Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 296 other subscribers-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Wlodzimierz Kuczynski on Vamvakaris: The flood
- opoudjis on Which Indian states are well known in other countries?
- Test Test on Which Indian states are well known in other countries?
- opoudjis on Karamanlis and their food
- Stazybo Horn on Karamanlis and their food
Archives
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- February 2023
- June 2022
- November 2021
- October 2021
- March 2019
- February 2019
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- July 2008
- June 2008
- November 2006
- October 2006
Categories
Meta
Was Brexit’s 50% threshold too low?
A referendum that is of epochal consequence for a polity needs to be decisive, in order to settle the issue, instead of converting the referendum to a neverendum. Which is why referendums to change constitutions (for those countries that have them) don’t have a 50% threshold; and why federal polities require enhanced majorities of states as well as votes. And given how disruptive the consequences are, the dice do indeed need to be loaded against change, whoever is advocating it.
That’s not Athenian democracy, but neither is anything else in Britain or the West. That is a reasonable check and balance on a popular vote, in favour of stability.
What Cameron was thinking when he came up with this particular referendum is irrelevant to that. The nuttiness of the British political system, whereby you can have a referendum but not deem it binding, is also irrelevant to that.
The California Constitution can be amended by a simple majority vote, and 8% of the electorate (measured by the number of people who voted in the last election for governor) suffice to get a proposal on the ballot. Not surprisingly, it has been amended about 500 times since 1879, and currently runs to over 100 pages.
“Minor” amendments to the Austrian constitution can be done by a 2/3 majority in parliament. The governing coalition had more than 2/3 of the seats for a long time, and routinely “elevated laws to constitutional rank” to prevent future governments from tampering with them. Consequently, nobody even knows where the constitution ends – this is not an exaggeration.
Also, “minor” is not defined. Some experts believe the many, many “minor” changes amount to at least one “major” one, which would have required a referendum that never happened…
That…
That is not good. That is a serious abuse of what a constitution is, in fact.
I’d argue that having a government with a 2/3 majority in parliament is not a good thing either.