G'morning David,

 DW> I assume it's 50% + 1. Nobody has mentioned anything different. The
 DW> only experience with referenda that we've had in Canada in recent
 DW> decades has been the ones that were held in Quebec, on the question of
 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 ?

 DW> We do have something called the Clarity Act here, which was passed by
 DW> the federal government to stop Quebec sovereignists from asking
 DW> fuzzy-wuzzy questions in referendums, in the hope of getting a
"oui"
 DW> majority. The Act says that the question in a referendum must clearly
 DW> state the alternatives and their consequences. Presumably, this will
 DW> also apply here in Ontario.

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...

 DW> The Constitution is a federal concern. This referendum is provincial.
 DW> Nothing that happens at the provincial level can change the
 DW> Constitution, though the Constitution says that matters that are
 DW> confined to one province are (usually) the responsibility of the
 DW> provincial government. The provinces can be forced to bend to the
 DW> federal will, so if things go horribly wrong after this referendum, the
 DW> federal government may step in and fix the situation. So we have a
 DW> possible avenue of escape that you do not.

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.

NZ parliament recently passed a law banning parents from smacking 
their kids after a lengthy debate and controversy.  The bill's 
author was a non-elected MP brought into the house to reflect the 
Green party's proportional result, and one who has failed to be 
elected in previous elections - mostly because of a paranoiac 
advocacy of non-violence that includes wishing to disarm whatever 
armed and civil forces NZ still has.

The last major opinion poll before the bill was passed showed 90% 
of the voting population against it,  as against an MP survey 
showing 42% against and 58% for.

Similar situations cover matters to do with imprisoning criminals, 
drinking ages, sodomy and homosexual marriage among the 
controversial issues - and probably ten times as many in the minor 
rules and regulations of life.

 DW> I think I'll vote "no", and then wait and see what happens.

Hope it all turns out for the best;  I found a website run by the 
London Chamber of Commerce which got me into the Electoral 
notices,  and I'll track the run up events;  seeing another 
country having a sniff at MMP is not to be missed.

Miles.


+--------------------Miles-Maxted-------------------+
| 116 Sunrise Avenue, North Shore City, New Zealand |
| Ph/Fx/As: ++64-9-478-3138   Mob: ++64-21-296-3891 |
+---------------------------------------------------+
 
___ MultiMail/Win32 v0.47

--- Maximus/2 3.01