A reference is a relationship between objects in which one object designates, or acts as a means by which to connect to or link to, another object. The first object in this relation is said to refer to the second object. It is called a name for the second object. The second object, the one to which the first object refers, is called the referent of the first object. A name is usually a phrase or expression, or some other symbolic representation. Its referent may be anything – a material object, a person, an event, an activity, or an abstract concept.
References can take on many forms, including: a thought, a sensory perception that is audible (onomatopoeia), visual (text), olfactory, or tactile, emotional state, relationship with other,[1] spacetime coordinate, symbolic or alpha-numeric, a physical object or an energy projection. In some cases, methods are used that intentionally hide the reference from some observers, as in cryptography.[citation needed]
Reference feature in many spheres of human activity and knowledge, and the term adopts shades of meaning particular to the contexts in which it is used. Some of them are described in the sections below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference
A referent (/ˈrɛfərənt/) is a person or thing to which a name – a linguistic expression or other symbol – refers. For example, in the sentence Mary saw me, the referent of the word Mary is the particular person called Mary who is being spoken of, while the referent of the word me is the person uttering the sentence.
Two expressions which have the same referent are said to be co-referential. In the sentence John had his dog with him, for instance, the noun John and the pronoun him are co-referential, since they both refer to the same person (John).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_function
A referendum (plural: referendums or less commonly referenda) is a direct vote by the electorate on a proposal, law, or political issue. This is in contrast to an issue being voted on by a representative. This may result in the adoption of a new policy or specific law, or the referendum may be only advisory. In some countries, it is synonymous with and also known as plebiscite, votation, popular consultation, ballot question, ballot measure, or proposition.
Some definitions of 'plebiscite' suggest it is a type of vote to change the constitution or government of a country.[1] The word, 'referendum' is often a catchall, used for both legislative referrals and initiatives.
Etymology
'Referendum' is the gerundive form of the Latin verb referre, literally "to carry back" (from the verb ferre, "to bear, bring, carry" plus the inseparable prefix re-, here meaning "back"[2]). As a gerundive is an adjective,[3] not a noun,[4] it cannot be used alone in Latin, and must be contained within a context attached to a noun such as Propositum quod referendum est populo, "A proposal which must be carried back to the people". The addition of the verb sum (3rd person singular, est) to a gerundive, denotes the idea of necessity or compulsion, that which "must" be done, rather than that which is "fit for" doing. Its use as a noun in English is not considered a strictly grammatical usage of a foreign word but is rather a freshly coined English noun, which follows English grammatical usage, not Latin grammatical usage. This determines the form of the plural in English, which according to English grammar should be "referendums". The use of "referenda" as a plural form in English (treating it as a Latin word and attempting to apply to it the rules of Latin grammar) is unsupportable according to the rules of both Latin and English grammar. The use of "referenda" as a plural form is posited hypothetically as either a gerund or a gerundive by the Oxford English Dictionary, which rules out such usage in both cases as follows:[5]
Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund,[6] referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.[7]
It is closely related to agenda, "those matters which must be driven forward", from ago, to impel or drive forwards; and memorandum, "that matter which must be remembered", from memoro, to call to mind, corrigenda, from rego, to rule, make straight, those things which must be made straight (corrected), etc.
The term 'plebiscite' has a generally similar meaning in modern usage and comes from the Latin plebiscita, which originally meant a decree of the Concilium Plebis (Plebeian Council), the popular assembly of the Roman Republic. Today, a referendum can also often be referred to as a plebiscite, but in some countries the two terms are used differently to refer to votes with differing types of legal consequences.[8]
In Australia, a 'referendum' is often said to be a vote to change the federal constitution and 'plebiscite' a vote which does not affect the federal constitution.[8] However, this is erroneous as not all federal referendums have been on constitutional matters (such as the 1916 Australian conscription referendum), and state votes that likewise do not affect either the federal or state constitution are frequently said to be referendums (such as the 2009 Western Australian daylight saving referendum). Historically, they are used by Australians interchangeably and a plebiscite was considered another name for a referendum.[9][10][11]
In Ireland, 'plebiscite' referred to the vote to adopt its constitution, but a subsequent vote to amend the constitution is called a 'referendum', as is a poll of the electorate on a non-constitutional bill.
History
The name and use of the 'referendum' is thought to have originated in the Swiss canton of Graubünden as early as the 16th century.[12][13]
After a reduction in the number of referendums in the Mid-twentieth century, the referendum as a political tool has been increasing in popularity since the 1970s. This increase has been attributed to dealignment of the public with political parties, as specific policy issues became more important to the public than party identifiers.[14]
Types of referendums
Classification
The term "referendum" covers a variety of different meanings, and the terminology is different depending on the us that holds them. A referendum can be binding or advisory.[15] In some countries, different names are used for these two types of referendum. Referendums can be further classified by who initiates them.[16]
David Altman proposes four dimensions that referendums can be classified by:[17]
- Mandatory (legally required) vs Optional (ad hoc)
- Binding vs consultative
- Citizen initiated (bottom-up) vs Authorities initiated (top-down)
- Proactive (proposing a change) vs reactive (preventing a change)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
Mandatory referendums
A mandatory referendum is a class of referendum required to be voted on if certain conditions are met or for certain government actions to be taken. They do not require any signatures from the public. In areas that use referendums a mandatory referendum is commonly used as a legally required step for ratification for constitutional changes, ratifying international treaties and joining international organizations, and certain types of public spending.[18]
Typical types of mandatory referendums include:
- Constitutional changes: Some countries or local governments choose to enact any constitutional amendments with a mandatory referendum. These include Australia, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, and 49 of the 50 U.S. states (the only exception is Delaware).
- Financial referendum: Many localities require a referendum in order for the government to issue certain bonds, raise taxes above a specified amount, or take on certain amounts of debt. In California for example, the state government may not borrow more than $300,000 without a public vote in a statewide bond proposition.[19]
- International relations: Switzerland has mandatory referendums on enacting international treaties that have to do with collective security and joining a supranational community. This type of referendum has only occurred once in the country's history: a failed attempt in 1986 for Switzerland to join the United Nations.[20]
- War referendum: A hypothetical type of referendum, first proposed by Immanuel Kant, is a referendum to approve a declaration of war in a war referendum. It has never been enacted by any country, but was debated in the United States in the 1930s as the Ludlow Amendment.
Optional referendum
An optional referendum is a class of referendums that is put to the vote as a result of a demand. This may come from the executive branch, legislative branch, or a request from the people (often after meeting a signature requirement).
Types of optional referendums include:
- Authorities plebiscite: Also known as a legislative referrals, are initiated by the legislature or government. These may be advisory questions to gauge public opinion or binding questions of law.
- Initiative referendum: A citizen-led process to propose and vote on new laws.
- Popular referendum: A citizen-led process to oppose and strike down existing laws.
- Recall referendum: A procedure to remove elected officials before the end of their term of office. Depending on the area and position, a recall may be for a specific individual, such as an individual legislator, or more general such as an entire legislature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
A war referendum is a proposed type of referendum in which citizens would decide whether a nation should go to war. No such referendum has ever taken place. The earliest idea of a war referendum came from the Marquis de Condorcet in 1793 and Immanuel Kant in 1795.[1]
See also
References
- Bolt, Ernest C., Jr. (1977). Ballots Before Bullets: The War Referendum Approach to Peace in America, 1914–1941. Charlottesville, Virginia: University Press of Virginia. pp. xii–xiii. ISBN 978-0-8139-0662-1.
 | This government-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
 | This military-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
- Immanuel Kant
- Referendums by issue
- War and politics
- Chronology of war
- Military reform referendums
- Proposed referendums
- Government stubs
- Military stubs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_referendum
Also, voters might be swayed by propaganda, strong personalities, intimidation, and expensive advertising campaigns. James Madison argued that direct democracy is the "tyranny of the majority".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
The separability problem is a concept from the field of social choice theory that describes the situation where two or more issues up for vote on a ballot either are, or are perceived as, related.
The separability problem commonly manifests itself most intensely in referendums and in voting on multiple charges before juries or panels of judges, where simultaneous voting is employed. Some or all voters view the approval or disapproval of one issue dependent on the approval or disapproval of another. The voters have no information on the outcome of related issues, so they simply cast their first preference votes. The outcomes of these decision-making polls are often displeasing to a majority of voters merely because simultaneous voting denied them the information on outcomes of individual issues or the opportunity to express preferences of outcomes of related issues.
The solution to the separability problem for referendums would be set-wise voting, where the voter can express preferences for outcomes of related issues, as this process needs to be done at a particular time. For matters before juries or judicial panels, either set-wise or sequential voting can be employed to mitigate this problem, as all votes need not be cast in one instance. If sequential voting were employed, the outcome of every vote tally on an issue would be announced before a vote on the next issue would be taken. The drawback to sequential voting in this case would be that there is no means to guarantee that a juror would actually change a successive vote based on a prior verdict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separability_problem
A quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (a body that uses parliamentary procedure, such as a legislature) necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons."[2] In contrast, a plenum is a meeting of the full (or rarely nearly full) body. A body, or a meeting or vote of it, is quorate if a quorum is present (or casts valid votes).
The term quorum is from a Middle English wording of the commission formerly issued to justices of the peace, derived from Latin quorum, "of whom", genitive plural of qui, "who".[3] As a result, quora as plural of quorum is not a valid Latin formation. In modern times a quorum might be defined as the minimum number of voters needed for a valid election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum
| Part of the Politics series |
| Democracy |
|---|
|
|
|
|
 Politics portal |
The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.[1]
The scenarios in which tyranny perception occurs are very specific, involving a sort of distortion of democracy preconditions:
- Centralization excess: when the centralized power of a federation make a decision that should be local, breaking with the commitment to the subsidiarity principle.[2] Typical solutions, in this condition, are concurrent majority and supermajority rules.
- Abandonment of rationality: when, as Tocqueville remembered, a decision "which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence".[3] The use of public consultation, technical consulting bodies, and other similar mechanisms help to improve rationality of decisions before voting on them. Judicial review (e.g. declaration of nullity of the decision) is the typical way after the vote.
In both cases, in a context of a nation, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the problem. A separation of powers (for example a legislative and executive majority actions subject to review by the judiciary) may also be implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in a government.[4]
One of the earliest occurrences of this concept can be found in Plato's dialogue Gorgias, where Callicles argues that "the makers of laws are the majority who are weak; and they make laws and distribute praises and censures with a view to themselves and to their own interests; and they terrify the stronger sort of men, and those who are able to get the better of them, in order that they may not get the better of them" (Gorgias 483).
Term
The origin of the term is commonly attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, who used it in his book Democracy in America. It appears in Part 2 of the book in the title of Chapter 8, "What Moderates the Tyranny of the Majority in the United States' Absence of Administrative Centralization" (French: De ce qui tempère aux États-Unis la tyrannie de la majorité[5]) and in the previous chapter in the names of sections such as "The Tyranny of the Majority" and "Effects of the Tyranny of the Majority on American National Character; the Courtier Spirit in the United States".[6]
A term used in Classical and Hellenistic Greece for oppressive popular rule was ochlocracy ("mob rule"); tyranny meant rule by one man—whether undesirable or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
In this situation the following facts hold:
- There is a subset of voters and some collective action, uniting them, making them a cohesive group.
- There is some centralization (a general assembly) and some central decision (over local decision): there is no choice of "each room decision" or "each regulars' community decision". So it is a central decision.
- The subsidiarity principle can be applied: there is an "embryonic local governance" connecting the cyclists, and the other people (voters) of the condominium recognise the group, transferring some (little) responsibility to them (the keys of the gym room and right to advocate their cycling activities to other residents).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
There is no "enforced minoritarianism"; it seems a legitimate characterization of a relevant (and not dominant) minority. This is a tyranny of the majority situation because:
- there is a little "global gain" in a global decision (where X wins), and a good "local gain" in local decision (local Y preference);
- there is relevant voting for a local decision: 6 voters (46%) are gym room regulars, 5 that voted Y. The majority of them (83%) voted Y.
In this situation, even with no formal federation structure, the minority and a potential local governance emerged: the tyranny perception arrives with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
See also
- Administrative law – Branch of law governing administrative agencies
- An Enemy of the People – 1882 play by Henrik Ibsen
- Argumentum ad populum – Fallacy of claiming the majority is always correct
- Authoritarian personality – Psychological trait/personality type
- Cancel culture – Modern form of ostracism
- Consensus decision-making – Making decisions based on a group's approval
- Conformity – Matching opinions and behaviors to group norms
- Consociationalism – Political power sharing among cultural groups
- Criticism of democracy – Issues and problems associated with democratic political systems
- Dictatorship of the proletariat – Marxist political concept
- Democracy
- Dominant minority – Minority group that holds a disproportionate amount of power
- Elective dictatorship – One-government dominance of a parliament
- Enabling Act of 1933 – Transfer of the Reichstag's power to the government under Hitler
- General will – Term in political philosophy
- Individualist anarchism – Branch of anarchism that emphasizes the individual and their will
- Majoritarianism – Political philosophy
- Minoritarianism – Primacy of a minority in decision-making
- Minority rights – Rights of members of minority groups
- Ochlocracy – Democracy spoiled by demagoguery and the rule of passion over reason
- Populism – Political philosophy
- Social anarchism – Branch of anarchism emphasizing social equality
- Spiral of silence – Political science and mass communication theory
- Totalitarianism – Extreme form of authoritarianism
- Tragedy of the commons – Self-interests causing depletion of a shared resource
- Utilitarianism – Ethical theory based on maximizing well-being
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
A condominium (or condo for short) is an ownership regime in which a building (or group of buildings) is divided into multiple units that are either each separately owned, or owned in common with exclusive rights of occupation by individual owners. These individual units are surrounded by common areas that are jointly owned and managed by the owners of the units. The term can be applied to the building or complex itself, and is sometimes applied to individual units. The term "condominium" is mostly used in the US and Canada, but similar arrangements are used in many other countries under different names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium
Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate or local level that is consistent with their resolution. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as "the principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level".[1] The concept is applicable in the fields of government, political science, neuropsychology, cybernetics, management and in military command (mission command). The OED adds that the term "subsidiarity" in English follows the early German usage of "Subsidiarität".[2] More distantly, it is derived from the Latin verb subsidio (to aid or help), and the related noun subsidium (aid or assistance).
The development of the concept of subsidiarity has roots in the natural law philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and was mediated by the social scientific theories of Luigi Taparelli, SJ, in his 1840–43 natural law treatise on the human person in society.[3] In that work, Taparelli established the criteria of just social order, which he referred to as "hypotactical right" and which came to be termed subsidiarity following German influences.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
A subsidiary, subsidiary company or daughter company[1][2][3] is a company owned or controlled by another company, which is called the parent company or holding company.[4][5] Two or more subsidiaries that either belong to the same parent company or having a same management being substantially controlled by same entity/group are called sister companies. The subsidiary will be required to follow the laws where it is headquartered and incorporated. It will also maintain its own executive leadership.
The subsidiary can be a company (usually with limited liability) and may be a government- or state-owned enterprise. They are a common feature of modern business life, and most multinational corporations organize their operations in this way.[6] Examples of holding companies are Berkshire Hathaway,[7] Jefferies Financial Group, The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros. Discovery, or Citigroup; as well as more focused companies such as IBM, Xerox, and Microsoft. These, and others, organize their businesses into national and functional subsidiaries, often with multiple levels of subsidiaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary
Subsidiaries are separate, distinct legal entities for the purposes of taxation, regulation and liability. For this reason, they differ from divisions, which are businesses fully integrated within the main company, and not legally or otherwise distinct from it.[8] In other words, a subsidiary can sue and be sued separately from its parent and its obligations will not normally be the obligations of its parent. However, creditors of an insolvent subsidiary may be able to obtain a judgment against the parent if they can pierce the corporate veil and prove that the parent and subsidiary are mere alter egos of one another. Thus any copyrights, trademarks, and patents remain with the subsidiary until the parent shuts down the subsidiary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary
The parent and the subsidiary do not necessarily have to operate in the same locations or operate the same businesses. Not only is it possible that they could conceivably be competitors in the marketplace, but such arrangements happen frequently at the end of a hostile takeover or voluntary merger. Also, because a parent company and a subsidiary are separate entities, it is entirely possible for one of them to be involved in legal proceedings, bankruptcy, tax delinquency, indictment or under investigation while the other is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary
The word "control" and its derivatives (subsidiary and parent) may have different meanings in different contexts. These concepts may have different meanings in various areas of law (e.g. corporate law, competition law, capital markets law) or in accounting. For example, if Company A purchases shares in Company B, it is possible that the transaction is not subject to merger control (because Company A had been deemed to already control Company B before the share purchase, under competition law rules), but at the same time Company A may be required to start consolidating Company B into its financial statements under the relevant accounting rules (because it had been treated as a joint venture before the purchase for accounting purposes).
Control can be direct (e.g., an ultimate parent company controls the first-tier subsidiary directly) or indirect (e.g., an ultimate parent company controls second and lower tiers of subsidiaries indirectly, through first-tier subsidiaries).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_interest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_standing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(business)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlling_interest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidation_(business)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conglomerate_(company)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority#Usual_no-tyranny_scenario
The Enabling Act of 1933 (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz), officially titled Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (lit. 'Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich'),[1] was a law that gave the German Cabinet – most importantly, the Chancellor – the powers to make and enforce laws without the involvement of the Reichstag or Weimar President Paul von Hindenburg, leading to the rise of Nazi Germany. Critically, the Enabling Act allowed the Chancellor to bypass the system of checks and balances in the government.
In January 1933, Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party, was appointed as chancellor, the head of the German government.[2] On February 27, the German parliament building — the Reichstag — caught fire.[3] Acting as chancellor, Hitler immediately accused the communists of being the perpetrators of the fire and claimed the arson was part of a larger effort to overthrow the German government. Using this justification, Hitler persuaded Hindenburg to enact the Reichstag Fire Decree.[4] The decree abolished most civil liberties, including the right to speak, assemble, protest, and due process. Using the decree, the Nazis declared a state of emergency and began a violent crackdown against their political enemies.[5] As Hitler cleared the political arena of anyone willing to challenge him, he contended that the decree was insufficient and required sweeping policies that would safeguard his emerging dictatorship.[6] Hitler submitted a proposal to the Reichstag that if passed would immediately grant all legislative powers to the cabinet and by extension Hitler. This would in effect allow Hitler's government to act without concern to the constitution.
Despite outlawing the communists and repressing other opponents, the passage of the Enabling Act was not a guarantee. Hitler allied with other nationalist and conservative factions[7] and they steamrolled over the Social Democrats in the 5 March 1933 German federal election. Germans voted in an atmosphere of extreme voter intimidation perpetrated by the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA) militia. Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not win an outright majority in the Reichstag as the majority of Germans did not vote for the Nazi Party.[8] The election was a setback for the Nazis; however, it was insufficient in stopping the ratification of the Enabling Act. In order to guarantee its passage, the Nazis implemented a strategy of coercion, bribery, and manipulation. Hitler removed any remaining political obstacles so his coalition of conservatives, nationalists, and Nazis could begin building the Nazi dictatorship.[9][10] By mid-March, the government began sending communists, labor union leaders, and other political dissidents to Dachau, the first Nazi concentration camp.[11]
Once the Enabling Act was introduced, it was hastily passed by the Reichstag and Reichsrat on 23 March 1933.[12][13][14] Later that day, the Enabling Act was signed into law by President Paul von Hindenburg.[15] Unless extended by the Reichstag, the act would expire after four years. With the Enabling Act now in force, the cabinet (in practice, the chancellor) could pass and enforce laws without any objection. The combined effect of the Enabling Act and the Reichstag Fire Decree transformed Hitler's government into a legal dictatorship and laid the groundwork for his totalitarian regime. By July, the Nazis were the only legally permitted party in Germany. The Reichstag from 1933 onward effectively became the rubber stamp parliament that Hitler always wanted.[16] The Enabling Act would be renewed twice and would be rendered null when Nazi Germany surrendered to the Allies in 1945.
The passing of the Enabling Act is significant in German and world history as it marked the formal transition from the democratic Weimar Republic to the totalitarian Nazi dictatorship. From 1933 onwards Hitler continued to consolidate and centralize power via purges, and propaganda. In 1934, Hitler and Heinrich Himmler began removing non-Nazi officials together with Hitler's rivals within the Nazi Party, culminating in the Night of the Long Knives. Once the purges of the Nazi Party and German government concluded, Hitler had total control over Germany. Armed with the Enabling Act, Hitler could begin German rearmament and achieve his aggressive foreign policy aims which ultimately resulted in the Second World War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
An Enemy of the People (original Norwegian title: En folkefiende), an 1882 play by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, followed his previous play, Ghosts, which criticized the hypocrisy of his society's moral code. That response included accusations of both Ghosts and its author being "scandalous," "degenerate," and "immoral."[1] In An Enemy of the People, a man dares to expose an unpalatable truth publicly and is punished for it.
However, Ibsen took a somewhat skeptical view of his protagonist, suggesting that he may have gone too far in his zeal to tell the truth. Ibsen wrote to his publisher: "I am still uncertain as to whether I should call [An Enemy of the People] a comedy or a straight drama. It may [have] many traits of comedy, but it also is based on a serious idea."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People
No comments:
Post a Comment