5 ms·

I wonder if referendums should have a higher bar than 50% against the status quo. Referendums are reserved for big changes (generally) or constitutional changes

I wonder if referendums should have a higher bar than 50% against the status quo. Referendums are reserved for big changes (generally) or constitutional changes, and the population can be extremely fickle. A 50% target might go one way or another depending on the week or month you call it - and probably doesn't represent a true majority, especially in a state where voting is optional. The ramifications can be very large and shouldn't be expected to change again for a very long time. If a higher percentage was thought to be a good idea, what would that percentage be? 60/40? 55/65? 70/30? I'm not advocating for this by the way, just figure it might be an interesting thought experiment.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zepto 10y ago
Yeah - or at least 50% of the population vs 50% of the turnout.
tomcorrigan 10y ago
I'm inclined to agree given that voting is not compulsory. In Australia, where voting in all elections and referenda is compulsory, I would have to stridently disagree. I suspect the result today was skewed by the big swing towards the 'Remain' vote following the assassination of Jo Cox causing a lot of 'Remain' voters choosing to stay at home in the expectation of 'Remain' comfortably prevailing.
- jsmeaton 10y ago
  I'm Australian, but I'm still not sure a 50/50 split on something so important is right. At least here in Australia you need a 50% total and a 50% of states. I don't think the extra requirement of locality would have prevented the leave in the UK though - it seems only London and Scotland really led the way for the stay vote. > I suspect the result today was skewed by the big swing towards the 'Remain' vote following the assassination of Jo Cox That's kind of what I'm getting at. With a vote so close it's almost a decision that could change day to day, or depending upon the weather. For a vote that can only happen every decade or three I don't think 50% is a high enough bar for change.
kartickv 10y ago
I agree. A fifty-something vote is more like "neutral" or "undecided" than "leave" or "remain". Perhaps 60% would be the clear threshold to count as a clear, unambiguous decision from the voters to leave the EU. On the other hand, you don't want too high a threshold to make a change, like 3/4 to ratify, as js2 points out, because then you're effectively locked in to the status quo for too long. Another way of doing this is to offer voters a third option, "neutral/undecided". When counting, you'd treat these votes as if they were in favour of the status quo, remaining in the EU. Then, if 51% of the votes are to leave, Britain leaves the EU. After all, if you're neutral about something, you stick with what you have, rather than disrupting things for no good reason.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

zepto 10y ago

Yeah - or at least 50% of the population vs 50% of the turnout.

tomcorrigan 10y ago

I'm inclined to agree given that voting is not compulsory. In Australia, where voting in all elections and referenda is compulsory, I would have to stridently disagree. I suspect the result today was skewed by the big swing towards the 'Remain' vote following the assassination of Jo Cox causing a lot of 'Remain' voters choosing to stay at home in the expectation of 'Remain' comfortably prevailing.

jsmeaton 10y ago
I'm Australian, but I'm still not sure a 50/50 split on something so important is right. At least here in Australia you need a 50% total and a 50% of states. I don't think the extra requirement of locality would have prevented the leave in the UK though - it seems only London and Scotland really led the way for the stay vote. > I suspect the result today was skewed by the big swing towards the 'Remain' vote following the assassination of Jo Cox That's kind of what I'm getting at. With a vote so close it's almost a decision that could change day to day, or depending upon the weather. For a vote that can only happen every decade or three I don't think 50% is a high enough bar for change.

kartickv 10y ago

I agree. A fifty-something vote is more like "neutral" or "undecided" than "leave" or "remain". Perhaps 60% would be the clear threshold to count as a clear, unambiguous decision from the voters to leave the EU. On the other hand, you don't want too high a threshold to make a change, like 3/4 to ratify, as js2 points out, because then you're effectively locked in to the status quo for too long. Another way of doing this is to offer voters a third option, "neutral/undecided". When counting, you'd treat these votes as if they were in favour of the status quo, remaining in the EU. Then, if 51% of the votes are to leave, Britain leaves the EU. After all, if you're neutral about something, you stick with what you have, rather than disrupting things for no good reason.