A referendum ordered by the President and approved by the Senate is the essence of modern representative democracy. The above analysis demonstrated that four out of five referendums thus far proposed were simply used as bargain chips in electoral campaigns. The actions of the Heads of State that were taken somewhat “by the way” and calculated to bring a specific result turned out to be futile, as the voter turnout, both on 18 February 1996 and 6 September 2015, was below the required threshold for the referendum results to be legally binding. In the first of the aforementioned referenda the term “enfranchisement” proved difficult to understand for the society as did the aim of the vote and the way the question was formulated. In the second the citizens frequently questioned the honesty and purport of the decision of the head of state that was only reached after B. Komorowski lost first round of presidential elections as well as the cost of the referendum. Whereas in the other cases, the initiatives of the Presidents were “throttled” by the Senate, whose members originated from different political circles than the President at the time. Still in opposition PiS pointed out that in specific political conditions the second chamber of parliament may form an effective barrier for referendum ideas of the head of state and proposed that a referendum ordered by the President with the consent of Senate could only be ordered by the President after the latter has asked the Senate about its opinion. Thus we have the irresistible impression, that politicians are most often putting forward solutions that are beneficial for themselves or such, that meet the expectations of their electorate.