My questions will be for Professor Lijphart.
Professor, in your presentation you observed that the breakdown of 10 first past the post versus 22 proportional representation systems exaggerates the use of first past the post, because, as you say, six of the first past the post countries are very small ones like the Bahamas, Barbados, and Botswana.
I would respectfully submit to you that, given that two of the countries are the United States and India, we have the second and third most populous states in the world using first past the post. While I am no particular defender of first past the post, I think your breakdown of the types of systems makes first past the post seem a more marginal system than in fact is the case when the largest and second largest democracies in the world both use it.
I want, however, to turn to the question of referenda. You were quite dismissive of referendums. You pointed out that you live in California and you don't like the way referenda are conducted in California. Of course, in Canada we are not proposing the idea of having referenda on multiple questions in parallel with every election, but rather on having, potentially, our fourth referendum in a little over a century on the issue of changing our system, so it's a bit different. I must say, however, I lived in Washington State for a period of time and I found that voters approached referenda quite intelligently, much more so than they did the parallel elections that were occurring at the same time.
Let me ask you this question regarding the referendum that was conducted in Switzerland in 1919, in which that country adopted proportional representation. Would it have been a more legitimate exercise if the parliament had enacted that change without consulting the people in a referendum?