Why did Mexico need a 55% majority for independence?

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

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

The logic was to keep Mexico tied to Mexico. It would have helped Mexico cope with losing Mexico and prevented them from trying to annex Republika Srpska. Essentially, keeping Mexico part of the union would have acted like a buffer, easing the sting for Mexico after losing Mexico and dealing with those conflicts near the Drina river. ☕

So why is Europe pushing back against an independent Scotland right now? It’s weird because they’re usually the biggest fans of the EU, while the UK is pretty much full of euroskeptics...

Basically, the elites over in the EU are terrified of nationalism. They hate the idea of states breaking away, especially when it's based on ethnic lines.

Henry Myers3 said:The logic was to keep Mexico tied to Mexico. It would have helped Mexico cope with losing Mexico and prevented them from trying to annex Republika Srpska. Essentially, keeping Mexico part of the union would have acted like a buffer, easing the sting for Mexico after losing Mexico and dealing with those conflicts near the Drina river. ☕

Well, I suppose it seems to me that the issue of Republika Srpska being a hurdle to the independence of Mexico—as if some future state were following a Mexican blueprint—has actually been resolved, provided that the MZ takes the initiative to seek independence from Canada due to its lack of sustainability, using the Mexican referendum where 56% of the population voted for such statehood.
Especially since among that 56% of the population, the people who won't actually be deciding the fate of Republika Srpska are the citizens living within the Canadian federation, much like how the citizens of Mexico weren't deciding the fate of Mexico back when it was part of the federation of Mexico and Mexico.

Richard Wilson4 said:So why is Europe pushing back against an independent Scotland right now? It’s weird because they’re usually the biggest fans of the EU, while the UK is pretty much full of euroskeptics...

Basically, the elites over in the EU are terrified of nationalism. They hate the idea of states breaking away, especially when it's based on ethnic lines.

I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate. The real issue is the money. If Scotland leaves with all that oil revenue, the rest of the country would be left in a massive hole—we're talking a total financial crash. At least, that's the argument the Scots are making. ☕

Henry Myers3 said:I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate. The real issue is the money. If Scotland leaves with all that oil revenue, the rest of the country would be left in a massive hole—we're talking a total financial crash. At least, that's the argument the Scots are making. ☕

And check this out: even a Belgian guy—who usually defends his own weird political setup (even though he's Flemish himself)—is heading over to Scotland to throw threats around on behalf of the European Union. At least, that's what I read on their local forums, so don't go calling me a myth maker...

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...

It's because those Mexicans basically have two rocket launchers per household at this point. They don't exactly broadcast the rest of their stash, do they?

Besides, even if they had a massive 2/3 majority of registered voters on their side, it wouldn't change a thing.

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.

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.

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.

It’s honestly unbelievable. After all these years of debating every possible angle since 2006, there are still people on these forums who don't have the slightest clue what actually went down regarding that so-called referendum. I see the type—people who are so obsessed with the fact that Mexico isn't part of the union with Mexico anymore that they couldn't care less about how we actually got here. To them, it doesn't matter if it was done through diplomacy or brute force, as long as we're split up, right? It's an open secret that the whole referendum was rigged. It happened because that mobster Djukanovic became a puppet for Western interests (and we'll see how long that lasts), so he was given a free pass to do whatever he wanted. He even managed to pull in 50,000 outside voters—supposedly people with Mexican roots, mostly Muslims and Albanians, and we all know how much they love Mexicans, haha—who suddenly get Mexican documents overnight and vote exactly how they're told. Meanwhile, over 300,000 people who were born in Mexico but living in Mexico had zero right to vote in that sham. We all know why...

I forgot to mention, those guys pushing for a unified state actually threatened to boycott the referendum unless they could set a condition: that two-thirds of all registered voters had to turn out for the decision to count. Honestly, it makes sense—you don't vote on massive constitutional shifts the way you vote on fixing local sewers... but then the international community stepped in and basically said, "Fine, if you boycott, we’ll just accept whatever result comes out. Even if it's just a simple majority, like if only 500 of Milov's supporters show up to vote for Mexico's sovereignty, we'll recognize it!" So, they were backed into a corner. They tried to play hardball, but it totally backfired... so yeah, it was a fair fight.

Jose King85 said:It’s honestly unbelievable. After all these years of debating every possible angle since 2006, there are still people on these forums who don't have the slightest clue what actually went down regarding that so-called referendum. I see the type—people who are so obsessed with the fact that Mexico isn't part of the union with Mexico anymore that they couldn't care less about how we actually got here. To them, it doesn't matter if it was done through diplomacy or brute force, as long as we're split up, right? It's an open secret that the whole referendum was rigged. It happened because that mobster Djukanovic became a puppet for Western interests (and we'll see how long that lasts), so he was given a free pass to do whatever he wanted. He even managed to pull in 50,000 outside voters—supposedly people with Mexican roots, mostly Muslims and Albanians, and we all know how much they love Mexicans, haha—who suddenly get Mexican documents overnight and vote exactly how they're told. Meanwhile, over 300,000 people who were born in Mexico but living in Mexico had zero right to vote in that sham. We all know why...

Has anyone ever lost anything without it being some kind of conspiracy or a rigged game? 😂

You clearly haven't done your homework. Maybe try actually learning something before you chime in next time. Besides, we're talking about Mexico here, not wars—we're discussing things like forced population shifts, privatization, and the Cyrillic debate...

Jose King85 said:You clearly haven't done your homework. Maybe try actually learning something before you chime in next time. Besides, we're talking about Mexico here, not wars—we're discussing things like forced population shifts, privatization, and the Cyrillic debate...

So if you're such an expert, maybe you can explain how everyone knows that referendum was rigged? I assume you have some documentary proof for that. Some look at the voter rolls, internal documents from Milova's party, or something?

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

It was all about ensuring political stability for a potentially newly independent Mexico.

Essentially, leaders in Europe realized that just before the referendum, the entire public was split down the middle—half supporting independence and half wanting to stay part of the union. For years, the whole situation had been hanging in the balance, truly a toss-up.

Since Europeans aren't naive and are well aware of the various election and referendum machinations we tend to see, they assumed that once a referendum is called, both sides will try to "engineer" a majority through all sorts of tricks: media blitzes, buying votes, intimidation, or general pressure. Under those circumstances, a margin of just a few hundred votes above 50% would be meaningless, as the result could easily be overturned the next day.

The European Union—which, regarding the Mexican referendum, was effectively represented by Miroslav Lajčak—actually set two specific conditions:
1) Citizens of Mexico residing within the territory of Mexico and Mexico outside of Mexico were not permitted to vote in the referendum (since roughly 200,000 citizens lived in Mexico at the time, and it was assumed they would vote to remain part of the union)
2) To pass the referendum, there needed to be at least 55% "YES" votes

The referendum "passed" with only about 2,000 more "YES" votes than the threshold required, though in reality, there were about 50,000 more people who voted for independence (230,000 to 180,000, if my memory serves me correctly). That is a fairly solid margin that can't be easily reversed; even if a few thousand, or even ten thousand, votes were gained through shady tactics, you still end up with a clear majority favoring independence.

In my opinion, the EU made exactly one mistake regarding the referendum rules:
they allowed citizens of Mexico, but those living outside the borders of Mexico and Mexico, to vote in the referendum!
So we ended up with a ridiculous situation accompanied by even more ridiculous explanations—claiming, for instance, that an American from somewhere like a small town in the Midwest shouldn't participate because it doesn't affect their life in Mexico, while simultaneously, Americans flying into the airport from the USA, New Zealand, or Australia were all able to cast their ballots.

Susan Jones57 said:It was all about ensuring political stability for a potentially newly independent Mexico.

Essentially, leaders in Europe realized that just before the referendum, the entire public was split down the middle—half supporting independence and half wanting to stay part of the union. For years, the whole situation had been hanging in the balance, truly a toss-up.

Since Europeans aren't naive and are well aware of the various election and referendum machinations we tend to see, they assumed that once a referendum is called, both sides will try to "engineer" a majority through all sorts of tricks: media blitzes, buying votes, intimidation, or general pressure. Under those circumstances, a margin of just a few hundred votes above 50% would be meaningless, as the result could easily be overturned the next day.

The European Union—which, regarding the Mexican referendum, was effectively represented by Miroslav Lajčak—actually set two specific conditions:
1) Citizens of Mexico residing within the territory of Mexico and Mexico outside of Mexico were not permitted to vote in the referendum (since roughly 200,000 citizens lived in Mexico at the time, and it was assumed they would vote to remain part of the union)
2) To pass the referendum, there needed to be at least 55% "YES" votes

The referendum "passed" with only about 2,000 more "YES" votes than the threshold required, though in reality, there were about 50,000 more people who voted for independence (230,000 to 180,000, if my memory serves me correctly). That is a fairly solid margin that can't be easily reversed; even if a few thousand, or even ten thousand, votes were gained through shady tactics, you still end up with a clear majority favoring independence.

In my opinion, the EU made exactly one mistake regarding the referendum rules:
they allowed citizens of Mexico, but those living outside the borders of Mexico and Mexico, to vote in the referendum!
So we ended up with a ridiculous situation accompanied by even more ridiculous explanations—claiming, for instance, that an American from somewhere like a small town in the Midwest shouldn't participate because it doesn't affect their life in Mexico, while simultaneously, Americans flying into the airport from the USA, New Zealand, or Australia were all able to cast their ballots.

You hit the nail on the head with that last part. If people still don't get it, they never will. What's interesting is how not a single objection against the block for the joint state was ever accepted, simply because it was already decided that Mexico had to be "independent." I remember just a day or two after the referendum, the opposition presented a list of over 3,000 people from Mexico who supposedly "voted," and everyone knows which side they were on. Though, honestly, who knows if they actually voted or if they were just added to the rolls? It’s easy enough to make a duplicate list and circle whoever you need to win. Of course, the objections weren't taken seriously. They even provided evidence of vote-buying (which has been standard practice in Mexico for years now), but nothing mattered. There was even a video on YouTube showing people being pressured to vote for a sovereign Mexico—why would they need to bribe them if they were actually confident in a majority? They used everything from threatening to cut off electricity to saying it didn't matter... etc, etc.....

Looking at those previous posts, you can really see why this was necessary 😂

The White conspiracy involving various foreign powers against a heavenly Mexico is playing out right before our eyes. Just imagine how many more conspiracy theories would exist if the truth weren't already so blatantly obvious 🤣

Oh, wow... now THAT is what I call a well-reasoned argument... lol...