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