Comments on: This Is The Question http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/ Shooting my mouth off since 2006 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:05:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Wilf Day http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-720 Wilf Day Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:00:20 +0000 http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/#comment-720 "The alternative proposed by the Citizens" is a pretty positive label. I'll vote for that. Every day more Liberal voters say they will vote yes. And the latest Environics poll even says "Progressive Conservative voters are divided equally 33 percent for and 34 percent against the change." I think it will carry with between 62% and 65%. “The alternative proposed by the Citizens” is a pretty positive label. I’ll vote for that.

Every day more Liberal voters say they will vote yes. And the latest Environics poll even says “Progressive Conservative voters are divided equally 33 percent for and 34 percent against the change.”

I think it will carry with between 62% and 65%.

]]> By: Saul http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-719 Saul Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:40:18 +0000 http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/#comment-719 "By tis standard, we should require 60% of the seas in the legislature to pass “important” legislation like well……whatever we feel is important…" But we actually do that. We do require, in constitutional matters, "supramajorities," precisely because we've decided that it's "important legislation." “By tis standard, we should require 60% of the seas in the legislature to pass “important” legislation like well……whatever we feel is important…”

But we actually do that. We do require, in constitutional matters, “supramajorities,” precisely because we’ve decided that it’s “important legislation.”

]]> By: Steve Withers http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-718 Steve Withers Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:11:44 +0000 http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/#comment-718 The question is similar to the one used in the 1993 MMP referendum in New Zealand. There, it was felt that "yes" and "no" were implicitly biased. Instead, voters were given two neutral statements and asked to state a preference. The order is no big deal. If the order did matter and was the deciding factor, that would be a very sad commentary indeed on the cognitive skills of the average voter. The 60% threshold is quite unfair as it is a departure from all previous democratic practice....and I do not consider the two other abbarant referenda (BC and PI) to be any sort of precedent. By tis standard, we should require 60% of the seas in the legislature to pass "important" legislation like well......whatever we feel is important...(see? arbitrary and subjective obstacle to normal democratic operation). The question is similar to the one used in the 1993 MMP referendum in New Zealand. There, it was felt that “yes” and “no” were implicitly biased. Instead, voters were given two neutral statements and asked to state a preference.

The order is no big deal. If the order did matter and was the deciding factor, that would be a very sad commentary indeed on the cognitive skills of the average voter.

The 60% threshold is quite unfair as it is a departure from all previous democratic practice….and I do not consider the two other abbarant referenda (BC and PI) to be any sort of precedent. By tis standard, we should require 60% of the seas in the legislature to pass “important” legislation like well……whatever we feel is important…(see? arbitrary and subjective obstacle to normal democratic operation).

]]> By: Saul http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-717 Saul Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:50:53 +0000 http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/#comment-717 I think you'll agree that passing the buck doesn't really answer the question of how it is unconstitutional. Swell, Mr. Boyer believes it to be so - why? Unless this is a matter of mere authority. Oh, and here's your answer Chris: http://www.democraticrenewal.gov.on.ca/english/news/20070620_nr.asp "The referendum question that will be used in Ontario’s October 10, 2007 referendum on electoral reform is: Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?/Quel système électoral l’Ontario devrait-il utiliser pour élire les députés provinciaux à l’Assemblée législative? The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)/L’actuel système électoral (système de la majorité relative) The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional)/L’autre système électoral proposé par l’Assemblée des citoyens (système de représentation proportionnelle mixte)" I think you’ll agree that passing the buck doesn’t really answer the question of how it is unconstitutional. Swell, Mr. Boyer believes it to be so – why? Unless this is a matter of mere authority.

Oh, and here’s your answer Chris:

http://www.democraticrenewal.gov.on.ca/english/news/20070620_nr.asp

“The referendum question that will be used in Ontario’s October 10, 2007 referendum on electoral reform is:

Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?/Quel système électoral l’Ontario devrait-il utiliser pour élire les députés provinciaux à l’Assemblée législative?

The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)/L’actuel système électoral (système de la majorité relative)

The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional)/L’autre système électoral proposé par l’Assemblée des citoyens (système de représentation proportionnelle mixte)”

]]> By: Chris Tindal http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-716 Chris Tindal Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:01:56 +0000 http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/#comment-716 <a name="constitution" rel="nofollow"></a>The accusation that the 60% threshold is unconstitutional and without precedent has been made by (among others) former MP Patrick Boyer, who Wikipedia describes as “one of the foremost experts in Canadian constitutional law.” I agree that the exact wording of the options will be significant, and it may cause me to withdraw some of my initial objection. I'm trying to find out what that wording is now, and will update the post when I do. The accusation that the 60% threshold is unconstitutional and without precedent has been made by (among others) former MP Patrick Boyer, who Wikipedia describes as “one of the foremost experts in Canadian constitutional law.”

I agree that the exact wording of the options will be significant, and it may cause me to withdraw some of my initial objection. I’m trying to find out what that wording is now, and will update the post when I do.

]]> By: Saul http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-715 Saul Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:09:29 +0000 http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/#comment-715 Also: the exact wording of the options needs to be specified - and I'm wondering why this hasn't yet been done. There's a big difference between simply listing the names of the two systems, and identifying them (as "the existing system" for FPTP and as "the proposed system by the Citizens Assembly" for MMP). Also: the exact wording of the options needs to be specified – and I’m wondering why this hasn’t yet been done. There’s a big difference between simply listing the names of the two systems, and identifying them (as “the existing system” for FPTP and as “the proposed system by the Citizens Assembly” for MMP).

]]> By: Saul http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-714 Saul Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:03:36 +0000 http://www.christindal.ca/2007/06/21/this-is-the-question/#comment-714 How is that unconstitutional? No really, how is it? I'm open to the possibility that it's true - but it's an extraordinary claim to just pass along. However, I agree with you. It would have been preferable for the wording to have reflected something similar to that of the B.C. referendum - though I suspect the vast majority of Ontarians will arrive at the polls, read the question, and ask themselves, "What's the difference?" How is that unconstitutional? No really, how is it?

I’m open to the possibility that it’s true – but it’s an extraordinary claim to just pass along.

However, I agree with you. It would have been preferable for the wording to have reflected something similar to that of the B.C. referendum – though I suspect the vast majority of Ontarians will arrive at the polls, read the question, and ask themselves, “What’s the difference?”

]]>