New Zealanders to Vote on the Design of a New Flag

      Citizens of New Zealand will certainly have two interesting referendums soon. The subjects will be about their views upon the  design of a new flag. They will have four ideas initially to choose from. 

         The four designs were the “winners” among some 10,000 submitted for consideration. And they all are remarkably similar. All have a silver fern included within the format. It seems that the “fern” is an “element of indigenous flora representing the growth of the nation” according to a recent article  in the National Post.  The multiple points of the fern also apparently represent the New Zealand natives “peaceful multicultural society”.

         Once the favourite of those four is determined later this year, then in March that one, along with the current flag will be given as a final choice, via a second referendum. That determination will then be deemed  the official national flag of the country.

         Rather democratic isn’t it, to let the citizens have a say in what their national flag should look like. 

Florida's Conservationist Referendum - Will the administration listen?

         It is true that sometimes legislators do not want to follow the views of majorities upon important issues. That is clearly an undemocratic reaction, which must be strongly objected to by the citizens involved.  

         Even recently in a supposedly democratic state such as Florida is that reaction apparent. On Nov. 4, 2014, Florida voters passed at a properly initiated referendum by a 75% margin an edict requiring specific action.  The action was intended to reimpose a long-standing conservation programme within that Everglades state.  A fulsome story about it was within the prestigious magazine, Living Bird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, in its spring 2015 edition.

         Florida had for many years been in the forefront in protecting large areas for conservation. Water management districts etc. had managed the areas carefully. However, this changed drastically in 2010 apparently, when the administration altered its focus to more economic development. Some environmental budgets saw decreases by up to 90%. As one conservationist put it, “In one year they undid twenty years of environmental progress.”

         Now there has been a citizen backlash – with a clearly presented referendum.  One is still waiting to see just what changes will occur. If little transpires, it will be a clear defeat of the process and importance of democracy. One must hope that a modern state such as Florida does recognize the significance of this recent, clear position of its majority of citizens.

         The unique geography of Florida, with its wildlife habitats spread throughout so much of that state, and its need to protect the water supply so important for its very existence, for a long time  has been carefully controlled.

         The referendum should reinstitute that importance and need among those who administer its resources. But – will it? Thus far it seems there has been little positive response.  Has Florida become a tyranny of the elite few, or will democracy prevail?  We are waiting.

Greece's Impotent Referendum

        Talking about “referendums”, one should comment upon the newest one from Greece. That did receive much international attention.

         Some 61% of Greeks voted on July 5 against a proposed arrangement by international negotiators to “solve” the financial mess that their country had fallen into. The prime minister of the Greeks, recently elected, Alexis Tsipiras, had urged his people to vote against it, and they did. The idea of having such referendum had been introduced only a few days earlier, its haste necessitated by the urgency of the Greek financial problems. The fact that the proposed “settlement’ had been passed by as useless, in the interim, did not faze the promoters of the vote.

         Almost immediately afterwards, the PM was required to back down to further restrictions. The vote did nothing to alter the needs or requirements of the majority of the other European leaders who were trying to rescue Greece from the financial mess that their previous years’ transgressions had gotten them into. Rather obviously a vote from the Greek people could not legally affect in any way the views and opinions of other states, but at least the PM did clearly gather the views of his citizens.

        The Economist magazine in its July11-17 issue analyzed the results. It showed that the views of males and females were substantially the same – about 40% in favour, 60% opposed. Those aged 18 to 24 were some 20% in favour, with 80% opposed, contrasted to those 65 years and older, where some 55% were in favour, with 45% opposed. 

         It was pretty clearly an opinion which substantiated the ideal of democracy – where the majority opinion is supposed to prevail.

         However, it does not fit within the prescription which I would suggest is the only really proper referendum – one initiated by the people not by the government. That sort of referendum, ultimately binding upon the government jurisdiction about which the issue relates, more effectively translates into majority, democratic views.

         But, at least, the idea of obtaining the views of the people from the country which invented “democracy” is certainly an improvement over the most common manner of establishing laws, that is, by an edict from a leader or approved by the few elected representatives.

         Too bad that in Greece the elected representatives, over the past several years, had let the country fall into such a financial mess from which its citizens could not, even by their recent voting, lead it out.

         

Vancouverites Vote "No" in Their Recent Referendum

         And so, just what was the result of that recent, long-lasting Vancouver Referendum? It was just recently announced.

         The Vancouverites voted quite decisively against the idea of adding a small percentage to local sales taxes to pay for the expensive, proposed new transit system. Over 60% voted –“no”, despite considerable monies being expended in trying to persuade them that the idea was a good one.

           Was it a good example of – democracy in action?  Most would say – yes, definitely.

         The majority is supposed to rule – in a democracy. So often, that does not seem to be happening. The following comments were taken from a recent editorial  upon the whole exercise – from the National Post, July 4, 2015.

         “An enormous reservoir of distrust has built up between the political class and the public in this country, …..  People can sense when they are being patronized, and they tend not to take it well. The notion that such questions are too difficult for the public to understand could as well be said about elections, an infinitely more complex exercise in which the voter is required to sum up, in one vote, his views on the leaders, the parties, the platforms, the local candidates, their stances on local issues and so on. 
        Yet no one says after an election defeat, "well, that was a mistake - we won't hold one of those again." We don't want to claim the people are infallible. But the remedy, … is not to permit them fewer such opportunities to speak their mind, but more. Referendums are unusual events in Canada.  …. More regular consultation on major issues would go a long way to strengthen the sinews of self-government. Not every subject can or should be put to a referendum. But the question of whether to raise taxes is of a particular kind: it was, after all, the same question that first forced kings to consult parliaments. That the public declined to open their wallets this time does not mean they would do the same the next. But whether they would or not, the fact remains: it's their money. If politicians would like them to fork over more of it, it is only fair to ask them. This should not be the last such exercise but the first."

Metro Vancouver citizens to vote whether to add taxes to pay for better transport.

       Very, very interesting Referendum story coming out of the only Canadian  province touting such a democratic process, – British Columbia. It is  about to hear from the citizens of Metro Vancouver to determine whether they would  be prepared to add .5 cents to their sales taxes, in order to pay for a new, large inter-area transportation system. Apparently such is badly needed there, in that fast-growing, but congested city.

         It would add maybe $125.00 to their average, annual taxes. At the moment the polls suggest the mood is fairly evenly matched, between, yes, and no. The National Post on Sat. March 14, however, suggests the people will probably vote against the idea, not wanting more taxes. But, the details do sound well researched, and they have been apparently, widely communicated.

         It certainly is a democratic process, though initiated by the government, not by the citizens – the more proper method to pursue referendums, according to the Swiss and most US states.  It appears that premier Christy Clark promised that there would be such a city-wide vote, when running for her leadership at the last provincial election. The region was given a few months to “whip up a transportation plan” about which the voters could vote. It is a breath of fresh air, it seems to me, to permit the citizens to have a real say in an important, expensive, public works. 

         The vote is  next week. Will keep you posted.

        

         

Swiss Vote upon "Gold" Standard

Just another example of how “wise” the “common man” can be, showed itself in Switzerland on Nov. 30. After a widespread petition garnered enough signatures to require a referendum, the Swiss people  voted upon the most amazing subject. They voted yes or no upon whether to place the Swiss economy back upon the “gold standard”. The specific point was to raise their gold reserves to 20% of central bank assets from the current 7%. Switzerland had utilized gold as a major backer of their currency right up until 1999. Then, (as virtually all other nations of the world had so done several decades prior) they changed their system to become more reliant upon the Euro as a major backer of their currency. They did not adopt the Euro, keeping their Swiss Franc, but they abandoned gold as their main money-value backer. 

         This story was recently fully reported upon by USA’s Forbes Magazine, by the National Post, and by other international media. 

         Many people in Switzerland were apparently quite upset at their currency increasing in great value against the value of the Euro. Their exports were assisted by this, but their own currency became very expensive, allegedly cutting down tourism and making imports very expensive; or at least that is what some held was the reason for their economic troubles.  

         And so they had a vote upon it. The vote was led, not by an individual, but by the efforts of one of the smaller political parties, The Swiss People’s Party.  Despite such interesting people as former American presidential candidate, Ron Paul, supporting their position, the vote was much against the idea, with 78 % voting in opposition.  Prior to the vote, Paul had said, “The Swiss people appreciate the work their forefathers put into building up large gold reserves, a respected currency, and a strong, independent banking system. They do not want to see centuries of struggle squandered by a central bank.”

         However, most financial experts of Switzerland were against placing the economy back on the gold standard, declaring they still had more gold in reserve than most other countries.  These experts were also of the opinion that not being within the gold standard was not the cause of any economic troubles the Swiss may have had.

         But the reasons behind the vote are not, to this writer, what is so interesting. It is the whole exercise. It is the permitting the “lowly citizen” to vote upon such a complex issue. The fact that the vast majority went along with most of the financial experts says a lot about “common-sense”. The people can be counted upon to vote with sense. We in Canada (or Ontario, or within our municipalities) have “wise” common people. Why cannot we vote when we want to, upon issues, via referendums? Would not our commitment to democracy improve if we had more say on some matters? Would not the apparent need for disruptive protests be reduced? Think about it.

          

Many Recent USA Referendums

             Did you know that in the US at their recent October elections, voters in several states were also asked to approve or not  146 ballot initiatives? That was according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute of the University of South California, as reported in the recent Economist magazine.

         Voters in Colorado and Oregon were asked whether labels were required on foods with genetically modified ingredients. California was asked about reducing prison sentences for some non-violent crimes. Two more states voted on whether to legalize marijuana. Washington wanted to know whether there should be background checks for all gun sales. Life begins at conception was an issue in Colorado. Minimum wage questions were asked in three states.

          Some 35 of the initiatives were introduced by citizens themselves, via citizen petitions. The others were introduced by the legislatures.

         Of course, citizen initiatives are harder to muster because they do require a lot of work to get enough voters, usually 10%, to sign them. But that they do pursue the opinions of the citizens in these formal manners is surely the right thing to do in a democracy -where the principle is that the majority is supposed to rule, while the minority has the right to be heard. 

         Just why is it that only in B.C. and in the NWT can you do this in Canada, though sanctions there within each riding regarding the required petition numbers make success very difficult. Is Canada that much slower to utilize modern means for obtaining democratic decisions? Is that why we are not bothering to vote in large numbers? Most citizens have given up, knowing that their vote does not make any difference in the laws that are passed. 

         Why can we not have binding, citizen-initiated referendums in our province or even in our municipality? Get after your members. Ask them. Tell them to introduce the rules that permit such, as so many US states have done.