and neighbours looking on aghast ...


This is a referendum. It's voted on directly by people.

> A referendum conventionally happens country wide, surveying a % of the whole population. Not in a self-selected population subset.

In the recent Scottish independence referendum, resident Scottish people voted.


Arguments for a plebiscite - a full-democracy - were pretty much shot down in the Federalist Papers and haven't been entertained seriously since.

And the vote in a public referendum?

> A referendum is structurally incapable of enacting policies with minority support, for good or for bad.

With a single-subject rule, that’s often (but not always) true; without it, it is less true, because policies can be packaged to achieve a combined majority, so long as there isn’t a majority that thinks it is important enough to defeat any part to overcome any support within that majority for other parts. (Even with a single-subject rule, this can sometimes be done, so long as the policies packaged relate to sufficiently closely related subject matter as to fit within the way the rule is applied.)

This is common in legislative bodies, and it works with citizen-legislators, too.


> Given long standing British democratic tradition,

It is long standing British democratic tradition that national referendums are unconstitutional.


> if victory in a direct plebiscite isn't a legitimate basis for long-term constitutional change

The question is not whether a referendum outcome should legitimize change. The question is whether using the threshold of simple majority (50%) makes sense. Many constitutional changes throughout the world require a supermajority:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority


I must've missed that referendum you are quoting here?

> it was very clearly billed as a non-binding referendum

Was it though? It seems to me that many very clearly consider it to be binding, though ridiculously the actual meaning is ambiguous.


The people also voted for a parliament.

> Most referenda are run on the basis that a super-majority is required for any significant constitutional change.

What percentage was required in the Scottish independence referendum?

What percentage was required in the EU/EC exit/remain referendum of 1975?

What percentage was required in the referendum to join the EU/EC in the first place, in 1973?

(The latter being a trick question. There was no referendum to join at all, zero, yet a majority being required (and achieved) to leave is deemed a "horrific travesty of democracy" by people who voted differently.)


Young people were excluded from the referendum vote.

Certain demographics living outside of the UK - who are normally allowed to vote in elections - were excluded from the referendum vote.

A non-trivial number of ballots for foreign residents were sent out too late to be counted.

The original Parliamentary Act for the referendum explicitly defined it as advisory.

Most referenda are run on the basis that a super-majority is required for any significant constitutional change.

The suggestion that the referendum was truly representative and binding is an horrific travesty of democracy.


> immense societal consensus

They had a referendum asking the population to approve or not the construction? Or was it an autocratic entity (king and/or church) who decided?


But the referendum was how the representatives elected by the people decided to address the problem.

Or you could have a representative democracy like the UK, where you vote in a specialist to go and understand the detail for you.

It is an amazing constitutional step to rip this up and start holding referendums!

next

Legal | privacy