===============================================================
IR+R NEWS - news about democratic reform, citizens' initiative,
referendum, recall of elected officials. A service of 
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R ~ GB
===============================================================


AFTER THE IRISH "NO": REFLECTION ON DEMOCRACY IN THE UK

June 2008

Claim right of citizens to propose and obtain a referendum

Political parties in Britain fish for votes by using the promise of a 
referendum as bait. Recent experience on several important themes -- the 
electoral system, the Euro currency and worst of all the constitutional 
treaty for Europe* -- has shown that such promises were unreliable or 
worthless.

We are told by politicians that a referendum cannot be held unless the 
government of the day "allows" one. An Act of the usually obedient 
parliament is required to rubber-stamp a wish of the prime minister to 
hold a referendum. There are better ways to govern our own public 
affairs. There is no good reason to do things in this centralised and 
dictatorial manner. The Irish example in 2008, similar in Denmark 2005, 
show that this must *not* be the case.

The electorate must take back their power to decide on certain important 
issues which they select. How can this be done? We must simply introduce 
the right of citizens to propose and force a referendum, by collecting a 
large number of endorsements for a proposal. Using this method, which is 
used in a number of countries similar to ours, we can propose or change 
a law and formulate a directive to our representatives in the European 
Union. Also, we can put up for veto (by referendum) a government bill, a 
new international treaty or proposed change in constitution.

See also the posting below "MPs reject EU treaty referendum"

===================================
*The Labour Party manifesto 2005 stated:

"The EU now has 25 members and will continue to expand. The new 
Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and 
that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign 
policy, taxation, social security and defence. The Treaty sets out what 
the EU can do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national 
parliaments and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty for 
Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in 
a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep 
Britain a leading nation in Europe."



MPs REJECT EU TREATY REFERENDUM

bbc.com 5.3.2008 "MPs reject EU treaty referendum
The government says a referendum is not needed on the treaty
MPs have rejected proposals to hold a UK-wide referendum on whether to 
ratify the EU's Lisbon Treaty.
The House of Commons turned down the Conservative proposal by 311 votes 
to 248 - a margin of 63.
The result means Parliament itself will decide whether to ratify the 
treaty, signed by EU leaders last December." <snip>

Above items appear at *INIREF BLOG <http://www.iniref.org/blog.html>*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About I&R ~ GB
We advocate the introduction of direct democratic procedures such as
citizens' initiative, issue-ballot, referendum, and recall in the 
countries of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland. With over ten years' experience
we put forward proposals, provide campaign resources, offer to provide
speakers, organise workshops and conferences.
Web site: http://www.iniref.org
Contact: info AT iniref.org

"I&R ~ GB" <""info \"@ iniref.org"> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:6bsrqhF3cfkckU1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>
> ===============================================================
> IR+R NEWS - news about democratic reform, citizens' initiative,
> referendum, recall of elected officials. A service of Citizens' Initiative 
> and Referendum I&R ~ GB
> ===============================================================
>
>
> AFTER THE IRISH "NO": REFLECTION ON DEMOCRACY IN THE UK
>
> June 2008
>
> Claim right of citizens to propose and obtain a referendum
>
> Political parties in Britain fish for votes by using the promise of a 
> referendum as bait. Recent experience on several important themes -- the 
> electoral system, the Euro currency and worst of all the constitutional 
> treaty for Europe* -- has shown that such promises were unreliable or 
> worthless.
>
> We are told by politicians that a referendum cannot be held unless the 
> government of the day "allows" one. An Act of the usually obedient 
> parliament is required to rubber-stamp a wish of the prime minister to 
> hold a referendum. There are better ways to govern our own public affairs. 
> There is no good reason to do things in this centralised and dictatorial 
> manner. The Irish example in 2008, similar in Denmark 2005, show that this 
> must *not* be the case.
>
> The electorate must take back their power to decide on certain important 
> issues which they select. How can this be done? We must simply introduce 
> the right of citizens to propose and force a referendum, by collecting a 
> large number of endorsements for a proposal. Using this method, which is 
> used in a number of countries similar to ours, we can propose or change a 
> law and formulate a directive to our representatives in the European 
> Union.




See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland






Also, we can put up for veto (by referendum) a government bill, a
> new international treaty or proposed change in constitution.
>
> See also the posting below "MPs reject EU treaty referendum"
>
> ===================================
> *The Labour Party manifesto 2005 stated:
>
> "The EU now has 25 members and will continue to expand. The new 
> Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and 
> that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy, 
> taxation, social security and defence. The Treaty sets out what the EU can 
> do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national parliaments 
> and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty for Britain and for the 
> new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and 
> campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation 
> in Europe."
>
>
>
> MPs REJECT EU TREATY REFERENDUM
>
> bbc.com 5.3.2008 "MPs reject EU treaty referendum
> The government says a referendum is not needed on the treaty
> MPs have rejected proposals to hold a UK-wide referendum on whether to 
> ratify the EU's Lisbon Treaty.
> The House of Commons turned down the Conservative proposal by 311 votes to 
> 248 - a margin of 63.
> The result means Parliament itself will decide whether to ratify the 
> treaty, signed by EU leaders last December." <snip>
>
> Above items appear at *INIREF BLOG <http://www.iniref.org/blog.html>*
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> About I&R ~ GB
> We advocate the introduction of direct democratic procedures such as
> citizens' initiative, issue-ballot, referendum, and recall in the 
> countries of
> Great Britain and Northern Ireland. With over ten years' experience
> we put forward proposals, provide campaign resources, offer to provide
> speakers, organise workshops and conferences.
> Web site: http://www.iniref.org
> Contact: info AT iniref.org
>
>

"Michael Laudahn eOpposition"
<nuke.islamistan@your.earliest.convenience> wrote in
news:1v83se.3pn.19.1@news.alt.net: 

> 
> "I&R ~ GB" <""info \"@ iniref.org"> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
> news:6bsrqhF3cfkckU1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> ===============================================================
>> IR+R NEWS - news about democratic reform, citizens' initiative,
>> referendum, recall of elected officials. A service of Citizens'
>> Initiative and Referendum I&R ~ GB
>> ===============================================================
>>
>>
>> AFTER THE IRISH "NO": REFLECTION ON DEMOCRACY IN THE UK
>>
>> June 2008
>>
>> Claim right of citizens to propose and obtain a referendum
>>
>> Political parties in Britain fish for votes by using the promise of a
>> referendum as bait. Recent experience on several important themes --
>> the electoral system, the Euro currency and worst of all the
>> constitutional treaty for Europe* -- has shown that such promises
>> were unreliable or worthless.
>>
>> We are told by politicians that a referendum cannot be held unless
>> the government of the day "allows" one. An Act of the usually
>> obedient parliament is required to rubber-stamp a wish of the prime
>> minister to hold a referendum. There are better ways to govern our
>> own public affairs. There is no good reason to do things in this
>> centralised and dictatorial manner. The Irish example in 2008,
>> similar in Denmark 2005, show that this must *not* be the case.
>>
>> The electorate must take back their power to decide on certain
>> important issues which they select. How can this be done? We must
>> simply introduce the right of citizens to propose and force a
>> referendum, by collecting a large number of endorsements for a
>> proposal. Using this method, which is used in a number of countries
>> similar to ours, we can propose or change a law and formulate a
>> directive to our representatives in the European Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
> 

Where we find

"..the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30 
percent"

Would you want your country's policies decided by 10-15% of the 
electorate?

"soupdragon"  schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:Xns9AC1E1E227D78souphotmailcom@193.201.53.67...


>> See
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
>>
>
> Where we find
>
> "..the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30
> percent"
>
> Would you want your country's policies decided by 10-15% of the
> electorate?



No, I want scientists to find out why this is so and then let politicians 
take appropriate counter-measures.

This shows that politicians are the same kind anywhere, also in Switzerland. 
This is the reason why the swiss constitution was made the way it is.




-- 
Give us back our countries: Stop the criminal multiculturalism ideology
enforced upon the white world against the will of its peoples, leading to
mass immigration from the third-world: Mul-cul + pol-corr = lethal mixture
for the white world. And give us back our freedom: Dismantle all
surveillance technology.

soupdragon wrote:
> "Michael Laudahn eOpposition"
> <nuke.islamistan@your.earliest.convenience> wrote in
> news:1v83se.3pn.19.1@news.alt.net: 
> 
>> "I&R ~ GB" <""info \"@ iniref.org"> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
>> news:6bsrqhF3cfkckU1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>> ===============================================================
>>> IR+R NEWS - news about democratic reform, citizens' initiative,
>>> referendum, recall of elected officials. A service of Citizens'
>>> Initiative and Referendum I&R ~ GB
>>> ===============================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> AFTER THE IRISH "NO": REFLECTION ON DEMOCRACY IN THE UK
>>>
>>> June 2008
>>>
>>> Claim right of citizens to propose and obtain a referendum
>>>
>>> Political parties in Britain fish for votes by using the promise of a
>>> referendum as bait. Recent experience on several important themes --
>>> the electoral system, the Euro currency and worst of all the
>>> constitutional treaty for Europe* -- has shown that such promises
>>> were unreliable or worthless.
>>>
>>> We are told by politicians that a referendum cannot be held unless
>>> the government of the day "allows" one. An Act of the usually
>>> obedient parliament is required to rubber-stamp a wish of the prime
>>> minister to hold a referendum. There are better ways to govern our
>>> own public affairs. There is no good reason to do things in this
>>> centralised and dictatorial manner. The Irish example in 2008,
>>> similar in Denmark 2005, show that this must *not* be the case.
>>>
>>> The electorate must take back their power to decide on certain
>>> important issues which they select. How can this be done? We must
>>> simply introduce the right of citizens to propose and force a
>>> referendum, by collecting a large number of endorsements for a
>>> proposal. Using this method, which is used in a number of countries
>>> similar to ours, we can propose or change a law and formulate a
>>> directive to our representatives in the European Union.
>>
>>
>>
>> See
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
>>
> 
> Where we find
> 
> "..the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30 
> percent"
> 
> Would you want your country's policies decided by 10-15% of the 
> electorate?  

The recent average turnout for Swiss country-wide referenda is almost 
forty four percent. See figures below. This is not ideal but 
participation in elections of politicians has fallen too.

Do you as a UK subject like being governed by a political party elected 
only by a minority and small fraction of the electorate?

For Britain + N.Ireland we at I&R ~ GB http://www.iniref.org/steps.html 
propose making a start by introducing OPTIONAL citizens' referenda. Only 
if an issue is very important to a large number of us would it go to the 
ballot. This would ensure better turnout. The whole electorate is 
invited to take part.

		
SWITZERLAND 1991–2006
Year/Number of Ballots/Turnout%		
			
1991	2	32.3
1992	4	52.0
1993	4	48.0
1994	4	44.3
1995	2	39.1
1996	3	36.4
1997	2	38.1
1998	3	43.7
1999	3	39.9
2000	4	44.3
2001	3	45.3
2002	4	48.2
2003	2	39.2
2004	4	46.8
2005	3	51.2
2006	3	40.7
2007	2	41.2
		
		
		
Average 		1991–2007		43.9%

Source: Entwicklung der Stimmbeteiligung bei eidgenössischen 
Volksabstimmungen 
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/17/22/lexi.Document.21845.xls 
								
--------------------------------------------------------

The question's irrelevant, soupdragon. The turnout is what it is. Democracy 
does not become invalid because some people decide not to turn out. That 
itself is a vote, if you like. Agreed it's not healthy but you take the 
rough with the smooth and work to re-engage people. The 85% are in effect 
acquiescing with what the majority of the 15% that do turn out decide!

"soupdragon"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9AC1E1E227D78souphotmailcom@193.201.53.67...
> "Michael Laudahn eOpposition"
> <nuke.islamistan@your.earliest.convenience> wrote in
> news:1v83se.3pn.19.1@news.alt.net:
>
>>
>> "I&R ~ GB" <""info \"@ iniref.org"> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:6bsrqhF3cfkckU1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>> ===============================================================
>>> IR+R NEWS - news about democratic reform, citizens' initiative,
>>> referendum, recall of elected officials. A service of Citizens'
>>> Initiative and Referendum I&R ~ GB
>>> ===============================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> AFTER THE IRISH "NO": REFLECTION ON DEMOCRACY IN THE UK
>>>
>>> June 2008
>>>
>>> Claim right of citizens to propose and obtain a referendum
>>>
>>> Political parties in Britain fish for votes by using the promise of a
>>> referendum as bait. Recent experience on several important themes --
>>> the electoral system, the Euro currency and worst of all the
>>> constitutional treaty for Europe* -- has shown that such promises
>>> were unreliable or worthless.
>>>
>>> We are told by politicians that a referendum cannot be held unless
>>> the government of the day "allows" one. An Act of the usually
>>> obedient parliament is required to rubber-stamp a wish of the prime
>>> minister to hold a referendum. There are better ways to govern our
>>> own public affairs. There is no good reason to do things in this
>>> centralised and dictatorial manner. The Irish example in 2008,
>>> similar in Denmark 2005, show that this must *not* be the case.
>>>
>>> The electorate must take back their power to decide on certain
>>> important issues which they select. How can this be done? We must
>>> simply introduce the right of citizens to propose and force a
>>> referendum, by collecting a large number of endorsements for a
>>> proposal. Using this method, which is used in a number of countries
>>> similar to ours, we can propose or change a law and formulate a
>>> directive to our representatives in the European Union.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> See
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
>>
>
> Where we find
>
> "..the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30
> percent"
>
> Would you want your country's policies decided by 10-15% of the
> electorate?

"Michael Laudahn eOpposition"
<nuke.islamistan@your.earliest.convenience> wrote in
news:1v8m43.9ga.19.1@news.alt.net: 

> 
> "soupdragon"  schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
> news:Xns9AC1E1E227D78souphotmailcom@193.201.53.67...
> 
> 
>>> See
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
>>>
>>
>> Where we find
>>
>> "..the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30
>> percent"
>>
>> Would you want your country's policies decided by 10-15% of the
>> electorate?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I want scientists to find out why this is so and then let
> politicians take appropriate counter-measures.

You don't need scientists to tell you that if you run a referendum
every Tuesday and Saturday, people lose interest and simply can't
be bothered with the hassle. It's already difficult enough to get
them out for local elections once every 4 years.

You could, of course, make voting compulsory. I guess that way,
you don't get a minority tyrrany running the show but you'd also
want a RON category for voters to opt for.
> 
> This shows that politicians are the same kind anywhere, also in
> Switzerland. This is the reason why the swiss constitution was made
> the way it is. 
> 
> 
> 
>

I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org"> wrote in
news:6buhncF3ejei6U1@mid.uni-berlin.de: 

> soupdragon wrote:
>> "Michael Laudahn eOpposition"
>> <nuke.islamistan@your.earliest.convenience> wrote in
>> news:1v83se.3pn.19.1@news.alt.net: 
>> 
>>> "I&R ~ GB" <""info \"@ iniref.org"> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
>>> news:6bsrqhF3cfkckU1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>> ===============================================================
>>>> IR+R NEWS - news about democratic reform, citizens' initiative,
>>>> referendum, recall of elected officials. A service of Citizens'
>>>> Initiative and Referendum I&R ~ GB
>>>> ===============================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AFTER THE IRISH "NO": REFLECTION ON DEMOCRACY IN THE UK
>>>>
>>>> June 2008
>>>>
>>>> Claim right of citizens to propose and obtain a referendum
>>>>
>>>> Political parties in Britain fish for votes by using the promise of
>>>> a referendum as bait. Recent experience on several important themes
>>>> -- the electoral system, the Euro currency and worst of all the
>>>> constitutional treaty for Europe* -- has shown that such promises
>>>> were unreliable or worthless.
>>>>
>>>> We are told by politicians that a referendum cannot be held unless
>>>> the government of the day "allows" one. An Act of the usually
>>>> obedient parliament is required to rubber-stamp a wish of the prime
>>>> minister to hold a referendum. There are better ways to govern our
>>>> own public affairs. There is no good reason to do things in this
>>>> centralised and dictatorial manner. The Irish example in 2008,
>>>> similar in Denmark 2005, show that this must *not* be the case.
>>>>
>>>> The electorate must take back their power to decide on certain
>>>> important issues which they select. How can this be done? We must
>>>> simply introduce the right of citizens to propose and force a
>>>> referendum, by collecting a large number of endorsements for a
>>>> proposal. Using this method, which is used in a number of countries
>>>> similar to ours, we can propose or change a law and formulate a
>>>> directive to our representatives in the European Union.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> See
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
>>>
>> 
>> Where we find
>> 
>> "..the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30 
>> percent"
>> 
>> Would you want your country's policies decided by 10-15% of the 
>> electorate?  
> 
> The recent average turnout for Swiss country-wide referenda is almost 
> forty four percent. See figures below.

The figures vary widely. All it takes is one big turnout to make up for
2 poor ones over the space of a year.

> This is not ideal but 
> participation in elections of politicians has fallen too.
> 
> Do you as a UK subject like being governed by a political party
> elected only by a minority and small fraction of the electorate?

I get a party chosen from a system that has around 60-70% of a turnout.
The Swiss system allows considerably smaller minorities to take charge.

1997 election Labour's share of the vote was 44% from a 71% low turnout.
That's 31% of the entire electorate and way better than the 10-15% off
a 20-30% turnout in Switzerland. Not only that, but that's 31% from a 
5 way choice, whereas in Switzerland it can't even match that with 2
choices due to the poor turnout. I'm assuming women can vote in these,
they couldn't vote elsewhere until fairly recently.

"In 1929 a petition for voting rights managed to collect a quarter of a  
 million signatures - but was ignored. 
 By giving voters the final say on legislation, Switzerland's system of  
 direct democracy kept women out." - SwissWorld

Mmm "Direct democracy" keeping minorities out? Sounds like a written 
constitution guaranteeing the rights of minorities will be needed first
to ensure this system is not abused determined cliques with an axe to 
grind.

"Pentland Pete"  wrote in
news:0uidnZoAI5_HssfVnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@bt.com: 

> The question's irrelevant, soupdragon. The turnout is what it is.
> Democracy does not become invalid because some people decide not to
> turn out. 

Yes it does. Then it becomes the tool of a determined clique determined to 
push their own agenda. Trades Union politics in the 1960s-70s made
that clear what could be achieved by determined minorities working
within the Trade Union to get their own way. Union meetings would be
packed with points of order to drive away the opposition through
sheer boredom, by which time the determined clique that was left could
either push through their own policy or vote down one they don't like.
Eventually unions were forced to introduce minimum turnout requirements
and clear 2 to 1 majorities to prevent these abuses.


> The 85% are in effect acquiescing with what the majority of the 15%
> that do turn out decide!

Sounds like Robert Mugabe politics - drive 85% away, claim they are
aquiescing and win with 15%. No thanks. I prefer my referenda to
be rather more respresentative of the people as a whole.

I don't buy into the 'direct democracy' as it stands. There are
too many dangers and Switzerland used it as a tool to deny women
the right to vote until fairly recently. Who knows what else it 
could be used to deny unless safeguards such as minimum turnouts,
minimum winning margins and, most important of all, a written 
constitution guaranteeing rights to minorities. After all, it wouldn't be 
too hard for a bunch of determined BNP supporter to get sufficient numbers
together to put some anti ethnic-minority referendum together and then do
a Mugabe using their right hand men at Combat18.

soupdragon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> See
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
>>>>
>>> Where we find
>>>
>>> "..the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30 
>>> percent"
>>>
>>> Would you want your country's policies decided by 10-15% of the 
>>> electorate?  
>> The recent average turnout for Swiss country-wide referenda is almost 
>> forty four percent. See figures below.
> 
> The figures vary widely. All it takes is one big turnout to make up for
> 2 poor ones over the space of a year.

Where did you learn rithmetic?
Turnout during the last two decades ranged from 32 to 52 percent. All 
countrywide referendum turnouts were higher than the maximimum (source?) 
which you allege. Again, our I&R ~ GB proposal 
http://www.iniref.org/learn.html modifies the Swiss model for GB+NI and 
would guarantee reasonable turnout.

SWITZERLAND 1991–2006 OFFICIAL STATISTICS
Year/Number of Ballots/Turnout%

1991    2    32.3
1992    4    52.0
1993    4    48.0
1994    4    44.3
1995    2    39.1
1996    3    36.4
1997    2    38.1
1998    3    43.7
1999    3    39.9
2000    4    44.3
2001    3    45.3
2002    4    48.2
2003    2    39.2
2004    4    46.8
2005    3    51.2
2006    3    40.7
2007    2    41.2



Average         1991–2007        43.9%

I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org"> wrote in news:6busn6F3f3dekU1@mid.uni-
berlin.de:

> soupdragon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> See
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
>>>>>
>>>> Where we find
>>>>
>>>> "..the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30 
>>>> percent"
>>>>
>>>> Would you want your country's policies decided by 10-15% of the 
>>>> electorate?  
>>> The recent average turnout for Swiss country-wide referenda is almost 
>>> forty four percent. See figures below.
>> 
>> The figures vary widely. All it takes is one big turnout to make up 
for
>> 2 poor ones over the space of a year.
> 
> Where did you learn rithmetic?

At school, like most people. Presumably you didn't do 'averages'.
Just in case, let me illuminate you with your own figures for
one year.

1996    3    36.4

That's three referenda with an average turnout of 36% (still pathetically 
poor, however..). Lets divide them into three seperate referenda and
call the numbers 1 2 and 3 for simplicity.

Referendum 1 is a hot topic and pulls in a 65% turnout.
Referendum 2 is less interesting and pulls in a 25% turnout
Referendum 3 is just too much for the 'people' and turns out a meagre 18%

So, on that basis, one big turnout makes up for 2 poor ones. The average 
is 36% - in line with your figure for that year - but also during that
year, the turnout for '..most referenda was  a lowly 15-25%.'

> Turnout during the last two decades ranged from 32 to 52 percent.

No it didn't. You are being dishonest with your figures. During the
last two decades, its _range_ is between the highest individual turnout
and the lowest. What you're trying to pass off as a range is nothing
more than a series of annual averages - meaningless figures in their own 
right.

I honestly don't understand  your purpose here. If your case is as strong
as you think it is, there should be no need to resort to such dishonest
reporting of figures. It does nothing to help your case and a great deal
to undermine it.

soupdragon wrote:
> I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org"> wrote in news:6busn6F3f3dekU1@mid.uni-
> berlin.de:
> 
>> soupdragon wrote:
>>>>>> See
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
>>>>>>
>>>>> Where we find
>>>>>
>>>>> "..the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30 
>>>>> percent"
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you want your country's policies decided by 10-15% of the 
>>>>> electorate?  
>>>> The recent average turnout for Swiss country-wide referenda is almost 
>>>> forty four percent. See figures below.
>>> The figures vary widely. All it takes is one big turnout to make up 
> for
>>> 2 poor ones over the space of a year.
>> Where did you learn rithmetic?
> 
> At school, like most people. Presumably you didn't do 'averages'.
> Just in case, let me illuminate you with your own figures for
> one year.
> 
> 1996    3    36.4
> 
> That's three referenda with an average turnout of 36% (still pathetically 
> poor, however..). Lets divide them into three seperate referenda and
> call the numbers 1 2 and 3 for simplicity.
> 
> Referendum 1 is a hot topic and pulls in a 65% turnout.
> Referendum 2 is less interesting and pulls in a 25% turnout
> Referendum 3 is just too much for the 'people' and turns out a meagre 18%
> 
> So, on that basis, one big turnout makes up for 2 poor ones. The average 
> is 36% - in line with your figure for that year - but also during that
> year, the turnout for '..most referenda was  a lowly 15-25%.'
> 
>> Turnout during the last two decades ranged from 32 to 52 percent.
> 
> No it didn't. You are being dishonest with your figures. During the
> last two decades, its _range_ is between the highest individual turnout
> and the lowest. What you're trying to pass off as a range is nothing
> more than a series of annual averages - meaningless figures in their own 
> right.
> 
> I honestly don't understand  your purpose here. If your case is as strong
> as you think it is, there should be no need to resort to such dishonest
> reporting of figures. It does nothing to help your case and a great deal
> to undermine it.

I quoted the range of turnouts given for country-wide referenda at the 
gov. web site. You are now playing with imaginary numbers to avoid 
admitting your sloppy use of an unsubstantiated reference "..the 
percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30
 >>>>> percent". Where did this come from? Which referenda does it refer 
to? When and where did they occur?

Turnout for ballots etc. should ideally be high. But having a high 
quorum is unwise. See Italy which requires a fifty percent turnout. A 
powerful minority can sabotage a referendum by calling for boycott, 
unhealthy for democracy.

See The Citizens' Initiative and Referendum:  Direct Democracy in 5 
Countries of Europe by Michael Wallace-Macpherson, Paul Ruppen, Roland 
Erne, Radoslaw Gawlik, Ralph Kampwirth, Bruno Kaufmann and Arjen Nijeboer
http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/aabajourVol5-No1.html

"soupdragon"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9AC1E1E227D78souphotmailcom@193.201.53.67...
> "..the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30
> percent"
>
> Would you want your country's policies decided by 10-15% of the
> electorate?

If they're too lazy to get off their backsides, then that's their own fault.

So you're happy for scummy Boredom Clown to disregard the Irish "no" vote, 
that's democratic is it?

-- 
The Boss

"soupdragon"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9AC27679D98F9souphotmailcom@193.201.53.67...
> I get a party chosen from a system that has around 60-70% of a turnout.
> The Swiss system allows considerably smaller minorities to take charge.
>
> 1997 election Labour's share of the vote was 44% from a 71% low turnout.
> That's 31% of the entire electorate and way better than the 10-15% off
> a 20-30% turnout in Switzerland.

What about the last election, what % did Liebore get then?:
Registered electors 44,245,939

Total valid votes cast 27,148,510 = 61.4% turnout.

Of which, 9,56m voted LIEbore = 35% of votes cast, but only 21.6% of the 
total possible vote.

No wonder Boredom Clown continues with his undemocratic practises: he can 
hardly feel he "inherited" an unanimous majority vote of confidence.

> Not only that, but that's 31% from a
> 5 way choice, whereas in Switzerland it can't even match that with 2
> choices due to the poor turnout. I'm assuming women can vote in these,
> they couldn't vote elsewhere until fairly recently.
>
> "In 1929 a petition for voting rights managed to collect a quarter of a
> million signatures - but was ignored.
> By giving voters the final say on legislation, Switzerland's system of
> direct democracy kept women out." - SwissWorld
>
> Mmm "Direct democracy" keeping minorities out?

How is that relevant or applicable to Britain today?

> Sounds like a written
> constitution guaranteeing the rights of minorities will be needed first
> to ensure this system is not abused determined cliques with an axe to
> grind.

If people get off their backsides, how can the system be abused?

--
The Boss

"soupdragon"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9AC2793443A62souphotmailcom@193.201.53.67...
> "Pentland Pete"  wrote in
> news:0uidnZoAI5_HssfVnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@bt.com:
>
>> The question's irrelevant, soupdragon. The turnout is what it is.
>> Democracy does not become invalid because some people decide not to
>> turn out.
>
> Yes it does.

Don't talk rubbish. *Not* voting is part of democracy too. You can't FORCE 
people to vote, because that would be UNdemocratic. What part of free_will 
are you too stupid to understand?

> Then it becomes the tool of a determined clique determined to
> push their own agenda. Trades Union politics in the 1960s-70s made
> that clear what could be achieved by determined minorities working
> within the Trade Union to get their own way. Union meetings would be
> packed with points of order to drive away the opposition through
> sheer boredom, by which time the determined clique that was left could
> either push through their own policy or vote down one they don't like.
> Eventually unions were forced to introduce minimum turnout requirements
> and clear 2 to 1 majorities to prevent these abuses.

Totally irrelevant to national general elections.

>> The 85% are in effect acquiescing with what the majority of the 15%
>> that do turn out decide!
>
> Sounds like Robert Mugabe politics - drive 85% away, claim they are
> aquiescing and win with 15%. No thanks. I prefer my referenda to
> be rather more respresentative of the people as a whole.
>
> I don't buy into the 'direct democracy' as it stands. There are
> too many dangers and Switzerland used it as a tool to deny women
> the right to vote until fairly recently. Who knows what else it
> could be used to deny unless safeguards such as minimum turnouts,
> minimum winning margins and, most important of all, a written
> constitution guaranteeing rights to minorities. After all, it wouldn't be
> too hard for a bunch of determined BNP supporter to get sufficient numbers
> together to put some anti ethnic-minority referendum together and then do
> a Mugabe using their right hand men at Combat18.

Don't be so stupid.

-- 
The Boss

The Boss wrote:

> Don't talk rubbish. Not voting is part of democracy too. You can't
> FORCE people to vote, because that would be UNdemocratic. What part of
> free_will are you too stupid to understand?

Not voting is indeed part of the democratic structure but to
differentiate between 'Not' voting, and 'can't be bothered to go and
vote', one goes to the polling station and spoils the ballot paper,
spoiling the papers by writing comments comments on why one is doing so
are useful as the candidates, or their representatives have to see each
paper to agree that it is spoilt, at least that was my understanding. 

-- 
Nemo
"Feather-footed through the plashy fen passes the questing vole"

I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org"> wrote in
news:6bvmniF3e0qooU1@mid.uni-berlin.de: 

> soupdragon wrote:
>> I&R ~ GB <""info \"@ iniref.org"> wrote in
>> news:6busn6F3f3dekU1@mid.uni- berlin.de:
>> 
>>> soupdragon wrote:
>>>>>>> See
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where we find
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "..the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30
>>>>>> percent"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you want your country's policies decided by 10-15% of the 
>>>>>> electorate?  
>>>>> The recent average turnout for Swiss country-wide referenda is
>>>>> almost forty four percent. See figures below.
>>>> The figures vary widely. All it takes is one big turnout to make up
>> for
>>>> 2 poor ones over the space of a year.
>>> Where did you learn rithmetic?
>> 
>> At school, like most people. Presumably you didn't do 'averages'.
>> Just in case, let me illuminate you with your own figures for
>> one year.
>> 
>> 1996    3    36.4
>> 
>> That's three referenda with an average turnout of 36% (still
>> pathetically poor, however..). Lets divide them into three seperate
>> referenda and call the numbers 1 2 and 3 for simplicity.
>> 
>> Referendum 1 is a hot topic and pulls in a 65% turnout.
>> Referendum 2 is less interesting and pulls in a 25% turnout
>> Referendum 3 is just too much for the 'people' and turns out a meagre
>> 18% 
>> 
>> So, on that basis, one big turnout makes up for 2 poor ones. The
>> average is 36% - in line with your figure for that year - but also
>> during that year, the turnout for '..most referenda was  a lowly
>> 15-25%.' 
>> 
>>> Turnout during the last two decades ranged from 32 to 52 percent.
>> 
>> No it didn't. You are being dishonest with your figures. During the
>> last two decades, its _range_ is between the highest individual
>> turnout and the lowest. What you're trying to pass off as a range is
>> nothing more than a series of annual averages - meaningless figures
>> in their own right.
>> 
>> I honestly don't understand  your purpose here. If your case is as
>> strong as you think it is, there should be no need to resort to such
>> dishonest reporting of figures. It does nothing to help your case and
>> a great deal to undermine it.
> 
> I quoted the range of turnouts given for country-wide referenda 

No. You quoted a series of annual averages for mulitiple referenda. 
That is not the same as a range. I've already explained why. The
range is the difference between the lowest and highest individual
turnout. Averages don't come into it and only serve to disguise
the true picture.