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.
An Irish businessman in Singapore: ‘You’ll get a year in jail if you are in a drunken brawl, so people don’t step out of line’
Protestants in Ireland: ‘We’ve gone after the young generations. We’ve listened and changed how we do things’
Is this the final chapter for Books at One as Dublin and Cork shops close?
In Dallas, X marks the mundane spot that became an inflection point of US history
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.