You think you've got problems America...

[Ten oz]

31 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It is quite common to require a supermajority for referendums on questions of constitutional amendments and sometimes other laws. 

Even one with a threshold as low as 55% would have changed the results of this one had it been in place. It adds a stabilizing effect. If this one had say reached 55% and you needed 55% the other way you would at least need significant changes in the voters positions to suggest holding another referendum.

Are you saying you feel the referendum should require a supermajority ?

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Are you saying you feel the referendum should require a supermajority ?

I didn't...but I will. I think 55% would be reasonable for something like this.

Also thank you for not assuming.

Edited January 22, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I didn't...but I will. I think 55% would be reasonable for something like this.

Yes, there should have been a minimum difference; 55% would have been reasonable. It would have removed doubts of dishonestly-intended effects.

Edited January 22, 2019 by StringJunky

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's a shame that wasn't specified, and also, very short-sighted to think it wasn't going to be binding, given the depth of feeling on both sides.

And the fact that Cameron promised it would be. 

[Ten oz]

44 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I didn't...but I will. I think 55% would be reasonable for something like this.

Also thank you for not assuming.

I don't think that would be any better. Even is a referendum were to pass with 60% support that doesn't speak to how people might feel years later. Here in the U.S. (not the perfect model) every 2yrs we have Congressional elections. There is some ability to throttle those previously elected if things aren't going as hoped. Obama was very popular in 2008 but concerns over Healthcare and Immigration enabled opposition to win seats 2yrs later in 2010 and subvert some of his agenda. Likewise Trump won in 2016 but 2yrs on his opposition now has the ability to limit his influence. 

I don't think politics should be a winner takes all sort of thing. In sports for example teams are only the champions for a season and then they must begin again. Each new season provides all teams a chance. If a team remains strong they might win the championship a few seasons in a row but it is never a sure thing. Likewise in politics one leader, one party, or one referendum shouldn't be absolute. Democracies are meant to be responsive to their people. Otherwise what is the point of letting people vote at all. Telling people they must stick with something they no long want because 2yrs ago enough of a majority did doesn't seem very responsive. 

The only way to check the pulse of the people is to have another. I don't understand what is at risk by having another. Nothing is forever. Win or lose in the future politicians can and will continue to fight this issue. Holding a vote today simply ensure that for today Politicians are getting it right. If need be another vote can be held years done the road again. I doubt anyone on this forum will ever out live elections in their country. 

 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think that would be any better. Even is a referendum were to pass with 60% support that doesn't speak to how people might feel years later.

Most countries have a well-defined mechanism for changes to the constitution (*). This typically requires either a popular or parliamentary vote with a significant majority (like 67% or 75%). I'm sure one could argue for ever about exactly what the majority should be, but I think the purpose is to ensure that it is convincing and, presumably, wouldn't be changed by a relatively minor change in demographics. And maybe even that it represents a majority of the population, and not just those who voted. People might feel differently in a few generations, but things can be adjusted again then. 

With a near 50:50 split (of less than 100% turnout) it only takes a small change in the number able to vote, or the employment rate, or the proprietor of a newspaper/TV channel to swing things one way or the other.

(*) Note that the UK has no such mechanism as it doesn't have a constitution. That is another reason this is such a shitshow.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think that would be any better. Even is a referendum were to pass with 60% support that doesn't speak to how people might feel years later. Here in the U.S. (not the perfect model) every 2yrs we have Congressional elections. There is some ability to throttle those previously elected if things aren't going as hoped. Obama was very popular in 2008 but concerns over Healthcare and Immigration enabled opposition to win seats 2yrs later in 2010 and subvert some of his agenda. Likewise Trump won in 2016 but 2yrs on his opposition now has the ability to limit his influence. 

I don't think politics should be a winner takes all sort of thing. In sports for example teams are only the champions for a season and then they must begin again. Each new season provides all teams a chance. If a team remains strong they might win the championship a few seasons in a row but it is never a sure thing. Likewise in politics one leader, one party, or one referendum shouldn't be absolute. Democracies are meant to be responsive to their people. Otherwise what is the point of letting people vote at all. Telling people they must stick with something they no long want because 2yrs ago enough of a majority did doesn't seem very responsive. 

The only way to check the pulse of the people is to have another. I don't understand what is at risk by having another. Nothing is forever. Win or lose in the future politicians can and will continue to fight this issue. Holding a vote today simply ensure that for today Politicians are getting it right. If need be another vote can be held years done the road again. I doubt anyone on this forum will ever out live elections in their country. 

 

It isn't perfect. It simply sets the bar higher than half. If someone thinks they would like to change it back the onus is on them to get 55%, so a change of at least 10%.

You could allow another clause that if it gets over 50%, but cannot get to 55%, on the next referendum, say minimum 2 years later, on the same subject only 50% (plus 1) is required.

Other things should require a supermajority much higher to make a change. Imagine a hypothetical where someone wanted the 13th amendment overturned. You would want the threshold to be pretty high...100% plus 1 comes to mind.

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Most countries have a well-defined mechanism for changes to the constitution (*). This typically requires either a popular or parliamentary vote with a significant majority (like 67% or 75%). I'm sure one could argue for ever about exactly what the majority should be, but I think the purpose is to ensure that it is convincing and, presumably, wouldn't be changed by a relatively minor change in demographics. And maybe even that it represents a majority of the population, and not just those who voted. People might feel differently in a few generations, but things can be adjusted again then. 

With a near 50:50 split (of less than 100% turnout) it only takes a small change in the number able to vote, or the employment rate, or the proprietor of a newspaper/TV channel to swing things one way or the other.

(*) Note that the UK has no such mechanism as it doesn't have a constitution. That is another reason this is such a shitshow.

Even with a something like a 67-75% majority the change is permanent. Another 67-75% majority in the future can come along and amend things. It isn't and in my opinion shouldn't ever be sealed in stone. 

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It isn't perfect. It simply sets the bar higher than half. If someone thinks they would like to change it back the onus is on them to get 55%, so a change of at least 10%.

That would require a second vote. In which case I might be for it.

[Raider5678]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

(*) Note that the UK has no such mechanism as it doesn't have a constitution. That is another reason this is such a shitshow.

Eh. The U.S. has a constitution and half of my classmates want to abolish it. Grass isn't always greener on the other side.

42 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Even is a referendum were to pass with 60% support that doesn't speak to how people might feel years later.

You're good with statistics.

How often does 10% of the population change it's mind in who/what it's voting for?

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Even with a something like a 67-75% majority the change is permanent. Another 67-75% majority in the future can come along and amend things. It isn't and in my opinion shouldn't ever be sealed in stone. 

Absolutely. But with a large enough majority, you are not going to be flipping your constitution back and forth every couple of years. Doing it every couple of generations is not unreasonable.

(And Brexit is, effectively, the equivalent of a constitutional change: it requires hundreds of laws to be modified or created, new civil service departments, new agencies for testing/approving all sorts of things. And that's before you get to the supposed benefits like spending decades trying to get something close to the large number of trade deals the country currently has around the world.)

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Eh. The U.S. has a constitution and half of my classmates want to abolish it. Grass isn't always greener on the other side.

Does the constitution include the ability to abolish itself? What sort of majority would that require!?

(And I wasn't saying that having a constitution is necessarily a good thing; there are probably advantages to the UK's less formal approach.)

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Eh. The U.S. has a constitution and half of my classmates want to abolish it. Grass isn't always greener on the other side.

You're good with statistics.

How often does 10% of the population change it's mind in who/what it's voting for?

Over 500,000 people die per year in the UK and just as many become eligible to vote for the first time. So that alone could be over a 2 million person shift in who is voting since 2016. Only a total of 33 million people participated in the Brexit vote. Just that 2 million due to age and mortality is over 6%.

[Raider5678]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Over 500,000 people die per year in the UK and just as many become eligible to vote for the first time. So that alone could be over a 2 million person shift in who is voting since 2016. Only a total of 33 million people participated in the Brexit vote. Just that 2 million due to age and mortality is over 6%.

And that's assuming that all 1,000,000 who died voted one way, and all 1,000,000 who became eligible will vote the opposite.

That seems like a stretch.

 

Again. You're good with statistics. How often does 10% of the population change it's mind in who it's voting for?

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Again. You're good with statistics. How often does 10% of the population change it's mind in who it's voting for?

That’s off topic here. How about you create a new thread instead of derailing this one?

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

That’s off topic here. How about you create a new thread instead of derailing this one?

The thread is about Brexit and the Brexit vote.

We're talking about if the Brexit vote should have had a supermajority requirement.

It's hardly off topic.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The thread is about Brexit and the Brexit vote.

Well, in that case you fail on two fronts. 

You asked how often 10% of the population changes WHO it votes for, not what. Your question also requires a speculative answer since it’s referendum specific and  varies from one topic to the next.

Whatever, though. I’m a bit tired of your testosterone poisoned always angry ass right now.

Edited January 23, 2019 by iNow

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

You asked how often 10% of the population changes WHO it votes for, not what.

Look. I'm sorry. The original question stated this:

43 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

How often does 10% of the population change it's mind in who/what it's voting for?

The second time I typed it I forgot to include it. Thank you for pointing that out for me.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your question also requires a speculative answer since it’s referendum specific and  varies from one topic to the next.

It's not a speculative answer. It's a statistical answer. Hence why I asked for statistics, not opinion/speculation.

Statistically, within 2 years, the vote very rarely changes more than 5%, let alone 10%.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Whatever, though. I’m a bit tired of your testosterone poisoned always angry ass right now.

Um. Alright.

[Ten oz]

31 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And that's assuming that all 1,000,000 who died voted one way, and all 1,000,000 who became eligible will vote the opposite.

That seems like a stretch.

 

Again. You're good with statistics. How often does 10% of the population change it's mind in who it's voting for?

I assume nothing. I said it is a 2 million shift in who is voting. I said nothing about how they'd vote. Just that it would be different people voting. Also Brexit didn't pass by 10%. It passed by less than 4%,  just under 1.3 million votes. The 10% you reference is an arbitrary number that has no actual impact on Brexit.  

If you feel a Brexit vote would go the exact same way if held again in 2019 as it went in 2016 that what would it it to hold another vote?

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I assume nothing. I said it is a 2 million shift in who is voting. I said nothing about how they'd vote. Just that it would be different people voting. Also Brexit didn't pass by 10%. It passed by less than 4%,  just under 1.3 million votes. The 10% you reference is an arbitrary number that has no actual impact on Brexit.  

1

The 10% I referenced is that I think Brexit should have required 60% in order to pass, considering the magnitude of the vote.

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 If you feel a Brexit vote would go the exact same way if held again in 2019 as it went in 2016 that what would it it to hold another vote?

I don't know if it would go the exact same way.

But I suspect it'd be relatively close to what it was, as based on statistics.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-there-was-a-referendum-on-britains-membership-of-the-eu-how-would-you-vote-2/

Edited January 23, 2019 by Raider5678

[J.C.MacSwell]

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s off topic here. How about you create a new thread instead of derailing this one?

Come on INow. That's a direct response to what Ten oz stated, and for the purpose of the topic. You don't have to agree with the line of thought to see that. 

 

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The 10% I referenced is that I think Brexit should have required 60% in order to pass, considering the magnitude of the vote.

But it didn't. Your 10% is arbitrary.

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't know if it would go the exact same way.

But I suspect it'd be relatively close to what it was, as based on statistics.

The statistics I have referred in other political threads deals with party leanings here in the U.S.. The Brexit vote was outside of a standard election cycle, the UK isn't staunchly married to a 2 party system the way the U.S. is, and voter turnout is constantly higher in the U.K. than it is in the U.S.. 

I do not know how another Brexit vote would go. I have not studied election trends for the U.K.. I think another vote is fair. As mentioned here in the U.S. we get a chance every 2yrs to vote. When the ACA passed Republicans had the mid term to get people in place to throttle it and then the general election in 12' get rid of Obama and repeal it before it went into effect. Republicans weren't success but they were given a democratic chance.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

Whatever, though. I’m a bit tired of your testosterone poisoned always angry ass right now.

Really? As much as I have occasionally objected to some of your posts, this does not seem like the kind of post you would make.

[iNow]

50 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Um. Alright.

Sorry, dude. I was out of line. Mea culpa. Things have been too personal lately and it feels way harder to interact than I’d like it to feel, but this sort of comment only makes that worse, not better. 

Please nobody reply to this and further derail the thread. I owned it. I’m sorry. Move on please. 

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Come on INow. That's a direct response to what Ten oz stated, and for the purpose of the topic. You don't have to agree with the line of thought to see that. 

 

The discussion you and I were having was reasonably cordial. Some speculation about different elections systems which could be theoretically used but we both still rendered opinion/thoughts on Brexit and its future. 

Raider jumped in and challenged me on an arbitrary number without rendering any thoughts towards Brexit whatsoever. His post was purely a challenge of my skepticism of a theoretical situation. Posts like that, where individuals begin challenging each other over things superfluous to a thread's topic, are how thread get derailed. 

It seems you and I more or less agree regarding Brexit I think. 

 

[MigL]

Personally I think It would be a shame not to take this opportunity ( no deal ) to have another referendum.
I think The UK belongs in the EU, if only to keep France/Germany from riding roughshod over the smaller economies of Europe.

But that is my opinion; facts on the other hand, differ.
T May has stated she intends to proceed with the results of 2 yrs ago.
If she isn't following the will of the people, why wasn't she turfed in the no-confidence vote ?

 

( have a drink and calm down, INow, I think you're doing the testosterone poisoned,  angry ass bit yourself )

Edited January 23, 2019 by MigL

[Raider5678]

41 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

But it didn't. Your 10% is arbitrary.

Fair enough.

However, humor me a little. 

Do you think Brexit should have had a super majority status, where it requires more then just a simple majority?