Sir, – Why is it that, in these islands, both the media and academia are reluctant to talk about referendums which are multi-option? (“Referendums often used to answer different question”, David Farrell, Opinion, July 27th)
In 1992, New Zealand held a five-option referendum on its electoral system. Other examples come from Australia, Finland, Puerto Rico and Uruguay. Here, however, even on a question like Seanad reform which is obviously multi-optional – abolition, status quo, reform – some writers imply that the question must be yes-or-no. Preference voting is fine in elections, apparently; but when it comes to decision-making, be it in the Dáil or in referendums, things have to be resolved by a dichotomy – a (simple or weighted) majority vote . . . or so it would seem.
It’s the same in the UK. Two years ago, just before its referendum on two non-proportional electoral systems – for those who wanted PR, this was like asking vegetarians if they would like beef or lamb? – BBC Radio 4 did a one-hour documentary on referendums, with not even a mention of multi-option ballots. Similarly, Queen’s University recently hosted a lecture on the subject, “Can referendums be fair?” and again, not one word on pluralism.
The consequences can be horrific. The revolution in Egypt, united in Tahrir Square just two years ago, split into two when the people voted on a new constitution: Muslims yes; Coptics no. It was worse in the Balkans where, on advice from the EU – the Badinter Commission – the wars in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia all started with a referendum.
Why, then, does David Farrell perpetuate this pretence that decision-making has to be binary, that politics has to be adversarial, that preferential decision-making procedures should rarely if ever be discussed? – Yours, etc,
PETER EMERSON,
The de Borda Institute,
Ballysillan Road,
Belfast.