Talk:2009 Romanian parliamentary reform referendum

"Constitutional"?

This is not a Constitutional referendum, as the Constitution is not to be modified if the voters say Yes"". I propose a move to "Romanian referendum on unicamealism, 2009"

ES Vic (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Although I think the name should be simply "Romanian referendum, 2009", the way they do for Swiss referendums.Anonimu (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a POV among jurists that a second Constitutional referendum would not be needed if this one passes. I don't want to debate it, because I don't know much about the issue. Also, the referendum is not only about unicameralism vs bicameralism, but also about the reduction of the size of the Parliament. A partial name wouldn't be correct. I have a counterproposal: "Romanian referendum on the reduction of the size of the Parliament, 2009". This covers both issues: reducing the number of MPs, and reduction of one chamber. It is quite possible that one issue be approved and another - not. Two articles doesn't make sense because there is only one referendum. In California they have 10 questions in a referendum. We do not have separate articles for each question. Also it would be nice to have a history section that would provide a short history of the idea and list similar legislative proposals. Dc76\^talk 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the title "Romanian parliamentary reform referendum, 2009" (the one it just became). Dc76\^talk 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I also propose a split into: "Romanian referendum on unicameral Parliament, 2009" and "Romanian referendum on representatives limitation, 2009".

--ES Vic (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea: how much forking can we have? I support Swiss model. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]