jmsellens@watmath.UUCP (John M Sellens) (10/04/84)
J.B. Robinson suggests that Mulroney is afraid to let the people govern themselves and that this is a bad thing. Sure, letting the people decide is in accord with the basic principles of democracy, but ignores one important fact: people are stupid. Matters of low importance, such as which party is in "power" (but the country is really run by the bureaucrats) are safe things to leave in the hands of voters. But when public opinion can be easily manipulated by the media, important issues can't be treated fairly and rationally by the public. Some would say that statistics will cancel the good votes and the bad votes, and the real answer will be the average, but I think that's too simple in many cases. Would you trust your future to someone who reads the National Star?? :-) John There - that should stir things up a little :-)
robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) (10/08/84)
*
Brian Mulroney thinks that a national referendum on capital
punishment would be contrary to the principles of British
parliamentary government. Could it be that what he is really
worried about is that once the people are given a taste of
actually governing themselves they may begin to wonder if
perhaps there are other matters that they should be having
a direct say in, as opposed to leaving them for our omnipotent
government in Ottawa to decide ?
J.B. Robinson
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/10/84)
> I agree that there are certain matters that should not be put to > the electorate by way of a referendum. ... > 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 > ... You are contradicting yourself. What about the minority aged from 18/19/whatever to 21? This is a minority-rights question if I ever saw one... [No, I am not in that age bracket myself.] -- "Kids are people too." Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) (10/11/84)
*
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
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/13/84)
==================
... 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.
==================
That word "knowingly" is the key to why this solution to the media-advertizing
difficulty wouldn't work. On capital punishment, one would have
"It is obvious that people would be less likely to murder if they
knew they might die as a consequence."
"It is clear that more murders happen when there is a death penalty
in effect."
One of these statements must be false, but both are used in good conscience
as statements of fact in the debate. Should both be regarded as
disallowed in a referendum debate; should one be allowed if sociological
research showed it to be true; should both be allowed since it is
"obvious" that neither is made "knowing" it to be false?
The problem with this "knowingly making a false statement" is that it
gives much more leeway to the ignorant and prejudiced to air their
opinions than to those who have studied the question and are aware
that dogmatic assertions usually have their exceptions.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtrobinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) (10/23/84)
> > The referendum question, then, seems to be one mainly of power (who's running > this country, anyway, the government or the mob?) ... and of constancy > (make up your mind, already, should we hang him or not ?!?!?) > Sounds like a loaded question to me. How about this one: Who do you want running the country ? A bunch of self centred politicians who can't see past the next election or special interest group or the much hoped for political patronage plum of a job *OR* you and your neighbours. Also, why all this attention on capital punishment ? Try and consider the use of referendums on some of the more mundane things in life. Like fer instance: the drinking age; returnable bottles; private liquor sales; property taxes; etc,etc. These are issues that we live with day-in and day-out but have no real say in. As you can guess I think referendums could be a good way to decide a lot of the matters that we face, *but* what I would really like to see is the use of initiatives whereby you or I could put an issue on a ballot by obtaining an appropriate number of signatures. With the three major parties all apparently moving to the centre, something like the above is needed now more than ever. J.B. Robinson
acton@ubc-ean.CDN (Donald Acton) (10/23/84)
I agree with Jim Robinson that it is about time that we had some more
control about the everday laws that govern us and that initiatives are one
way of doing this. I can see the point that if this is carried to the
extreme we will be voting on the same issues every few years. However, I am
not sure that that is what actually happens. If I am not mistaken the citizens
of the Unitied States have the right of initiative and we certainly don't see
them voting on the same question every year, or if they do the the news media
down there doesn't point this out. I don't recall Proposition 13 being
challenged in California nor can I recall any instances where initiatives
placing moritoriums on nuclear reactor construction were overturned or voted
on during subsequent election periods. Surely in Canada a similar system
could be established. One might want to place some limits on the types of
issues that may be decided by initiative (for example you might not be able
to vote on anything concerning criminal law) but surely we can competently
decide on the day to day things in our lives since politicains don't seem
to be able to do this.
An aside about Donald Marshall.
Past letters to this forum have indicated that if Canada had capital
punishment then Donald Marshall would have been executed for a crime he
didn't commit. The majority of people in favour of capital punishment
support it for capitial murder (the killing of police and prison guards).
Donald Marshall was charged with non-capital murder so he could not have
been sentenced to death. If accounts of the event I have read and seen on
TV are correct then Marshall didn't exactly help his own cause.
Apparently Marshall and Seale (the person Marshall was accused of murdering)
were involved in mugging someone when the mugging victim stabbed and killed
Seale. When the conviction was reversed the court indicated that:
1) Marshall lied to his lawyers
2) concealed the fact that he was robbing someone during the murder
3) perjured himself
So it seems to me that Mr Marshall wasn't exactly helping his own cause
during the trial in 1971 and he was hardly an innocent victim. This
also was not the first time he had mugged or rolled somebody.
Donald Acton
acton@ubc-ean