1930 Liechtenstein referendums

Three referendums were held in Liechtenstein during 1930.[1] The first was held on 2 March 1930 on introducing a proportional representation system for Landtag elections, and was rejected by 60.6% of voters.[1] The second was held on 26 October on a new media law passed by the Landtag, and rejected by just three votes.[1] The third on 14 December concerned the building of an inland channel, and was approved by 70.5% of voters.[1]

1930 Liechtenstein proportional representation referendum
Referendum on introducing a proportional representation system for Landtag elections
LocationLiechtenstein
Date2 March 1930
Results
Votes %
Yes 805 39.36%
No 1,240 60.64%
Valid votes 2,045 97.85%
Invalid or blank votes 45 2.15%
Total votes 2,090 100.00%
Registered voters/turnout 2,309 90.52%
1930 Liechtenstein media law referendum
Referendum on a new media law passed by the Landtag
LocationLiechtenstein
Date26 October 1930
Results
Votes %
Yes 1,005 49.93%
No 1,008 50.07%
Valid votes 2,013 96.27%
Invalid or blank votes 78 3.73%
Total votes 2,091 100.00%
Registered voters/turnout 2,348 89.05%
1930 Liechtenstein inland channel referendum
Referendum on the building of an inland channel
LocationLiechtenstein
Date14 December 1930
Results
Votes %
Yes 1,469 70.46%
No 616 29.54%
Valid votes 2,085 96.93%
Invalid or blank votes 66 3.07%
Total votes 2,151 100.00%
Registered voters/turnout 2,356 91.3%
Principality of Liechtenstein
This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
Liechtenstein

Results

Introduction of proportional representation
Choice Votes %
For80539.4
Against1,24060.6
Invalid/blank votes45–
Total2,090100
Registered voters/turnout2,30990.5
Source: Nohlen & Stöver

New media law
Choice Votes %
For1,00549.9
Against1,00850.1
Invalid/blank votes78–
Total2,091100
Registered voters/turnout2,34889.1
Source: Nohlen & Stöver

Construction of an inland channel
Choice Votes %
For1,46970.5
Against61629.5
Invalid/blank votes66–
Total2,151100
Registered voters/turnout2,35691.3
Source: Nohlen & Stöver
gollark: That article describes, among other things, somewhat poor filesystem interaction handling, and a really stupid way monotonic time was handled.
gollark: https://fasterthanli.me/articles/i-want-off-mr-golangs-wild-ride
gollark: Also, it handles OS interaction poorly and tries to hide complexity sometimes in ways which do not work.
gollark: Go is kind of the opposite, in that it has complicated inconsistent rules to try and look simple.
gollark: The rules are simple. You can do horrible stuff with it, but it's a simple *language*.

References
  1. Dieter Nohlen & Philip Stöver (2010) Elections in Europe: A data handbook, p1171 ISBN 978-3-8329-5609-7
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.