Starling Proposes Referendum Clarity Act 2014
Former Independent candidate Jonathan Starling has proposed the Referendum [Clarity] Act 2014, which he said seeks to ensure that referendum questions are “neutral and intelligible.”
Mr Starling said, “Almost exactly a year ago the OBA tabled the Gaming Referendum Act 2013.
“This Act existed solely to enable a promised referendum – promised in both parties’ election platforms and by the OBA throughout 2013 – on casino gambling to be held, and stated what the referendum question would be.
“The stated referendum question was: ‘Do you favour the introduction of regulated casino gaming for the purposes of creating new jobs for Bermudians and encouraging hotel development?”
“Almost immediately this stated question was heavily criticised from both pro-gambling and anti-gambling advocates, as well as neutrals, as the question was seen as incredibly biased and loaded in favour of a ‘yes’ vote.
“For those opposed to the introduction of casino gambling, such a loaded and biased question was seen as rigging the referendum in favour of introducing casino gambling, while neutrals saw it as simply being blatantly unfair and contrary to the spirit of a democratic referendum.
“For supporters of casino gambling there was the fear that such a loaded question would undermine the credibility of the result, causing more problems than could be justified – and, besides, was completely unnecessary a tactic in their opinion.
“Of course, some supporters of casino gambling – or the more diehard OBA supporters – were quite happy with the question, but in general it was heavily criticised.
“The Opposition PLP threatened not to derail the referendum, but to simply amend the question to a more neutral one, along the lines of ‘do you favour the introduction of regulated casino gaming?’
“Rather than simply accept that a more neutral question would be more appropriate, the OBA decided to abandon their promise to ‘do the right thing’ and hold a referendum on the issue and instead dictated that it would be decided instead by a parliamentary vote – and then making clear that this wouldn’t be a free vote of conscience, but that the OBA MPs would be under a three-line whip to vote in favour of casino gambling.
“Now, there are various aspects that can – and have, and will – be said about the various dynamics internal to the OBA that led to this about face. I do not intend to discuss those in this piece.
“Instead, the aborted Gaming Referendum Act 2013, with its biased question, highlighted an oversight, or, rather, a flaw, in the Referendum Act 2012, the legislation concerning all things referendum-related.
“Quite simply, the Referendum Act 2012, as it’s currently written, makes no provision to ensure that referendum questions are neutral – or, for that matter, intelligible. This of course has relevance for any future referendum, regardless of the topic.
“And as the Gaming Referendum Act 2013 rather farcically shows us, we cannot blindly trust politicians to act in the spirit of fairness and respect for the voter in developing referendum questions.
“The Referendum Act 2012 needs amending. It needs amending before we hold any future referendum, and it needs amended before we introduce the promised ability to trigger referendums via a petition [also promised by the OBA in their 2012 election platform, and also broken by them following their decision to break their promise of a referendum on casino gambling].
“To this end, I propose the Referendum [Clarity] Act 2014,” continued Mr Starling.
“It is based largely on the UK’s Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which mandates the UK’s Electoral Commission to ensure that referendum questions are neutral and intelligible – and so ensure the credibility of referenda outcomes.
“While Bermuda does not currently have an Electoral Commission, the Parliamentary Registrar is the closest institution we do have to it, and so I have proposed that they be mandated to ensure that referendum questions are neutral and intelligible.
“I believe that this draft Act brings us into best practice and would ensure that future referendums are conducted in a credible and neutral manner.
“I ask that voters write to their MPs and ask them to support this proposed Act and to see it introduced and passed in parliament as soon as possible.”
The full Referendum [Clarity] Act 2014 follow below [PDF here]:
Starling…leave this alone. It’s a done deal!
A self proclaimed Marxist Stalinist who holds nor never held Public Office is continually attacking the Government over issues that do not concern him nor really affect the subject he refers too.
Cherry picking.
Let it go Mr. Starling.
Your doing what your friend Lenin did.
Divide.
Shalom.
Can you comment on the message and not the messager? This would lead to a higher level of discourse in this country.
I fear you ask too much out of certain persons known more for trolling and deflecting than contributing useful commentary.
It does not appear that many care what Starling thinks. Bout as many as the votes he got.
‘do you favour the introduction of regulated casino gaming?’
But that has bias…it is asking for an individuals perception on regulated casio gaming.
You could have said ‘Are you against the introduction of Regulated Casino gaming’
and the voting results would have been very different.
There are many poeple who are not for regulated Casino gaming, but those same people are not against regulated Casio Gaming.
See it’s not that simple is it Starling.
IMHO you’d be better off removing ANY opinion or BIAS
Government to introduce legislation for regulating Casio gaming. YES or NO (voter to put X in appropriate box).
I’m curious why aren’t you over in Syria or has that lost it’s importance.
I personally did not view the proposed referendum question as being loaded or biased.
This is due to the fact that the issuance of casino licenses would only be granted to new hotel developments and as such the original question was very relevant to the proposal.
I respectfully disagree. “Do you favour the introduction of regulated casino gaming for the purposes of creating new jobs for Bermudians and encouraging hotel development?” I can’t imagine there are many Bermudians that would oppose creating new jobs and encouraging hotel development.
It could have said “do you favour the passing of legislation allowing new hotel developments to obtain licenses to operate regulated casinos”. This would be far less loaded and biased.
How would people feel about a referendum question like “Do you favour the introduction of regulated casino gaming at the risk of further erosion of our morals with the possibility of causing a few suicides after people lose their last dollar to multi-billion dollar casino corporations?”
I’m an OBA supporter (just barely) but there’s no denying the way that question was worded was extremely biased. Let’s call a spade a spade. Moreover, the intent of Mr. Starling’s proposed legislation makes a lot of sense to me. Calling for neutral and intelligible referendum questions can only be a good thing for such a democratic exercise as a referendum.
We are a Country run by an Elected Parliament,the Government of the day
does the Business of the Country.Matters not if you like or dislike the
the particular party at the present time.
If you “CANNOT” get elected you cannot have input as to how the country
is Governed.
But you are trying to do the same VIA REFERENDUM.
Suggest you go and give it a try in the country where you got the “IDEA” from.
AH! and Hotels being built in Bermuda,as I remember the “HOTEL: at Castle Harbour, you know the one that was called “MARRIOT”.
The one that the BIU/PLP was going to show who was BOSS,so they left.
I SEE THAT MARRIOT now have 700,000 rooms and building more Hotels
YES seven hundred thousand rooms,but non in Bermuda.
Looks like Marriot has showed WHO IS BOSS.
Had we been more welcoming and worked with them instead of against them
as the enemy.We could have had many of the people that use there 700,000
rooms referred to the Bermuda location.
I think we shot ourselves in both FEET on that one.