50 signatures reached
To: Parliament to act, the Electoral Commission to consider, and the BBC to discuss.
Multi-option and preferential referendums
Just as we should be able to cast preferences on candidates in elections, so too, both we the people and they, the elected representatives, should be able to cast our/their preferences when making decisions.
So, Westminster, please introduce multi-option voting on decision-making, both in referendums and in parliamentary votes.
So, Electoral Commission, please consider multi-option referendums.
So, BBC, please discuss.
So, Westminster, please introduce multi-option voting on decision-making, both in referendums and in parliamentary votes.
So, Electoral Commission, please consider multi-option referendums.
So, BBC, please discuss.
Why is this important?
For any supporters of PR, the 2011 referendum on AV or FPTP was like asking a vegetarian, "beef or lamb?" The poll should have been similar to the 1992 New Zealand ballot which had 5 options... and they now have a form of PR.
In like manner, the 2014 Scottish referendum should have had 3 options: status quo, 'devo-max' and independence.
And Brexit should have had, say, 4 options: the UK in the EU, EEA, Customs Union or WTO.
Binary ballots are inaccurate. As with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, 2-option polls enable those in power to choose the option and thus dominate the agenda. No wonder majority voting has been used by Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler and many other 'democratic dictators'.
Furthermore, "all the wars in the former Yugoslavia started with a referendum," to quote Sarajevo's famous newspaper, Oslobodjenje, and the same now applies to the conflict in Ukraine.
In summary, binary voting is the most divisive, primitive and inaccurate measure of collective opinion ever invented. A better methodology would be a multi-option points system, first advocated (he thought) by Rev Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) in 1884, who didn't know Jean-Charles de Borda had done it in 1770, who was unaware of this same invention by Nicholas of Cusa in 1435. And maybe the first 'first' was Ramon Llull in 1299.
For obvious reasons, politicians prefer majority voting because, yes, then they control the agenda. For obscure reasons, the Electoral Commission refuses to consider multi-option voting, and likewise the otherwise impartial BBC seldom if ever discusses either the Borda or Condorcet rules.
If, however, the world continues to believe in binary referendums, there is the danger that the forces of populism will say no to everything... until there is nothing; and/or autocrats like Erdoğan will continue to amass power until they have everything.
In like manner, the 2014 Scottish referendum should have had 3 options: status quo, 'devo-max' and independence.
And Brexit should have had, say, 4 options: the UK in the EU, EEA, Customs Union or WTO.
Binary ballots are inaccurate. As with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, 2-option polls enable those in power to choose the option and thus dominate the agenda. No wonder majority voting has been used by Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler and many other 'democratic dictators'.
Furthermore, "all the wars in the former Yugoslavia started with a referendum," to quote Sarajevo's famous newspaper, Oslobodjenje, and the same now applies to the conflict in Ukraine.
In summary, binary voting is the most divisive, primitive and inaccurate measure of collective opinion ever invented. A better methodology would be a multi-option points system, first advocated (he thought) by Rev Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) in 1884, who didn't know Jean-Charles de Borda had done it in 1770, who was unaware of this same invention by Nicholas of Cusa in 1435. And maybe the first 'first' was Ramon Llull in 1299.
For obvious reasons, politicians prefer majority voting because, yes, then they control the agenda. For obscure reasons, the Electoral Commission refuses to consider multi-option voting, and likewise the otherwise impartial BBC seldom if ever discusses either the Borda or Condorcet rules.
If, however, the world continues to believe in binary referendums, there is the danger that the forces of populism will say no to everything... until there is nothing; and/or autocrats like Erdoğan will continue to amass power until they have everything.
How it will be delivered
If the number of signatures passes the 100,000 mark, we'll go for gold.
