What type of majority is best suited to approve constitutional referendums? —
English
 

What type of majority is best suited to approve constitutional referendums?

Referendums are polls that give citizens the opportunity to directly accept or reject specific legislative issues proposed by government via a general vote. In many countries, referendums are mandatory in a range of explicitly predetermined circumstances. This is most often the case when the particular policy proposals being considered are of major national significance – in the event of constitutional amendments, for instance, many countries require that a referendum be held to poll the general population.

Given the range and importance of polls of this nature, a number of points of debate arise regarding the political, administrative and logistical structure of constitutional referendums. A critical issue among these relates to the type of majority thought appropriate to decide the outcome of the vote. Some experts argue that the standard simple majority, meaning a vote of 50% +1, helps give both the government and the greater part of the population the most flexibility to institute needed social and political change. Others argue that a simple majority does not sufficiently mandate the government to amend the constitution, as the latter is typically thought of as a foundational legal document that should be rather difficult to change relative to other types of legislation. Some experts claim that double majorities – in which a majority according to more than one criterion is required – better protect minority groups from being marginalized by the majority. Switzerland, for example, requires that a majority of its voters as well as a majority of its cantons vote in favor of the referendum if a constitutional amendment is to pass. Others argue that a supermajority, where the proposition passes if a predetermined number well above 50% vote in favor of the proposed change, gives sufficient mandate to the government to amend the constitution without adding the constraints usually associated with double majorities.

 

When using referendums to approve or reject suggested changes to a constitution, what kind of majority do you think is most suitable as a threshold for approval?

When using referendums to approve or reject suggested changes to a constitution, what kind of majority do you think is most suitable to use as threshold for approval?

  • Simple
  • Double
  • Super
  • Other (please comment)
Total votes
152 people have voted on this poll.
Document Actions

Constitutional amendments by popular vote

Posted by Horacio Boneo at Aug 26, 2011 08:07 AM
Constitutional amendments should a careful process, involving many other steps before the issue is eventually submitted to popular consultation – which probably is not the most frequent or advisable approach. In order to properly answer the question, one would need to know a little more background. There has been a Constitutional Assembly and the referendum is just the last step in the process? Or it is enough to collect a given number of signatures in order to have a specific issue submitted to popular consultation? Are the results of the referendum binding? (which is not always the case) Are there articles of the Constitution that cannot be reformed through popular consultation? Is there a minimum level of participation required for the referendum to be valid?
A good bad example of constitutions that can be reformed via popular amendment is California. Its constitution is one of the longest in the world, bloated by persistent amendment. Thanks to the ballot initiative, any group which collects signatures of 8% of the electorate can place a constitutional amendment on the state ballot. A majority of voters can approve the amendment in a single election. In 1978, California passed Proposition 13 by popular vote. Prop 13 amended the California Constitution to limit increases on property tax bills to 2% annually, regardless of property values, unless the property changes ownership. Additionally, Prop 13 requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of the California legislature to increase state taxes. The end result: a fiscal nightmare. Real and lasting change must come through democratic means. But true constitutional democracy means public deliberation. Popular constitutional amendments adopted by majority vote in a single election (whether it is a simple, special or double majority) are not reasoned and informed democracy; they are can became government by mobs mobilized by special interests.

Kind of majority

Posted by Reuben Chemitei at Sep 20, 2011 09:43 AM
Yeah, Super majority means there is a strong inclination in favour of or against the proposed change. An example would be a two-thirds majority (an equivalent of 66.67%) taking the day if it supports the change or vice-versa.

Constitutional Amendment

Posted by Laurie McGrath at Oct 06, 2011 12:18 PM
As indicated in an earlier comment any amendment must be carefully considered. It should also be the subject of rigorous information campaign, by both those who propose and those who oppose, with each side being required to place their case before the electorate. In putting their case either side should have equal resources and access to the media and electorate.

A voting system for constitutional amendment must provide certainty of result, but also must have the capacity to protect smaller states or provinces from being overwhelmed by larger ones.If this is not provided for then it becomes a matter of electorate size, with the larger having the ability to pass amendments that could be designed to destroy the smaller. The issue of Citizen Initiated Referenda is also a consideration, where a relatively small pecentage of the electorate could effect constitutional change, with major ramifications for the electorate and the State or Country. I favour a double vote, you have to get a majority of electors and a majority of electors in a majority of states/territories or provinces to secure an amendment. This protects the smaller from the larger and requires the convincing of a significant majority of the total electorate. This is the current mechanism in Australia and in my view has served the country well. I would be totally opposed to the ability of a parliament to change a constitution without referral to the people.

It depends...

Posted by Jack Santucci at Nov 15, 2011 10:06 AM
...on whether the consent of relevant and organized social groups is required for the maintenance of political stability. In that case, one would want what is here termed a "double" majority.

constitutional referendums

Posted by Dr Ramesh Kumar at Jan 13, 2012 10:14 AM
It is my considered view that the simple majority system should be approved at the time of constitutional amendment.

Constitutional changes by referendum

Posted by Harcourt McGuire at Mar 13, 2018 05:57 PM
For important Constitutional change it is prudent to set the level of 75% approval as being required to effect this change. Brexit is a case in point.