Asking the right question
P.E.I. government knows its history when it comes to wording of referendum
It all seemed so simple. Stay or go?
In 1980, one of my grad student mates from Quebec started plastering everything he could find with Oui stickers. He wanted out. Of Canada.
His argument was something like this: Some of my best friends are Canadians. I go to grad school at Carleton in Ottawa, in Canada, but I’m from Quebec and we need our own country.
Quebec’s government gave him – sort of – a straightforward question to answer with his vote.
“The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?”
OK.
I didn’t say it was easy to read. Hundred-word sentences with three semi-colons are rarely easy to read. But the word ‘sovereignty’ was right there for all to see.
The separatist government got skunked, losing 59.56 per cent to 40.44.
Lesson learned. In 1995, Quebec’s separatist government tried again, and they had the question thing figured out.
“Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”
No idea what that means, which was probably the point. And it nearly worked. The separatists lost, barely – 50.58 per cent to 49.42.
That bring us to today, and the question due to appear on the ballot here as part of the next provincial election, which could be this fall, or next spring or…whenever.
“The question on the ballot should be whether Islanders wish to adopt the mixed-member proportional system, no or yes,” says Chris Palmer, minister of economic development and tourism.
Get it? No. Or. Yes. In that order. Wink, wink, nod, nod.
Want to guess how keen the government is about setting up a new electoral system that would almost certainly ensure seats for the Greens and NDP in the provincial legislature from now on?
Trick question. Pick one of the following: (a) not very, (b) not much, (c) not at all.
And if you don’t understand the mixed-member proportional system, don’t worry, each side in the coming debate gets all of $75,000 to convince you to side with them. Then you can vote – no or yes.
That last bit is a nice touch, putting no first. It’s called the default bias. Your brain, faced with doing something new, or sticking with what it knows, tends to stay with the known. If you drive a Chevy today, you’re not likely to switch to Ford tomorrow.
And $75,000 goes a lot farther towards convincing people to leave things alone than it does to change something as fundamental as the electoral system.
Apparently, P.E.I.’s government knows its history when it comes to the power of asking the right question.