1966 Uruguayan constitutional referendum

A constitutional referendum was held in Uruguay on 27 November 1966 alongside general elections.[1] Four proposals for amending the constitution were put to voters, with one option receiving 65% of the vote. As a result, the colegiado system was abolished in favour of returning to the presidential system.

Uruguay
This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
Uruguay
 Uruguay portal

Proposals

Four proposals were put to voters, with each named after a colour.

Grey reforms

The grey reforms were put forward as a popular initiative on 28 April by the National Party alliance. They provided for a presidential system in which the President could be re-elected. The President could also dissolve the General Assembly and restrict personal freedoms. The proposals also called for the separation of election dates.[1]

Pink reforms

The pink reforms were put forward as a popular initiative by the Colorado Party on 24 May with 500,000 signatures. It proposed reintroducing a presidential system, limiting presidents to a single term but allowing them to dissolve the General Assembly and preventing their impeachment. Although the party later switched its support to the yellow reforms, it could not withdraw the pink reform proposal from the referendum.[1]

Yellow reforms

The yellow reforms were put forward as a popular initiative by the Left Liberation Front on 24 May. They proposed reintroducing a presidential system, banning the President from seeking immediate re-election, scrapping the lema system, nationalising large estates and setting pensions at a level equal to at least 85% of employees' final salary.[1]

Orange reforms

The orange reforms were put forward by the General Assembly on 24 August as a counter-proposal to the popular initiatives. They proposed re-introducing a presidential system, banning the President or Vice-President from seeking immediate re-election, allowing the President to dissolve the General Assembly and extending the parliamentary term from four to five years.[1]

Results
Choice Votes %
Orange reforms786,98764.89
Grey reforms175,09514.21
Yellow reforms86,3157.00
Pink reforms1,0200.08
Against all182,34514.80
Total1,231,762100
Registered voters/turnout1,656,32274.28
Source: Direct Democracy
gollark: Slower, even.
gollark: Oops, it turns out I'm accidentally sorting by it instead of the rank, but it's equally slow after fixing that.
gollark: ```nonlocality=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT url, ts_rank(fts, query), ts_headline(fts::text, query, 'MaxWords=60') AS rank FROM pages, websearch_to_tsquery('bee') query WHERE fts @@ query ORDER BY rank LIMIT 1; QUERY PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Limit (cost=860.92..860.92 rows=1 width=96) (actual time=8506.425..8506.427 rows=1 loops=1) -> Sort (cost=860.92..861.05 rows=52 width=96) (actual time=8506.423..8506.425 rows=1 loops=1) Sort Key: (ts_headline((pages.fts)::text, query.query, 'MaxWords=60'::text)) Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: 25kB -> Nested Loop (cost=688.65..860.66 rows=52 width=96) (actual time=1.362..8505.403 rows=348 loops=1) -> Function Scan on websearch_to_tsquery query (cost=0.25..0.26 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=0.023..0.025 rows=1 loops=1) -> Bitmap Heap Scan on pages (cost=688.40..846.49 rows=52 width=142) (actual time=0.353..1.502 rows=348 loops=1) Recheck Cond: (fts @@ query.query) Heap Blocks: exact=231 -> Bitmap Index Scan on page_search_index (cost=0.00..688.39 rows=52 width=0) (actual time=0.320..0.320 rows=387 loops=1) Index Cond: (fts @@ query.query) Planning Time: 0.190 ms Execution Time: 8506.463 ms(13 rows)```
gollark: It's not a condition, it's an extra row on the output, and I can see exactly what it does via `EXPLAIN ANALYZE`.
gollark: Maybe I need a better full text search backend?!

References
  1. Uruguay, 27 November 1966: Constitution Direct Democracy (in German)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.