One of the conlawprofs noted:
"... Because Italy requires 50% of the voting eligible population to vote in order for a referendum to be binding..."
***
To which I felt an urge to reply:
What a radical notion.
Can you imagine asking to see the poll results for the various biblical injunctions invoked to affect public policy today?
Let's see, the tribe of Asher voted down the Ten Commandment by a slim margin but Dan went resoundingly in support. Returns from Judah are still being counted, while down in Gad a fight has broken out over something called "chads."
Although the blue tribes seemed firmly in control going in, exit polls show this election is now so close that it may be thrown into the Supreme Council of Elders for its ultimate outcome, where, according to various prophets, the tribunal is likely to divide 4:4 with Justice Okana casting the deciding vote, as usual.
The unpredictable Prophet Moses, meanwhile, after a strange absence that has voters mystified, continues to claim that he received his carved stone tablets directly from The Hand of God on the mountain, which, if accepted as true, is predicted to trump anything the voters OR the tribunal might decide.
Moses has been claiming that "a vote for the Commandments is a vote for God." Opponents are questioning the handwriting and calling for tests.
In a record turnout, an estimated forty percent of the males over thirteen, including defense forces, have voted in this election, with women remaining unable to vote despite the chutzpah shown by female-rights activists, led by a few determined liberal mothers, who have been agitating in favor of equality for women against the unified opposition of the dominant conservative male bloc for years.
The Constitutional Law prophets, meanwhile, continue their long-running debate over whether this election is an exercise in democracy or shaping up as (yet another) example of right-wing tyranny.
Stay tuned for more results as they come in for what may be a hugely influential election.
Meanwhile, in other news, the Latii have moved against the Etruschi, north of Rome...
rs
Sanford L. wrote:
Today's NYTimes has an interesting story about an upcoming referendum in Italy dealing with fertility policy. (The referendum would repeal some very stringent laws.) The Catholic Church strongly supports the existing law, and its recommendation for the referendum is that Catholics (and other supporters of the existing laws) simply refuse to vote.
Why?
Because Italy requires 50% of the voting eligible population to vote in order for a referendum to be binding. So, paradoxically, refusing to vote amplifies the value of one's position.
Is there anything "undemocratic" or "unfair" about adopting this strategy, or is this simply an astute taking advantage of a rule that may or may not be defensible abstractly? I.e., I can think of good reasons for a 50% rule, in order to prevent an intense--and by definition unrepresentative--minority from getting its way if the majority is sufficiently apathetic not to vote.
Here, though, you have an intense (presumptive) minority--if they were confident of being in the majority, presumably there wouldn't be so much encouragement of boycotting the vote and running the risk of being perceived as anti-democratic--taking advantage of the decision rule.
...the real question is whether this should be viewed as a way of "marginalizing dissenting voices."
sandy