->  DW> making it a separate country. If one voter more than 50% had voted 
->  DW> "oui", Canada as we know it would have ceased to
exit. But the majority 
->  DW> voted "non". 
 
-> Heavens !  On a matter that might well have been overturned in a  
-> re-run next day ? 
  
Yup. The last Quebec referendum was won by the "non" side by a margin 
of less than one percent. If the weather had been different in certain 
areas, the result could have been the opposite, and the country could 
have disintegrated. 
  
And the question was deliberately vague. Something like (in French) 
"Are you in principle in favour of a new arrangement concerning the 
association of Quebec with Canada?" Prior to the referendum, the 
(separatist) Quebec government reassured the people that nothing 
dramatic would happen if they voted "yes". There would just be 
negotiations with the federal government, and probably another 
referendum to ratify any decision. But, after the referendum, it became 
clear that the separatists really intended to declare Quebec an 
independent country the moment a "yes" majority was obtained. 
  
(You think *you've* got problems!) 
  
After that, the Federal Government passed the Clarity Act, saying that 
no referendum would have any effect unless the question was clear and 
the consequences fully spelled out. There have been no attempts in 
Quebec to have another referendum since then! But the man who was 
mainly responsible for steering the Act through the federal Parliament 
was Stephane Dion, who has since become the leader of the Federal 
Liberal Party. He is so reviled by the Quebec separatists that it is 
unlikely that the Liberals can win any election under his leadership, 
which is a shame, since he is a good man. 
  
-> Does this involve any form of pretest or pilot run ?  In our  
-> current municipal elections, one or two ballot papers have  
-> presented the wrong questions, statements and/or candidates -  
-> thanks to cursory checks by doddering Returning Officers;  there's  
-> nothing like a dry run to turn up the oversights before the real  
-> thing... 
  
Dry run! You jest! But if the thing turns into chaos, no doubt it will 
be challenged under the Clarity Act. 
  
It won't have any practical effect until the *next* provincial 
election, anyway, which won't be until about 2012. If the result is 
"yes", that will be the first election held under the new rules. By 
then, with any luck, any problems will have been resolved. 
  
-> Hope you don't need it;  we've ended up with a Parliament that is  
-> basically unrepresentative of the public.  On controversial  
-> matters, Parliament sentiment seems ALWAYS diametrically cast to  
-> jury decisions, local election outcomes and opinion polls. 
  
I, personally, do not believe that Parliament should always reflect 
public opinion. Governments are supposed to be *leaders*, not followers 
of the mob. For example, capital punishment was abolished here at a 
time when most people were in favour of it. But, over time, public 
opinion has shifted in favour of the abolition. Now, more than 70% of 
Canadians are opposed to capital punishment. In an election, the voters 
in each riding (constituency) are supposed to choose a representative 
who will be willing and able to consider matters in greater depth than 
average-Joe does. If the MP disagrees with Joe's opinions, that's fine. 
The MP has made a better-informed decision, and it is justifiable that 
his opinion should have the greater influence in making legislation, 
etc.. 
  
Of course, reality is never as good as ideals... 
  
                                dow 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5