[EM] Comprehensive, Simple, and Informative Indicative

robert bristow-johnson rbj at audioimagination.com
Mon Apr 1 21:27:37 PDT 2019








---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] Comprehensive, Simple, and Informative Indicative

From: "Bob Richard" <lists001 at robertjrichard.com>

Date: Mon, April 1, 2019 6:40 pm

To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com

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



> The most basic problem in this situation has nothing to do with choosing

> among approval voting, score voting, the alternative vote, the Condorcet

> criterion, or anything else. It's to determine what options should (and

> shouldn't) be on the ballot.

>

> Parliament's most conspicuous failure in this regard (in which they are

> joined by the entire press corps, as far as I know) is to treat a second

> referendum as it if were an alternative on a list of alternatives. The

> question whether to put a decision of Parliament to a confirmatory vote

> of the people is entirely separate from what decision Parliament should

> make. The questions are politically interrelated, in the sense that MPs

> on the losing end of a debate in Parliament are far more likely to call

> for a referendum than MPs who won that debate.
i dunno if i said this here, or if i said this at another forum.
The really stupid thing about the Brexit vote in 2016, was that it was flawed in structure in the first place.  Not every state in the U.S. has Initiative and
Referendum (like Vermont does not), but those states that do, **even** if they get enough signatures on the petitions to put a question on the ballot, that question must withstand some judicial scrutiny.  If the language of the question is flawed in insufficiently legalistic, if the acceptance
of the question violates the state constitution, a state court can strike it out or even modify the language a little bit before it goes on the ballot.
The 2016 Brexit question would not have cut it at all with U.S lawyers, because the terms of the exit were not well-defined.  It needed
to be planned to be **two** questions from the very beginning.  The first question would be similar to the sweeping, but non-specific question that had been asked (except for one important word):  Does the U.K. **begin** the process of exiting the European Union or not?  A majority of
"Remain" would put an end to the issue, but a majority of "Leave" would direct the government to begin the Article 50 crap and negotiate the terms.  Then, in 2 years, and with well-defined exit terms that can be put into legalistic language, **that** should be put on the
second referendum to ask the British people if they still want to exit with the terms that the government had negotiated.  Only if both questions were answered with "Leave" would the Brexit be fulfilled.
That's my opinion.  Whether a super-majority be required or not is
something I would let others slug out.
But there is no way that the "Exit" decision be irrevocably made without the electorate knowing what the terms and implications of the Exit are.
Otherwise, it's just fucking stupid.
(The opinion of a Yank.)  Now you Limey's get
to tell us Yanks how fucked up we are.  Because both of our countries are just screwed.
We're all so bloody screwed.   Nothing left to do but drop your pants and bend over.
--


r b-j                         rbj at audioimagination.com



"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20190401/41f8eaa3/attachment.html>


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list