Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-ean.CDN Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!ubc-ean!robinson From: robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Referendums Message-ID: <809@ubc-ean.CDN> Date: Thu, 11-Oct-84 00:30:17 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-ean.809 Posted: Thu Oct 11 00:30:17 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Oct-84 02:56:57 EDT Organization: UBC EAN, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 44 * John Sellens apparently objects to the notion of referendums on the basis that "people are stupid", and asks us if we would trust our "future to someone who reads the National Star". For starters, I think that this is an extremely condescending view to hold. He does not go into detail concerning which segment of society comprises these people ( though I think I can take a good guess at that one ), but obviously believes that they are a majority or significant minority ( otherwise there would be no problem ). My own belief is that the average person on the street is quite capable of dealing with various issues in a reasonable manner. I agree that there are certain matters that should not be put to the electorate by way of a referendum. ( Capital punishment is possibly one of them ) However, there are numerous ones that could be; for example, the question of whether to raise the drinking age back up to 21. As possible safeguards, referendums could me structured such that: - questions dealing with minority rights would not be permitted - a two-thirds majority would be needed to pass a proposal, as opposed to merely a simple majority Basically, referendums are a vehicle for allowing people to have a bit more control over their lives, and if a majority ( defined as you like ) is willing to live with the consequences of a decision resulting from a referendum, then I see no reason why the politicians cannot do so as well. I also dispute that public opinion is easily manipulated by the media. If that were so then a significant majority of Canadians would *not* be in favour of reinstating capital punishment, a position which is invariably condemned by the supposedly all powerful press. If, however, one believes that this really is a problem then one possible solution is to impose spending limits on advertising and to adopt *very* strict rules concerning knowingly making false statements. This way both sides will get approximately the same amount of coverage and what we hear we will know to be the truth. J.B. Robinson