[ama729]

  > European Constitution (2005) France - 54.9% against (29 May 2005)
  > Netherlands - 61.5% against (1 June 2005). No one else in Europe was
  > offered a choice.

That's because not all countries have a referendum culture/law, for example, you can't have a referendum in Belgium, there is simply no legal mean to do it.

And arguably, you can say democracy is working, since the European Constitution was not enacted.

  > Lisbon Treaty (2008): Only Ireland asked people to ratify it. No one
  > else was offered a choice. Initially Ireland voted - 53.2% against but
  > then when told to vote again and get it right - 60.3% in favour.

Unless the vote was rigged, then what's the problem?

[onli]

> Unless the vote was rigged, then what's the problem?

To let people vote so long till they vote what you want to be the result is a classical method from the toolkits of authoritarian regimes. It is the embodiment of democracy as a façade. It is the same as rigging the vote.

[ama729]

Except an argument can be made that this referendum mean nothing, the turnout was 53%, only 53% voted against it and 40% of those 53% didn't even know what they were voting on[1].

And things even changed between referendum[2], so yeah, a second vote was warranted IMO.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the...

[pavlov]

Doesn't this depend entirely on what the regime does between the elections?

Having regular elections on important issues is not a sign of totalitarianism in itself. Some political offices only have a two-year term, and that's not because the government wants people to keep voting until the right person gets elected...

AFAIK, the Irish government didn't jail, beat up, bribe or otherwise coerce anyone to vote for the Lisbon treaty.