LETTER: Native-only vote cannot be called a plebiscite

Key Takeaways:

• The Latin root of “plebiscite” emphasizes its inclusive nature
• By definition, a plebiscite is “the direct vote of all members of an electorate”
• A native-only vote excludes non-natives and thus challenges the term “plebiscite”
• The article’s author, Paul Zerzan, presented his argument in an opinion letter
• Published by Guam Daily News in its letters section, the piece highlights a local controversy

Definition of Plebiscite

The term “plebiscite” is directly linked to its Latin root, which means “public.” According to the letter in Guam Daily News, a plebiscite is commonly defined as “the direct vote of all members of an electorate on an important public question.” By its very wording, the concept demands broad-based participation rather than an exclusive or limited voter pool.

The Argument Against “Native-Only” Voting

Here, writer Paul Zerzan challenges the legitimacy of a “native-only” vote, arguing it does not align with the transparent and all-encompassing nature implicit in the word “plebiscite.” In his view, restricting the vote to a specific demographic not only narrows the electorate, but also undermines the fundamental essence of a plebiscite as a public-driven decision.

Context and Author’s Perspective

This position comes from an opinion letter featured in Guam Daily News, part of its letters section. While it reflects an individual viewpoint, it underscores a broader discussion on voting rights and democratic principles within the community.

Implications for Public Voting

If the primary function of a plebiscite is to capture the collective will of all eligible citizens, then limiting participation calls into question the fairness and legitimacy of the results. The letter suggests that an exclusive vote—one that omits certain segments of the population—cannot accurately measure the full spectrum of public opinion.

Ongoing Discussion

This debate about the term “plebiscite” highlights the importance of language when it comes to political and social processes. Questions remain about how communities should define membership, who gets to participate in pivotal decisions, and where lines should be drawn. As the conversation continues, Zerzan’s letter serves as a reminder to consider both the linguistic and democratic foundations underpinning the concept of a truly public vote.