4 ms·

The result would be a very low turnout on the first vote, with a meaningless result that may or may not be representative of the entire population (because ever

by steve19 10y ago

The result would be a very low turnout on the first vote, with a meaningless result that may or may not be representative of the entire population (because everyone knows the first vote is meaningless so why bother voting), followed by a large turnout on the second vote... and then followed by howling and wailing by which ever side loses and the demanding of a third referendum. Interesting New Zealand recently had a double/two part referendum that was reported on Hacker News (due the the complexity of changing the National flag)

kawera 10y ago
Unless you make voting in the first vote a pre-condition to vote on the second vote.
- hnal943 10y ago
  to howls of "VOTER SUPRESSION!"
zepto 10y ago
Not necessarily - the second vote could be a ratification of outcome the first, rather than a repeat of the question.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> The result would be a very low turnout on the first vote Would it? To pass a measure is to approve a change, so there's always a side that wins if the vote doesn't pass. Opponents of a change could defeat it on the first ballot, and would likely focus effort on doing so, especially if turnout was expected to be small -- because the first vote isn't meaningless, if it fails, the measure is dead, and there is no second vote. But because of this, supporters of the vote would also work very hard to mobilize support in the first ballot, because succeeding in it would be necessary to get to the second.
aidos 10y ago
The Nz referendum was a) pick a flag in round 1 and b) decide if you really want to commit to the chosen flag in round 2. It was a sensible approach given that the flag choices were so underwhelming that nobody wanted to change in the end. I guess it's a little different because you're voting for different things but I guess it's similar. Have a vote and then have the power to bail out.

by steve19 10y ago

kawera 10y ago

Unless you make voting in the first vote a pre-condition to vote on the second vote.

hnal943 10y ago
to howls of "VOTER SUPRESSION!"

zepto 10y ago

Not necessarily - the second vote could be a ratification of outcome the first, rather than a repeat of the question.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The result would be a very low turnout on the first vote Would it? To pass a measure is to approve a change, so there's always a side that wins if the vote doesn't pass. Opponents of a change could defeat it on the first ballot, and would likely focus effort on doing so, especially if turnout was expected to be small -- because the first vote isn't meaningless, if it fails, the measure is dead, and there is no second vote. But because of this, supporters of the vote would also work very hard to mobilize support in the first ballot, because succeeding in it would be necessary to get to the second.

aidos 10y ago

The Nz referendum was a) pick a flag in round 1 and b) decide if you really want to commit to the chosen flag in round 2. It was a sensible approach given that the flag choices were so underwhelming that nobody wanted to change in the end. I guess it's a little different because you're voting for different things but I guess it's similar. Have a vote and then have the power to bail out.