Sir, – Patrick Smyth asks: “Are yes/no answers to complex questions really useful?” (“We should be wary of fetishising referendums. They’re not a great way to do business”, Opinion, October 21st.)
But he makes no mention of multi-option referendums, like the five-option poll in New Zealand in 1992, or the six/seven plebiscite in Guam in 1982.
In the latter instance, there were six options on the ballot paper, and just in case someone(s) had another suggestion, a blank seventh option allowed them to (campaign and) vote for that.
Complicated? Not at all; the invalid vote was less than 1 per cent.
Clairo at 3Olympia: Whispery vocals and piano licks make a seamless transition from bedroom to jazz club
My aged mother’s health is declining quickly. Should we prepare her home for sale?
‘Where I come from, people don’t do medicine. It’s not on your radar’: how a new generation of doctors is being trained
Pancake Tuesday: What’s the history, what does ‘shrove’ mean and what’s the significance for single people?
The first multi-option referendum, again in New Zealand, was in 1894. Six centuries earlier, in 1294, the Swiss held their first public vote. And earlier still, the first government to use a multi-option ballot was Chinese, in 1197; it was on the question of war and peace with Mongolia and, according to the Cambridge History of China, of 84 “highest officials, five favoured an attack, 33 preferred to alternate between attack and defence, and 46 were for a defensive strategy”.
Pluralism is possible. – Yours, etc,
PETER EMERSON,
Director, the de Borda Institute,
Belfast.
