If a sports competition between Man. Utd. (independence), Man. City (devo. max) and Liverpool (status quo) were to be played as the Scottish referendum is to be conducted, and if the games were organised by a Manchunian, then Man. Utd. might play Liverpool in round one. If Man. Utd. won, they'd win the contest. If not, Liverpool would then have to play Man. City, and the winner of this second match would be the champion.
In other words, the whole thing has been fixed so that independence is given the best chance of success. In a word, it is a nonsense.
In 1997, the SNP wanted a three-option vote. But both Tony Blair and David Cameron like binary, majority voting in decision-making, as did Napoleon (1804), Lenin (1903), Mussolini (1929), Hitler (1933), and several others, Duvalier, Pinochet, Gaddafi, Khomeini, et al.
Multi-option voting has been successful in many countries - New Zealand, for example, held a five-option ballot in 1992 - and such ballots are far more likely to qualify as meeting the highest international standards.
Accordingly, a more accurate and therefore more democratic instrument of decision-making would be a three-option vote, the winner being that option which gained the highest average preference. And an average, of course, involves every voter, not just a majority.
(See also 2014-12, 2013-15, 2012-13/10/1 and 2011-1.)
Monday, January 13, 2014 