A lesson for Hong Kong: UK's Brexit referendum was not multi-option
WTPOHK promotes the use of a 'Modified Borda Count' MBC multi-option referendum for Hong Kong (HK) as a realistic means to negate the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) breaches of the Joint Declaration therefore allowing this agreement to continue.
HK is struggling with novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the disease it causes COVID-19 and with Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) breach of UN treaty obligations including the Joint Declaration and its illegal national security law.
The UK is struggling with novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the disease that causes COVID-19 and with Brexit. UK had a referendum on Brexit but the referendum was not multi-option using a MBC.
Peter Emerson in his blog “Democracy – the most undefined word in the world!” wrote: “The MBC is inclusive, robust and, above all, accurate. It is therefore more democratic than any majority vote. It is also non-majoritarian; as noted, it can identify the option with the highest average preference, and an average, of course, involves every voter, not just a majority of them. If, therefore, the MBC were adopted as the international democratic norm, there would be no further justification for single-party or even two/three/four-party-coalition majority rule; instead, every democracy (and not just Switzerland plus a few conflict zones) could enjoy all-party governments of national unity. No longer, then, would the world suffer from societies polarised into two factions, like Hong Kong’s yellow and blue, like the USA’s Democrats and Republicans, like England’s pro- or anti-Brexit. And no longer would we suffer the consequences of all-powerful singletons like Bolsonaro, Johnson, Modi and Trump – all so similar to another all-powerful singleton, Xi.”
Peter Emerson's recent Letter to the Editor of the Guardian on Brexit (format added):
Dear Editor, Logically, when there’s no majority ‘for' any one option, there’s a majority ‘against' every option, (as in Theresa May's ‘indicative votes’). In 2016, the Brexit table offered at least four options: ‘EU’, ‘EEA’, ‘Customs Union’ and ‘WTO’. The vote, however, was on only one of them and (Britain’s departure is now a sad reality, 1 January.) But maybe there were majorities against every option. Alas, political leaders like binary voting: they choose the question... which then becomes the answer, usually; they’re in control, usually. Multi-option referendums, however, are more democratic; the world’s first was in New Zealand in 1894, and Britain’s first was in 1948, in Newfoundland. In 1992, 1996 and 2011, New Zealand, Slovenia and the UK debated electoral systems, with five, three and two options respectively. NZ chose PR with 54%; Slovenia preferred a different form of PR, on 49%, not a majority but the largest minority. In the UK, however, David Cameron was in control, so PR wasn’t even on the ballot paper. But think: at 48% in 2016, maybe ‘remain’ also had the largest minority. Starting with Nicholas Cusanus nearly 600 years ago, wiser councils have advocated preferential points decision-making. Both in Parliament and in referendums, this voting procedure can identify the option with the highest average preference which, by definition, best represents the collective will. Yours
WTPOHK referedum blogs: