Product Code Database
A referendum, plebiscite, or ballot measure is a Direct democracy vote by the Constituency (rather than their representatives) on a proposal, law, or political issue. A referendum may be either binding, resulting in the adoption of a new policy, or consultive (or advisory), functioning like a large opinion poll.
Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund,a gerund is a verbal noun (Kennedy's Shorter Latin Primer, 1962 edition, p. 91.) but has no nominative case, for which an infinitive ( referre) serves the purpose. It has only accusative, genitive, dative and ablative cases (Kennedy's Shorter Latin Primer, 1962 edition, pp. 91–92.) referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.i.e. Proposita quae referenda sunt popolo, "Proposals which must be carried back to the people"
It is closely related to political agenda, "those matters which must be driven forward", from , to impel or drive forwards; and memorandum, "that matter which must be remembered", from , to call to mind, corrigenda, from , to rule, make straight, those things which must be made straight (corrected), etc.
The term 'plebiscite' has a generally similar meaning in modern usage and comes from the Latin plebiscita, which originally meant a decree of the Plebeian Council (Plebeian Council), the popular assembly of the Roman Republic. Today, a referendum can also often be referred to as a plebiscite, but in some countries the two terms are used differently to refer to votes with differing types of legal consequences.
In Australia, a 'referendum' is often said to be a vote to change the federal constitution and 'plebiscite' a vote which does not affect the federal constitution. However, this is erroneous as not all federal referendums have been on constitutional matters (such as the 1916 Australian conscription referendum), and state votes that likewise do not affect either the federal or state constitution are frequently said to be referendums (such as the 2009 Western Australian daylight saving referendum). Historically, they are used by Australians interchangeably and a plebiscite was considered another name for a referendum.
In Ireland, 'plebiscite' referred to the vote to adopt its constitution, but a subsequent vote to amend the constitution is called a 'referendum', as is a poll of the electorate on a non-constitutional bill.
After a reduction in the number of referendums in the mid-twentieth century, the referendum as a political tool has been increasing in popularity since the 1970s. This increase has been attributed to dealignment of the public with political parties, as specific policy issues became more important to the public than party identifiers.
David Altman proposes four dimensions that referendums can be classified by:
Typical types of mandatory referendums include:
Types of optional referendums include:
In Switzerland, for example, multiple choice referendums are common. Two multiple choice referendums were held in Sweden, in 1957 and in 1980, in which voters were offered three options. In 1977, a referendum held in Australia to determine a new national anthem was held, in which voters had four choices. In 1992, New Zealand held a five-option referendum on their electoral system. In 1982, Guam had a referendum that used six options, with an additional blank option for those wishing to (campaign and) vote for their own seventh option.
A multiple choice referendum poses the question of how the result is to be determined. They may be set up so that if no single option receives the support of an absolute majority (more than half) of the votes, resort can be made to the two-round system or instant-runoff voting, which is also called IRV and PV.
In 2018 the Irish Citizens' Assembly considered the conduct of future referendums in Ireland, with 76 of the members in favour of allowing more than two options, and 52% favouring preferential voting in such cases. Other people regard a non-majoritarian methodology like the Modified Borda Count (MBC) as more inclusive and more accurate.
Swiss referendums offer a separate vote on each of the multiple options as well as an additional decision about which of the multiple options should be preferred. In the Swedish case, in both referendums the 'winning' option was chosen by the Single Member Plurality ("first past the post") system. In other words, the winning option was deemed to be that supported by a plurality, rather than an absolute majority, of voters. In the 1977 Australian referendum, the winner was chosen by the system of preferential instant-runoff voting (IRV). Polls in Newfoundland (1949) and Guam (1982), for example, were counted under a form of the two-round system, and an unusual form of TRS was used in the 1992 New Zealand poll.
Although California has not held multiple-choice referendums in the Swiss or Swedish sense (in which only one of several counter-propositions can be victorious, and the losing proposals are wholly null and void), it does have so many yes-or-no referendums at each election day that conflicts arise. The State's constitution provides a method for resolving conflicts when two or more inconsistent propositions are passed on the same day. This is a de facto form of approval voting—i.e. the proposition with the most "yes" votes prevails over the others to the extent of any conflict.
Other voting systems that could be used in multiple-choice referendum are Condorcet method and quadratic voting (including quadratic funding).
The participation quorum requirement encourages a host of controversial election practices such as falsifing the turn-out rate, voter suppression and manipulating the date of the referendum to reduce turnout. It has been shown both empirically and mathematically that a participation quorum requirement reduces turnout to below the quorum theshold, which is known as the "quorum paradox" (a form of the no-show paradox).
The "quorum paradox" arises from the fact that, unlike in deliberative bodies such as parliaments—where a vote can be postponed to a later meeting if a quorum is not reached—referendums cannot be rescheduled.
An example of the participation quorum phenomenon is the 2005 Italian fertility laws referendum, in which the opposition to the proposed loosening of laws on research on and on allowing in-vitro fertilization, campaigned for people to abstain from voting to drive down turnout. Although a majority of people voted yes for the changes in the law, the results were invalid because participation was low.
The European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) recommends against any quorum requirements in its Code for Good Practice on Referendums
International tribunals have traditionally not interfered with referendum disputes. In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights extended its jurisdiction to referendums in its judgment Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia, initiated by two Disability voters over polling place Accessibility.
Some opposition to the referendum has arisen from its use by dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini who, it is argued,
In recent years, referendums have been used strategically by several European governments trying to pursue political and electoral goals.
In 1995, John Bruton considered that
A similar problem also arises when elected governments accumulate excessive debts. That can severely reduce the effective margin for later governments.
Both these problems can be moderated by a combination of other measures as
Disputes
Important referendums are frequently challenged in courts. In pre-referendum disputes, plaintiffs have often tried to prevent the referendum to take place. In one such challenge, in 2017, the Spanish Constitutional Court suspended the Catalonia's independence referendum. In post-referendum disputes, they challenge the result. British courts dismissed post-referendum challenges of the Brexit referendum.
Criticisms
Criticism of populist aspect
In Political Governance states that voters in a referendum are more likely to be driven by transient whims than by careful deliberation, or that they are not sufficiently informed to make decisions on complicated or technical issues. Also, voters might be swayed by media coverage, propaganda, strong personalities, intimidation, and expensive advertising campaigns..
(2026). 9780719082061, Manchester University Press. ISBN 9780719082061 used the plebiscite to disguise oppressive policies as populism. Dictators may also make use of referendums as well as show elections to further legitimize their authority such as António de Oliveira Salazar in 1933; Benito Mussolini in 1934; Adolf Hitler in 1934, 1936; Francisco Franco in 1947; Park Chung Hee in 1972; and Ferdinand Marcos in 1973. Hitler's use of plebiscites is argued as the reason why, since World War II, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level.
Closed questions and the separability problem
Some critics of the referendum attack the use of closed questions. A difficulty called the separability problem can plague a referendum on two or more issues. If one issue is in fact, or in perception, related to another on the ballot, the imposed simultaneous voting of first preference on each issue can result in an outcome which is displeasing to most.
Undue limitations on regular government power
Several commentators have noted that the use of citizens' initiatives to amend constitutions has so tied the government to a jumble of popular demands as to render the government unworkable. A 2009 article in The Economist argued that this had restricted the ability of the California state government to tax the people and pass the budget, and called for an entirely new Californian constitution.
Disproportionate disruption
Referendums occur occasionally rather than periodically as elections are and they do not offer the same kind of formal opposition. In republic polities, referendums could be used to bypass legislatures and representatives by the executive body. Zurcher argues that the use of the Nazi referendums was ending turnout requirements to advance intrinsic advantages in an otherwise slower and more demanding manner to constitutional and policy changes.
Sources
See also
External links
Further reading
|
|
