Sunday, 9 November 2014

Arguments against Referenda - debunked.

The authoritarians in liberal clothing argue against referenda, but their arguments are flawed:-

1) Referendums are never about the question on the ballot - people vote one way or the other for all kinds of different reasons.

This is not an argument against referendums, it is an argument for more referendums - give people the referendums they want and they won't need to use the few they do get to 'send messages' about other issues, other issues that should have their own dedicated referendums!

2) Referendums never settle the issue - people just call call for re-runs.

Again this is not an argument against referendums, it is an argument for more referendums -  if the public mood changes over time (and why shouldn't it? we have general elections every 5 years to allow people to change their minds!), if the public mood changes over time just have another referendum! and do what the public now want to do - what is the problem with that?

3) Referendums are too expensive.

Democracy is expensive, war is expensive etc... but its the price of our 'system'.

But with more varied and more frequent referendums, there is every opportunity to establish infrastructure to make referendums much, much cheaper than they currently are.


Referendums are the first step to direct democracy and liquid democracy - they are a step that we must take.

Now which party support binding, public triggered, referendums? Oh thats UKIP.

1 comment:

  1. I think the problem is that we get ad hoc referendums at a time of the government's choosing and on terms the government wants. There are no set rules for regular referendums. The rules for each are fixed in the Bill . The Electorsl Commission is a New Labou Quango and the legislation under which it operates is very poorly drafted