Thursday, 17 September 2009

A referendum to end all referendums

Baldock's going to do it, it seems. Muppet.

The question this time is, as he hinted before: Should Citizens Initiated Referenda seeking to repeal or amend a law be binding?

Maybe he regrets having such a loaded question last time. Had the previous one actually asked 'do you want the smacking law repealed', and still got a large vote, it might have have been taken seriously.

This one wouldn't be if it was held now, and I'm not convinced it will be if held in a year or two. It's a frivolous waste of everyone's time and money to take this to a referendum.

I propose a referendum question of my own. You must promise to answer truthfully, 'yes' or 'no'.

Will you either answer 'no' to this question or refuse to vote in future pointless referendums?

(This trick is known as Coercive Logic.)

1 comment:

  1. The problem with your proposed alternative question "do you want the smacking law repealed?" is that the question was drawn up in before the law was passed. In fact the anti-smacking bill hadn't even emerged from select comittee when the CIR process started.