<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Kevin Venzke wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
--- Augustin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:beginner2005@masquilier.org"><beginner2005@masquilier.org></a> a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am very angry when I think about how referendums are conducted in
Taiwan.
a- stupid 50% rule.
-------------------
For the result of a referendum to be valid, at least 50% of the
*registered voters* must participate. I.e. if at least 50% of the
registered couch potatoes stay at home, the referendum will fail even
if the vote expressed show 90% + support to the referendum item.
Thus, the surest way to kill a referendum is to stay at home.
Also, all those registered voters who genuinely don't care about the
referendum one way of the other (e.g. the disinterested couch potato
group of people), are all automaticall counted in the NO camp,
whatever the question asked. !!!
How much more undemocratic can that be??
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The rule that a majority of voters must vote is unfortunate because it
means that by showing up to vote "No" you can cause the proposal to
succeed.</pre>
</blockquote>
You could avoid that problem by having a rule that says for a
referendum to pass the number of<br>
cast ballots in favour of it must exceed the number of cast ballots
against it and also comprise at<br>
least (say) 25% of the "registered voters". (The 25% figure is
consistent with the intention of the<br>
actual "50% must vote" rule, because if it passes by a narrow margin
then about 50% must have<br>
voted.)<br>
<br>
I think a rule like this is more democratic than having super-majority
requirements that exist in a lot<br>
of places.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But in my opinion, to avoid government abuse of referendum, they should not
pass or fail only on the opinions of the voters that the government was
able to convince to participate.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Kevin, can you explain (and maybe give an example) of what you mean by
"government abuse of referendum"<br>
and how your proposal avoids it?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If I choose to not vote in a referendum for some issue, I want this to be
interpreted as "have the government make this decision" not "let the other
voters make this decision."</pre>
</blockquote>
Since the government derives its authority and legitimacy from being
the voters' representatives, I find<br>
this personal view of yours to be a bit perverse and undemocratic.
Presumably you think this should<br>
be the general view. If so, why?<br>
<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<blockquote cite="mid983960.12731.qm@web23302.mail.ird.yahoo.com"
type="cite"><br>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>