Super-Majority

What is meant by a SUPER-MAJORITY is when we NEED a large number of the CITIZENSHIP IN SUPPORT of the ISSUE. We have many FUNDAMENTAL principals that DEFINE the SOCIETY THAT WE ALL LIVE WITH - Our Constitution, Human Rights, Principal of Law and other issues that define us as CANADIAN. When we do make changes to these FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPALS we need to have EVERYONE ON SIDE, AT LEAST A LARGE MAJORITY. Without this SUPER-MAJORITY on these very FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES we can be in danger of DIVIDING THE CITIZENSHIP into very hostel camps, in extreme cases it can be the cause of CIVIL WAR.

It is for this reasoning that I do support the necessity of having a SUPER-MAJORITY in favour of any ELECTORAL REFORM. We are dealing with our RIGHT TO VOTE, it is our FREEDOM that we are dealing with. We need a minimum of 60% in favour of such changes, and I would aim for 66% or every 2 out of 3 CANADIANS IN FAVOUR.

However, if such a proposed change receive a MAJORITY of VOTERS, but fails to reach the SUPER-MAJORITY mark, does not mean the issue DIES. This again demonstrates our NARROW FOCUS ON WINNING AND NOTHING ELSE. When a issue receives a MAJORITY IN FAVOUR, but fails to reach a SUPER-MAJORITY means the ISSUE needs more work to achieve the SUPER-MAJORITY. Any other action is TOTALLY DISRESPECTFUL TO THE MAJORITY and can be just as dangerous as passing such a change with a SIMPLE MAJORITY.

In 2005 and the BC-STV referendum the VOTERS were in favour of BC-STV with 57.69% of the Popular Vote and needed to reach 60% that was the SUPER-MAJORITY target. A second BC-STV referendum was necessary and should have been held within 12 months of the first referendum, NOT 4 YEARS LATER.

The act of putting the second referendum off until 2009 was just as good as throwing the whole thing out. With such a large majority in favour, the government could not just ignore it, so they did the next best thing, put it off as long as possible. IT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!