Referendums and abstention

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/17/hungary-migration-poll-divides-nation-viktor-orban

As a side issue on referendum, it makes a good case for abstention if there is a participation clause.

Here's what the article says on this:

Quote:

There is also a more serious campaign to persuade voters to spoil their ballots, perhaps the only way to fight back against Orbán because, in a country with a long history of unease with migrants and extensive government influence over the media, he is guaranteed an overwhelming majority. The only way that victory will be undermined is if turnout fails to meet the relatively high threshold needed for it to be legally binding.

This was the case in the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum when there was a requirement that not only should there be a majority in favour but that this majority should amount to 40% of the electorate for it to carry. In the event while a majority voted yes only 33% of the electorate did, so it failed. (Incidentally, I don't understand why they didn't put such a clause into the recent EU referendum; overconfidence that they would win no doubt).

I don't know what the exact provision is in the Hungarian referendum but it  shows that spoiling your valid paper (or putting in a blank one), which we normally advocate, is a legitimate political tactic. But would we always propose this in every referendum?

We can imagine referendums where we would surely advocate a No vote. For instance, the referendum in Australia in the WWI to introduce conscription and the other one there in 1951 to ban the Communist Party (both of which failed).  Then there have been referendums where members would surely vote Yes (and did), as for instance those in Ireland to introduce divorce or to allow same sex marriages. There might be other referendums where we might take a neutral position (as we did in effect in the 2011 UK referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote election system).

In fact, would we vote No in an anti-immigrant referendum like the current one in Hungary?

[alanjjohnstone]

It did occur to me to mention the 1979 referendum where 51% of a 64% turn out voted for independence but it failed to achieve the 40% rule. In relation to the total electorate 32% voted for devolution and 30% vote noHowever was it an exercise in democracy or gerrymandering? I recall at the time many describing it as the votes from the grave because the electoral register was not too up to date and had many deceased still registered to vote so when they did not rise from their coffins and graves to vote Yes they were treated as a No vote .But i see the abstention figures for 1979 and 2014 are roughly the same…about 3000. Of course, with a 80% turnout in 2014, the abstention % is very much lower. Might have all been different if the 1913 Scottish Home Rule Bill had been passed and not dropped because of WW1 and then totally forgotten due to the Irish Home Rule troubles

[ALB]

I've found on the net what seems to be rule for the Hungarian referendum:

Quote:

… a national referendum is valid and successful only when more than half of all voters have cast a valid vote and more than half of those voting in a valid manner support either the 'yes' or the 'no' alternative. The requirement is thus more or less the same as the referendum requirement pertaining to constitutional amendments in the Weimar Republic, a requirement which was characterized as insurmountable and criticized because it made possible voting by abstention.

I don't know why this rule is regarded as insurmountable as under it the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum would have been carried. Given the level of xenophobia in Hungary the one there should easily be successful. And of course what is wrong with "voting by abstention" (or by invalid vote)?

[twc]

Australian ReferendaAn Australian referendum is a vote to change the Australian Constitution.  For it to succeed, and thereby change the Australian Constitution, the referendum vote—which is compulsory under the Constitution—must jump two distinct hurdles:a majority of votes across the nationa majority in a majority of the states (excluding the territories: ACT & NT).The second hurdle is a historical safeguard, written into the Australian Constitution, to assure electoral protection to the constituent states that wrote it, independent of the size of their individual population.  How the populous states agreed to this is anyone’s guess.Consequently, the second hurdle often turns into a barrier to Constitutional change, for if a group of less populated states (e.g., Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia) opposes a federal referendum proposal—perhaps on party lines—that proposal will fail no matter how overwhelming the national majority.  As a consequence, only 8 out of 44 Australian referendum proposals have been carried since Federation in 1901.Equal representation by unequally populated states, in both referenda and in the senate [the federal upper house], once famously provoked frustrated Prime Minister Paul Keating to call the senators “unrepresentative swill”.Australian PlebiscitesOn the other hand, when the Australian federal government drafts a plebiscite it is free to set its own electoral criteria, and to ignore state-by-state breakdowns.Even so, federal government-backed plebiscites are not necessarily pushovers for the government that proposes them.As ALB mentioned, in 1916 the Australian Labor government lost two plebiscites over military conscription during WWI, the second was lost even after Prime Minister Hughes extended the franchise to troops at the front.  [Unlike other WWI armed forces, Australian soldiers were non-conscripted volunteers—a testimony both to innocence bred of isolation and the emotional hold over them of the “ideal” of heeding the mother country’s call “in the defence of her Great Empire”.  That was a century ago.]I will discuss the issue abstention in a subsequent post.

[twc]

Vote No or Vote “World Socialism”In Australia, voting at federal and state elections is compulsory.  Abstention is not an option.The [World] Socialist Party of Australia’s default electoral position was to register a vote for world socialism, either byvoting for a standing Party candidateor writing     W O R L D   S O C I A L I S M across the ballot paper.ALB asks whether a vote of “No” is an appropriate response to a referendum like the 1951 Australian federal Referendum to “Ban the Communist Party”, a ban that readily extends itself to embrace the Socialist Party?My answer is that, despite the serious emergency situation of such a Referendum vote, with dire collateral consequences for the Party, an opposing vote of “No” is not the appropriate response, and I would personally vote the default:     W O R L D   S O C I A L I S M But I would not urge others to vote the same way on such a crucial issue that puts the short-term survival of the Socialist Party on the agenda.I point out that the reformist—though, at the time considered, revolutionary—German Social Democrats flourished under Bismark’s anti-socialist laws.  That, of course, is no convincing argument against voting “No”.  But it does suggest that suppression of social movements and censorship of social thought rebounds in the long term against the short-term social suppressor and thought censor.I wonder if any articles from Australia appeared in the Socialist Standard at the time that may suggest what stance the Australian Party took.

[twc]

Wasting the Vote?In answer to those who scoff that writing     W O R L D   S O C I A L I S M across a ballot paper is wasting or spoiling a vote…In 1981 the Australian state of Tasmania held a state Referendum over whether to build a hydro-electric dam above or below the junction of two wild rivers, but without an anti-dam choice.As the proposed dam was to be built in UNESCO World Heritage wilderness, the disenfranchised “No Dam” movement openly urged people to use their vote by writing—as if in emulation of century-old Socialist Party practice—     N O   D A M S across their Referendum ballot papers.Here are the Referendum results https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam_controversy8% for a dam above the junction47% for a dam below the junction45% informal.Significantly, over 33%, or one-third of Tasmanians, voting under a compulsory franchise, wrote     N O   D A M S across their Referendum ballot papers to register their intention.  The Referendum was ultimately lost.Writing     W O R L D   S O C I A L I S M across your ballot paper is a vote for Socialism.  It is not, in the socialist sense, spoiling your ballot paper nor wasting your rare opportunity to vote.Abstention is how you waste your precious vote for socialism!

[ALB]

twc wrote:

ALB asks whether a vote of “No” is an appropriate response to a referendum like the 1951 Australian federal Referendum to “Ban the Communist Party”, a ban that readily extends itself to embrace the Socialist Party?My answer is that, despite the serious emergency situation of such a Referendum vote, with dire collateral consequences for the Party, an opposing vote of “No” is not the appropriate response, and I would personally vote the default:     W O R L D   S O C I A L I S M But I would not urge others to vote the same way on such a crucial issue that puts the short-term survival of the Socialist Party on the agenda.

The SPGB was faced with a similar situation in January 1941 when the government banned the Daily Worker. Here is what the Socialist Standard said on this:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1940s/1941/no-438-february-1941/suppression-daily-workerThis article contains this passage:

Quote:

All the same the S.P.G.B. is opposed to suppression of opinion.

Although of course there wasn't a referendum on the question, suppose that there had been. Wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical to say we are opposed to the suppression of opinion and then, confronted with the possibility of opposing it, refuse to do this? (And what if the referendum had been on banning the Socialist Party?)It would be interesting to know how members of the SP of Australia voted in that 1951 referendum. There is a copy in the SPGB archives at Head Office of the September 1946 issue of Socialist Comment, the joint paper of the SPA and SPNZ, on another referendum in Australia. This was a referendum to transfer powers to legislate on social services, marketing if primary produce and industrial employment from the States to the Federal government. The front page article headlined "THE REFERENDUM" concluded:

Quote:

Thefore, the Socialist Party of Australia maintains that it is not in the interest of the working class to vote either "YES" or "NO". One issue, and one issue alone, is worthy of working class support: Socialism. You can use this referendum to reject the two evils offered to you, and at least protest against this rotten system by writing "SOCIALISM" across the ballot paper. Then, when you understand the choice before you, come and join us in more positive action !"

In the event, the referendum was lost by 50.56% to 49.44%.

[twc]

‘Write-In’ VotingAustralian voters are legally permitted to ‘write-in’ a political message on their ballot paper as long as it doesn’t identify the voter nor obscure the voting intention.This lets you squib ALB’s dilemma…You could shamefacedly cast a reformist “NO” on a Referendum ballot paper while simultaneously ‘writing-in’ a revolutionary message     W O R L D   S O C I A L I S M without spoiling your vote.Against this dualism, I hold that no better electoral case has ever been—or could ever be—written, and ‘written-in’, than the Socialist Party of Australia’s case ALB quotes:

The SPA wrote:

Therefore, the Socialist Party of Australia maintains that it is not in the interest of the working class to vote either “YES” or “NO”.  One issue, and one issue alone, is worthy of working class support: Socialism.  You can use this referendum to reject the two evils offered to you, and at least protest against this rotten system by writing “SOCIALISM” across the ballot paper.  Then, when you understand the choice before you, come and join us in more positive action!"

[Bijou Drains]

Surely this whole debate is a nuanced rerun of the Upton Park debate (incidentally does that now become the Olympic Stadium debate?). If referendums are held where real decisions are being made that impact on the lives of workers then surely, in the same way as Socialist delegates to parliament would do, Socialists would make a decision based on what was felt to be in the best interests of workers. If there was a referendum on increasing the pay of ancillary staff in hospitals, I assume the vast majority of Socialists would vote in favour. Similarly if referendums were to be used as a democratic way in which workers could control even small aspects of their lives on a local level, would that be something we should abstain from? If for example a local council put the question of whether a local park should be used as a children's football pitch or turned into a golf course, would it be anti socialist to take part in a decision making process that could be used as an example of the value of participatory democracy?

[twc]

The SPA case, as quoted above, is the only socialist position.The Party has only one Object.  Its Object and Declaration of Principles leave no room for doubt.It is a mug’s game for the Party to attempt to administer capitalism in the interests of the working class.The Party case is that nobody—not even the Party—can run capitalism.  Otherwise what on earth is its case against reformism?The Party case is that capital runs capitalism.Do you really think that anyone—including the Party—can steer capitalism in working class interests?Do you really believe it possible?

[Bijou Drains]

twc wrote:

The SPA case, as quoted above, is the only socialist position.The Party has only one Object.  Its Object and Declaration of Principles leave no room for doubt.It is a mug’s game for the Party to attempt to administer capitalism in the interests of the working class.The Party case is that nobody—not even the Party—can run capitalism.  Otherwise what on earth is its case against reformism?The Party case is that capital runs capitalism.Do you really think that anyone—including the Party—can steer capitalism in working class interests?Do you really believe it possible?

that's not what I said, nor is what I said, in my opinion, contrary to the position established by the party in the wake of the W B of Upton Park dispute in 1911

[twc]

The substantive point is can anyone—the Party included—run capitalism in any but the interests of capital?

[ALB]

twc wrote:

You could shamefacedly cast a reformist “NO” on a Referendum ballot paper while simultaneously ‘writing-in’ a revolutionary message    W O R L D   S O C I A L I S M

Actually, that is precisely what some Party members have done in some referendums, eg. the 1997 one of Welsh devolution. Of course in this country it's regarded as a spolit vote. In fact if you write anything on the ballot paper this is the case on the (absurd) grounds that the voter's intention is not clear.

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

If for example a local council put the question of whether a local park should be used as a children's football pitch or turned into a golf course, would it be anti socialist to take part in a decision making process that could be used as an example of the value of participatory democracy?

I don't think it would be anti-socialist but this could be left up to individual members to decide without the Party itself having to take up a position. I remember in the late 60s or early 70s Haringey Council in London organising a local referendum to give it the power to pay electricity and gas bill arrears where the landlord had not paid and where the tenant was therefore in danger of the supply being cut off and then to try to recover the money from the landlord. This seemed a reasonable minor mitigation of benefit to some workers. I don't think I was being anti-socialist in voting for. After all, while nobody, not even us, can make capitalism work in the interest of the workers, it is still possible to make things less worse — though of course that's not the job of the party either but of other working class organisations such as trade unions and tenants associations.

[twc]

ALB wrote:

After all, while nobody, not even us, can make capitalism work in the interest of the workers, it is still possible to make things less worse — though of course that’s not the job of the party

But the 20th century history of things made “less worse” against the interests of capital reveals their subsequent reversal by, and in the interests, of the very capital they were vainly supposed to thwart.Every substantial “less worse” gain has been wound back.Capital must grind the working class inexorably for as long as the working class supports it.  In that context, amelioration of the effects of capital is a natural reaction to the grinding effects of capital, but its lasting “less worse” efficacy can only be wishful thinking.

[ALB]

I agree that these days trying to make things less worse is like running up a downward moving escalator. The trouble is that if you stop running you'll slip back even further.Not that people will stop running anyway. All this — having to run fast just to stand still or not slip back — is in itself a powerdul condemnation of capitalism and a reason to get rid of it.

[Author]

Posts