Whatever happens, it should require a supermajority to leave. Say 50.1% of the population vote to leave so it’s on, then some people change their minds or some people die while others turn 18, then it’s 49.9% who want independence so it’s off. I don’t know if 55% is enough, or 60%, or 67%. But, it should be enough that whatever decision is made, it’s not going to immediately become unpopular.
Say 50.1% of the population vote to leave so it’s on, then some people change their minds or some people die while others turn 18, then it’s 49.9% who want independence so it’s off.
Thats exactly how it went with Brexit, except that they still went through with it.
That’s like the entire point of the Clarity Act. You need to have the feds agree on the question and threshold for a leave vote to be valid and binding.
As the indigenous peoples of the prairies have already pointed out, by treaty, the provinces don’t own the lands they’re governing. The people can leave.
Because that’s exactly how democracy works, 50% +1 means a majority of the people want something, the rest had their chance to convince them otherwise, they can organize another vote later on to see if it’s still the will of the people to do that thing at that point.
And that’s what leads to instability and ultimately the collapse of that government. The reality of the situation is that a narrow referendum to leave Canada will be met with incredible resistance and it’s not going to happen.
A supermajority would be harder to resist both internally and externally. That’s the point.
That platitude does not convince me of anything. Some things should obviously require a super majority, or require additional process beyond voting, or not be subject to a vote ad all.
Majoritarian rule is not the end all be all of a functioning democracy.
And who are you to decide what is worthy and what isn’t of requiring a super majority? And who are the politicians to decide that?
It won’t happen anyway as that would need to be enshrined in the Constitution and the reason why we don’t open it is that it would start a shitshow AND it requires a super majority to make any changes to it.
The limits are decided as the society and its government are formed and as they develop. Just as you note, look at the process for amending the constitution or the fact that you can’t vote in unconstitutional laws.
It just a basic fact about well functioning democratic systems that you have limits to majoritarian rule.
There is a lot more to democracy than winners taking all in bare majority votes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring super majorities for some process, or requiring consensus in some cases, in having some things decided by experts instead of by vote, or by using deliberation with no voting in some cases.
The important part of democratic governance is that we work together to develop and maintain well reasoned and functional systems that are stable and responsible to our changing needs, based on engagement and deliberation of the citizenry. Winner take all bare majoritarian voting is the least of it, honestly.
I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any sort of lawyer), but my understanding (and what I meant to say) was that unconstitutional laws are subject to legal correction, so sure , we may vote in whatever we want, but that doesn’t meant the law will stand or take effect.
The reason we in Canada nowadays use the term referendum to mean mainly the non-binding type is because at the beginning of the century the western provinces experimented with the binding referendum. But it was abandoned because the Manitoba law on the subject was declared unconstitutional in 1919, mainly on the ground that it usurped the power of the lieutenant-governor, as a representative of the crown, to veto legislation. It also interfered with the powers of the federal government, which appoints the lieutenant-governors and has the power to instruct them
Of course I am aware of the “notwithstanding clause”, but this is not relevant for the strict majoritarian view you were espousing, is it? Moreover, “it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter” and the parts of the Charter subject to override are limited: “rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inviolable”.
To my mind, this is clearly all further evidence of the fact that our government is organized via an intricate (and ever-evolving) system with various overrides and corrective measures and balanced powers, and that it is in no way simply reducible to strict, %50+, majoritarian rule.
Whatever happens, it should require a supermajority to leave. Say 50.1% of the population vote to leave so it’s on, then some people change their minds or some people die while others turn 18, then it’s 49.9% who want independence so it’s off. I don’t know if 55% is enough, or 60%, or 67%. But, it should be enough that whatever decision is made, it’s not going to immediately become unpopular.
Thats exactly how it went with Brexit, except that they still went through with it.
Yeah, and that’s why it should be a cautionary tale for all other hugely important referendums.
That’s like the entire point of the Clarity Act. You need to have the feds agree on the question and threshold for a leave vote to be valid and binding.
As the indigenous peoples of the prairies have already pointed out, by treaty, the provinces don’t own the lands they’re governing. The people can leave.
They don’t get to take anything with them.
You think they wrote this to clap back at Ms Smith.
No. They can just leave.
They can’t have the land; so they can vote all they like but it’s the plane ticket that makes the difference.
Alberta voting to leave at all will turn Alberta into the next Crimea.
Do you seriously think “energy crisis” Trump will sit by when Canada’s oil powerhouse votes to leave, even by a slim amount?
He will have boots on the ground to “protect the will of the people” and secure our oil.
It’ll wreck our country and further drive his 51st state stuff.
The will of the people is the will of the people. Start imposing a super majority on things and watch as nothing gets done anymore.
Sometimes things getting done is a good thing.
Why does 50%+1 represent the will of the people?
Because that’s exactly how democracy works, 50% +1 means a majority of the people want something, the rest had their chance to convince them otherwise, they can organize another vote later on to see if it’s still the will of the people to do that thing at that point.
This is a pretty naive vision of democracy, if I invite 4 friends over and 3 of them want to order shit instead of pizza, we’re not eating shit.
Democracy isn’t some magical decree from God that is a law of nature, people must consent to being governed.
Well in politics that’s exactly how it works, the majority elects the far right, everyone has to eat shit.
And that’s what leads to instability and ultimately the collapse of that government. The reality of the situation is that a narrow referendum to leave Canada will be met with incredible resistance and it’s not going to happen.
A supermajority would be harder to resist both internally and externally. That’s the point.
“and it’s not going to happen”
Just like it didn’t happen with Brexit? Just like Quebec wouldn’t have become a country if it wasn’t for fraud on the no side?
Brexit isn’t apples to apples.
Just like it didn’t happen with the Confederacy, and that was more than one state.
That platitude does not convince me of anything. Some things should obviously require a super majority, or require additional process beyond voting, or not be subject to a vote ad all.
Majoritarian rule is not the end all be all of a functioning democracy.
And who are you to decide what is worthy and what isn’t of requiring a super majority? And who are the politicians to decide that?
It won’t happen anyway as that would need to be enshrined in the Constitution and the reason why we don’t open it is that it would start a shitshow AND it requires a super majority to make any changes to it.
The limits are decided as the society and its government are formed and as they develop. Just as you note, look at the process for amending the constitution or the fact that you can’t vote in unconstitutional laws.
It just a basic fact about well functioning democratic systems that you have limits to majoritarian rule.
There is a lot more to democracy than winners taking all in bare majority votes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring super majorities for some process, or requiring consensus in some cases, in having some things decided by experts instead of by vote, or by using deliberation with no voting in some cases.
The important part of democratic governance is that we work together to develop and maintain well reasoned and functional systems that are stable and responsible to our changing needs, based on engagement and deliberation of the citizenry. Winner take all bare majoritarian voting is the least of it, honestly.
Edit: it’s helpful imo to skim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy to get a sense of how varied and expansive democratic governance is.
But as I pointed out, the super majority required to amend the Constitution means that it will never change.
I’m now wondering if you are Canadian because yes we actually can.
I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any sort of lawyer), but my understanding (and what I meant to say) was that unconstitutional laws are subject to legal correction, so sure , we may vote in whatever we want, but that doesn’t meant the law will stand or take effect.
See e.g., http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp
Section 33
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
Of course I am aware of the “notwithstanding clause”, but this is not relevant for the strict majoritarian view you were espousing, is it? Moreover, “it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter” and the parts of the Charter subject to override are limited: “rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inviolable”.
To my mind, this is clearly all further evidence of the fact that our government is organized via an intricate (and ever-evolving) system with various overrides and corrective measures and balanced powers, and that it is in no way simply reducible to strict, %50+, majoritarian rule.