>
>>>With a 6 to 1 majority voting yes for the change, it does seem a little
>>>odd that we were looking for a greater than 50% of all possible voters.
>>
>> That's not different from how other referenda are decided.
>>
>> The best way to do it is to require a certain percentage of the electorate
>> to vote for or against a particular item.
>
>I disagree.
>
>A fundamental concept in the democratic process is the "vote" which allows
>the member of a given body or organization to express their opinion upon
>some governing subset. That subset ( elected officials :
>OGB/Congress/Political Party ) may then choose to ignore the "vote" if it
>is deemed to be unclear or not representative of the entire population.
>
>One thing is clear, no country or organization in any *democratic*
>election will go out and count the registered voters ( N ) and then claim
>a "vote" to be valid when less than 1% of N casts a ballot. Let's look at
>an absurd case. The Government of The United States of America could hold
>an election and determine a new president with the votes of only ten
>people if only those ten were seen to cast a valid ballot. Is that
>reasonable? Hardly.
I think you're wrong.
I know of no country who has a threshold on the number of votes; the
reason is simple: must the current governemnt stay when not enough people
vote? No, terms end and even if only one person votes he gets to decide
the new government.
Ballot initiatives are different; and there they typically have a
threshold. I believe that that threshold should be set on the "winning"
party. E.g., some countries require a certain turnout, say 50%,but
then you can have outcomes like:
50-0 You win
25.1-24.9 You win
25.1-24.8 You lose (nothing changes)
49-0 You lose (nothing changes)
others require a certain percentage in favor of a ballot initiative
(say 30%)
30-29 You win
30-0 You win
I believe the second mechanism is better because a boycot cannot be
used as a weapon by the losing party. (ANd, indeed, it would be better
not to vote rather than voting NO)
>Speaking clearly here, I think the vote we have in hand now indicates a
>choice. It is now the task of the newly elected OGB to either call for a
>new vote with clearly expressed terms and decision logic, OR simply accept
>the directive already expressed by nearly 50% of the voting population.
Well, there's a rule and the rule is perhaps not very well thought out
but that is the rule.
Casper
