The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > To plebiscite or not to plebiscite? Will that become the question? > Comments

To plebiscite or not to plebiscite? Will that become the question? : Comments

By John de Meyrick, published 31/8/2016

Whilst there has been only three federal plebiscites (as distinct to referenda), they have been used by our states to gauge public opinion on a range of issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
My understanding is that in some countries the words plebiscite and referendum are interchangeable and basically mean the same thing.

Except in Australia, where the constitution says that a referendum must be undertaken to change the constitution.

So this has been interpreted as meaning that a referendum can only be used for constitutional matters, and cannot be used for anything else.

That is nonsense, and a plebiscite and a referendum are one and the same, because they are a national vote by the people, and both should be binding.

We now see panic by politicians because they could be displaced by people carrying out a direct vote on issues.

Politicians should be more honest, and state that they don't want direct democracy, because they like the pay packet and easy life of a politician.

Representational government is a farce, and time to try something else.
Posted by interactive, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 9:06:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Heartily sick of it is right". The biggest "embarrassment" to the government and the country is that we are involved in such nonsense in the first place. I don't know where the 3.1% (of homosexuals) comes from, but the 2011 Cenus revealed the figure as 1%; and we haven't had the results from a Census since then, and we will not for some time, given that the Census is another one of many "embarrassments" for the Turnbull apology for a government.

But, 3.1% or 1.00%, the whole charade is just too absurd for so few people who don't know whether they are Arthur or Martha.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 9:32:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have thought supporters of SSM would welcome a plebiscite on the issue as this would be be the only way to truly legitimise the decision.
A parliamentary vote would always leave the result open to question and those who are against will always be able to claim the decision was forced onto the country by a minority group and as such, does not represent the wishes of the majority.
If the mental health of young gay people is of such concern to supporters I would think a national affirmation would be in their best interests.
Posted by Big Nana, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 9:47:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn

' don't know where the 3.1% (of homosexuals) comes from, but the 2011 Cenus revealed the figure as 1%;'

unfortunately as the deviants use means such as ' safe' schools to brainwash kids the numbers will only increase. They will then point the finger at those defending decency for increase suicide and drug usage. The left/secular anti God ideology is very sick.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 10:18:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yesterday a friend suggested they wanted the satisfaction of recording a vote whatever the outcome. That is if they voted 'no' and the 'yes' vote prevailed they would know their stance had been given some weight. It's interesting to note the politicians who claim to champion individual liberty seem to have a healthy authoritarian streak on some matters.

If the plebiscite stalls perhaps we could have a petition in favour of holding one plus a whip round to cover the costs. Sign the petition and donate $5 or $10.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 10:29:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian

The Labor party and others have said that they would reject a plebiscite.

But as yet, no one knows what the question on the plebiscite will be, so how can they reject something when they don't know what it is?

The political system in Australia is completely corrupted by political parties, and no one has a clear idea of what is occurring anymore.

This is different to how a law is drafted in Switzerland.

"All federal laws are subject to a three to four step process:
1) A first draft is prepared by experts in the federal administration.
2) This draft is presented to a large number of people in a formalized kind of opinion poll: Cantonal governments, political parties as well as many non-governmental organisations and associations of the civil society may comment on the draft and propose changes.
3) The result is presented to dedicated parliamentary commissions of both chambers of the federal parliament, discussed in detail behind closed doors and finally debated in public sessions of both chambers of parliament. Members of parliament do take into account the results of step 2, because if the fail to do so, step 4 will be inevitable.
4) The electorate has a veto-right on laws: If anybody is able to find 50,000 citizens signing a form demanding for a referendum within 3 months, a referendum must be held. Laws do only need to find a majority of the national electorate to pass a referendum, not a majority of cantons. Referendums on more than a dozen laws per year are not unusual in Switzerland."

http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

So before a law is formalized, it goes through a process of review by many people, and if a political party attempts to corrupt the process and enforce what it wants on the public (and they will), then the public still has a veto-right and can demand a referendum, where "step 4 will be inevitable"

Note that they do not talk of plebiscites in Switzerland, but referendums only.

Talk of non-binding plebiscites is just an attempt by politicians to water down direct democracy.
Posted by interactive, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 10:54:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy