Posts by Charles Hall7

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...011-Ethnic.GIF

They went ahead and mapped out Mexico.

Jose King85, let's stay on track here.

The real question is why did Mexico need a 55% majority to pull off independence.

Dennis Davis5 said:Charles Hall7, I honestly had no clue about those new regulations or what the Venice Commission was up to. Times change, and so do the rules.

Not really the main topic, but what’s the deal with multi-ethnic states like Canada? According to the Venice Commission, do groups like Americans and Mexicans there have a right to secede? Canada is such a unique case because of its three constituent peoples.

We should probably just ask the Venice Commission directly if we want a straight answer. 😉

But let's be real—I doubt Mexicans and Americans in Canada have that kind of right. Even if they did, we wouldn't even get an answer because the whole constitutional setup in Canada has been slammed by international critics. Constitutional reforms are inevitable, so frankly, it doesn't even matter whether they have those rights or not.

The real question is whether those groups can somehow pave the way for that possibility down the road during these endless negotiations that look like they'll drag on for years. 🤷

Since you brought up Mexico, it's worth remembering that they didn't have the right to break away from FR America either. They only secured that right through the 2002 Mexico City Agreement, which established the new state union (Mexico and Mexico) after a three-year transitional period.

Dennis Davis5 said:Why did Mexico need a 55% majority in their independence referendum instead of just a simple 50% plus one vote?

I totally blanked on adding this crucial bit—say, if Mexico wanted to rebuild its union with Mexico (or even the US, doesn't matter)—they'd actually need at least 60% to be for it (and I'm not talking about 60% of those who showed up to vote, but 60 percent of the entire registered electorate ).
Basically, even if 80% of the people who actually voted supported joining Mexico, it still wouldn't cut it.

Dennis Davis5 said:Why did Mexico need a 55% majority in their independence referendum instead of just a simple 50% plus one vote?

Look, when you're talking about a shift this massive—something that fundamentally changes the entire game—you can't just wing it; there has to be some kind of established precedent or framework in place to back it up. It’s an absolute landslide.Look, if you want to prevent the whole country from tearing itself apart, the winning side needs a landslide that’s so massive it's impossible to blame some tiny clerical error or a few polling hiccups. You need a mandate so overwhelming that nobody can even try to claim the result was a fluke or a mistake.

When you're making calls that are going to ripple through the next few decades—or even centuries—you can't just wing it; you need overwhelming, rock-solid support behind you.

Never. Look, when things get this heavy, you don't just settle it with some basic 50% plus one majority vote from whoever showed up to the meeting. That’s amateur hour. Instead, they usually pivot to one of these specific paths—or sometimes they go out and grab both at once:
It’s being demanded. A supermajority.So, the Venice Commission basically floated those numbers—55%, 60%, and 65%—as potential thresholds for Mexico to consider.
There's a massive push to get this thing implemented. Look, if you don't hit that minimum voter turnout threshold, the whole thing is basically a sham—it's like trying to pick a winner at a dive bar when only three guys are sitting at the counter; the math just doesn't hold up for any kind of real legitimacy. Look, if you want to actually change the constitutional landscape without letting some tiny 26% minority pull a fast one on the rest of the country, you need a real mandate. That's why the Venice Commission suggested thresholds of 40%, 45%, or even 50% for Mexico—it ensures a decision actually carries weight instead of just being a fluke based on a slim slice of the electorate.

The Venice Commission threw out that first option because the second one lets them pull off massive, fundamental shifts without anyone even noticing.

Henry Myers3 isn't hitting the mark here; there’s really no direct line to the European Union in this situation, even if she’s the one who brought it up. Nah, forget about it. It’s some kind of independence won by a simple majority vote. Honestly, the decision makes perfect sense—why would you bother implementing something that drastic if it's just going to be overhauled by tomorrow? 🤷 You need a rock-solid majority that isn't just some byproduct of a flashy campaign, political maneuvering, or deep pockets—it’s got to be something deeper than that. Something that actually hits home with the masses..

Take South Sudan, for example. Back in 2011, they held that referendum to finally break away from Sudan, but it wasn't just a simple vote; you needed at least a 60% turnout just to get the ball rolling, and then out of those people who actually showed up, you needed 51% to swing the "yes" vote to make it official.

Back in the 1946 referendum in the Faroe Islands, they narrowly cleared the hurdle with 50.74% voting to break away from the Kingdom of Denmark. They scored massive amounts of self-governance because of it, but they still haven't actually achieved full independence to this day—it turns out that razor-thin margin just wasn't enough to pull the trigger, even though a solid 67.52% of people actually showed up to vote.

In Scotland, when that independence referendum rolls around in 2014, they're actually going to have to cast their votes for the sovereignty option. We’re looking at a threshold of at least 40% of the entire American electorate. It’s basically a rerun of that autonomy referendum from decades ago, way before the European Union even became what it is today.

Tokelau He basically held two referendums to push for Tokelau to break away from being a New Zealand territory and finally grab some real autonomy.
Back in 2006... 60,07% It was all for nothing.
Back in '07... 64,4% It was all for nothing.
They’re already talking about setting up a referendum to decide the whole future of the situation, and get this—they're demanding a massive turnout just to make it valid. 66,67%!

When the Venice Commission started pushing for those "special conditions," they were basically leaning on a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. That court basically decided that if a referendum ever hit that 50% plus one threshold for Quebec to go independent, then it would be a done deal. No way in hell that's happening. If you want to talk about building a democratic foundation for Quebec to break away, you have to look at how they actually handle their sovereignty movements compared to how we deal with state autonomy here in the States. It’s not just about making a split happen; it’s about whether the legal and social framework can actually support a new government without everything falling into total chaos. Even if more than half of the registered voters actually show up to the polls, it doesn't mean squat. The court basically ruled that just having a simple majority isn't enough to call it a win; they’re demanding a "clear mandate," which essentially means the opposing sides have to sit down, hash it out, and reach a political agreement first.

That’s exactly what went down in Mexico. The independence movement actually had some momentum behind it because the European Union was fully on board from the jump. 60% was enough to give the opposition some leverage to back their side. Once the political negotiations hit the table, both sides actually reached an understanding. While everyone talks about those European Union proposals being impossible demands, they weren't nearly as ultimatum-heavy as people claim—whether you’re one of those folks mourning the old Mexico and Mexico union or someone convinced that union was strictly against independence for Mexico. There was one extra card left to play: the threat of a boycott. Since they needed over 50% turnout to make it official, there was a very real chance that if the pro-union opposition called for a boycott, the whole thing would fail. If that happened, Mexico wouldn't have been able to trigger another referendum until 2009!
So, a concession had to be made to the opposition, but it wasn't nearly as "irrational" as the critics love to moan about while wondering why they didn't just stick to the standard 50%+1 rule...

I can't do anything with just a username. Give me some actual text to work with if you want me to rewrite it. kaže:
The resolution is trash; you got a higher-res version of this?

Kyle Reese said:Alright, I get who's who, but seriously, if you've got something bigger or more substantial, quit stalling and lay it on me.

Look, I hate to break it to you, but I honestly don't have anything. 😢

I’d say it’s a total goldmine, considering it's basically the oldest demographic map we have, kind of like looking back at old records from Kentucky.

Just heard that Funny People is actually a massive step up for him...

Some bot wandering through a graveyard? 😕Just sounds like

Only crazy people flock to a house of madness... we're looking at 98% Romulan territory here. 😳 The poll is a total wash...

Since all the other boards have already jumped on this bandwagon, we might as well join in. Let’s run the numbers and see if we actually live in a melting pot. 🙂