Net Petitions And Referenda? 9
Tom West asks: "In Canada, the leading opposition party, the Canadian Alliance has proposed that the government be legally obligated to hold a referendum on any issue that has a petition with at least 3% of the electorate signing. In response, 'This Hour has 22 Minutes', a political comedy show, has started a net petition demanding a referendum to have Parliament force Stockwell Day, leader of the Canadian Alliance, to change his name to 'Doris'. The petition started on Monday and has proceeded mostly on word of mouth (until today, when it hit just about every major newspaper (like this one from Globe and Mail). As of today, over 500,000 people have signed, closing quickly on double the number of people required. Humourous indeed, but what does this mean for the possibility of future petitions?"
"If gaining names and addresses of people to support any proposition, ludicrous or not, is this easy, does this mean an end for using petitions to force referenda, as is common in many states?
While absurd referenda are unlikely to pass, what happens when they get put on the ballot? Incendiary issues, normally silent because their few supporters are too scattered to get heard, can suddenly see their issues gain widespread attention. Regardless of the impossibility of passing, a lot of damage to the community could be occur."
Re: (Score:1)
Just show them that you are serious... (Score:2)
Pass a law that says that no matter where you get the names, there must be a formal presentation to the government. At this formal presentation, any citizen may challenge to keep the petition from the voters. This challenge may be overidden by the originator, if they can convince the government they are serious. Proof of serious intent is by cutting off and laying down one minor body part, say, a finger.
1. It proves that you are serious.
2. Your ability to sponsor petitions is self-limiting.
Not exactly the most delicate of methods, but should ideally suit folks in a country where the favored write-in name for an entire province was "Bob".
The 22minutes petition was bad. (Score:1)
O.k. while the "Doris Day joke was funny. The petition itself is useless. It is being completely spammed, just like all of the People Magazine ones, you know, where "Hank the angry, drunken dwarf" always wins.
This becomes even more obvious when you look at the traffic on the site. It is getting 200 new records per minute (seems to be the limit of the server). Every so often there is a pause, and the response time goes back down, until the guy starts his script and the rate goes back up to 200/minute.
Online petitions are an interesting concept, but I sincerely doubt that even 1% of the existing 850k entries are valid, with the rest being spam.
If anyone can get 350k _valid_ signatures on a form, then I believe that the issue should at least be discussed, and a referendum could be held. I don't believe that referendae need to be stupid, and the silly ones will be filtered really quickly. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing.
Also, so what if we have a large number of referendae? That is, IMO, a good idea. The Canadian electoral system is so non-representational that it isn't even funny. It would be a good thing to hear from minority political groups, even if the referendae don't get passed.
It is also a way for the _people_ to set the tone of government, as well as set the agenda in a fashion that simply isn't possible right now. Wouldn't you like to vote with the Liberals on some issues, but with the Greens on others, and with the Conservatives yet others? This gives you that ability.
For example. Say the government is dragging its feet over environmental legislation (say because it might have detrimental effects on the production of cars). However, a group of people get together and get the requisite signatures. A referendum ensues, and passes. All of a sudden, the government has to change direction and do what is required! Very cool, democracy works.
Jason PollockStress tested politics (Score:1)
I would suggest a sort of time investment requirement to deter casual or mocking use of the clause, such as a brief written statement requirement. If the statements were spot-checked, and a certain percentage were duplicates or unrelated to the issue, the issue could be put on petition hiatus to deter spamming names.
First Petition! (Score:1)
That's just the point , isn't it? (Score:1)
The entire POINT of this exercise is that it's a BAD IDEA!
A referendum would / will cost $150 million to the Canadian Taxpayer, and in the words of Rick Mercer ( the comedian who came up with the idea ), "Any idiot could get a referendum on his pet issue. I'm just the first idiot."
This is an initial protest to an election promise which, on the face of it, seems quite enlightened and democratic, but which is in fact just a bad idea.
( besides, these are the same guys who convinced the Governor of Iowa that Canada was using a metric 20 hour day, and had him congratulate Canada on "switching to a USA - style 24 hour day" on the air! They tend to be a little over the top, but hey, it's politics! )
Referenda are good! (Score:1)
This is wrong. A referendum does not need to cost $150m to run. The major cost in any election is registration of voters (see: here [aceproject.org]). However, in a referendum, why care about _where_ someone votes? All you should really care about is that they only vote once. This is a much easier problem. Everyone already has unique identifiers (SIN anyone?), and has to present photo-ID in order to vote. Just record the fact that they voted, and keep going. No registration required. The fact that the last one was run in such a way as to cost $150m doesn't they all should.
Anything that increases a citizens involvement in government is a good thing. Otherwise, you end up with people telling you what is right, rather than you telling them what you want.
Re:Referenda are good! (Score:1)
Re:Referenda are good! (Score:1)
I guess it depends on your definition of representational. It says a lot of things in the Constitution, for example, it says that Seperate School Boards are allowed to descriminate in their hiring practices on the basis of religion.
I consider the fact that a group that got 30% of the popular vote getting only 1% of the seats to imply that the system is not especially representational.
I prefer proportional representational systems, like here in NZ. I would like to see the senate given some teeth and made proportional.
How cynical. :) Yes, I don't think the govt. listens to us, but how long do you think a govt. would last that ignored the results of a referendum that passed? Not very long I would think (hope).
I'm not saying that _everything_ should be sent out to a referendum, but if 1% of the population thought that it was important enough to sign a piece of paper, don't you think it should be at least discussed? If you want to water it down, my not make it that the item becomes a "Private Members Bill"?