4 ms·

You're against democracy because people had the right to decide what was in their interest and not the government or big business??

• k__ 10y ago
  That's fallacy. The big business that decides is the media.
  • zghst 10y ago
    The media is a big business owned by special interest and wealthy elites. Obviously all the scare tactics used in the media did not work on the voters.
    • k__ 10y ago
      I think it was exactly the opposite.
      • zghst 10y ago
        I'm curious, I'd like to hear more =)
        • makomk 10y ago
          Our biggest newspapers, the Sun and the Daily Mail, have huge political influence here. They were both strongly pro-Brexit, as was the Telegraph. They've also been anti-EU for decades.
          • k__ 10y ago
            That was my impression, thank you.
• arcticbull 10y ago
  My take on it is that direct democracy doesn't make sense for this type of complex and nuanced decision. The general population isn't in the business of politics and scare tactics on both sides aren't going to educate them on the nuances and detailed implications of a decision like leaving the EU. That's why we vote for representatives who make it their job to understand, and vote accordingly -- representative democracy and direct democracy are two different things. People feel qualified to weigh in on any political issue because that's always been that narrative. I see it asking the general population, without any further information to vote one day or whether Apple should move factories out of China. You know literally nothing about what's going on, so how could you possibly make that decision for Apple? That's up to their board.
  • zghst 10y ago
    What about decisions like electing the leader of the free world? The most powerful person on earth? Should that be left up to every day people? I think that people should be able to make big decisions that effect them. Direct democracy is more useful than ever, the elites use our republic to manipulate people more than ever. They game the system and with no balance or checks on their power.
    • arcticbull 10y ago
      IMO its as easy for the elites to manipulate the public via media as it is for them to manipulate elected representatives and the latter is easier to address via checks and balances, though nobody seems willing to put them in. Elections are in the public interest so campaigns should be solely funded by the government, not by private backers. Private parties should not be able to run media campaigns on behalf or against individuals. Lobbying would be rendered useless. Further, certain other countries do not in fact vote directly for their 'most powerful person' -- in Canada, you vote for your representative locally and the party with the most local representatives sends their leader to be Prime Minister, and even there, the Governor General in Right of the Queen has final say just to make sure. I think as noble as 'I get to decide what matters most' is, it's worthless when issues reach the kind of complexity that requires specialization in your field. As another poster mentioned above, you don't vote on what kind of medicine a child gets, you leave that up to a doctor -- a professional. Now feel free to pick that professional!
• smhenderson 10y ago
  IMO it was close enough that "the people" did not decide. Roughly half of the people decided. I'm in the US so I am a little too uninformed and probably not heavily affected by this to take one side or the other. But knowing what I know I am surprised that this didn't need a 2/3 majority to pass or something similar. Given the result you have roughly half of the country upset by this and in some areas like Scotland, London, etc. you have a majority of people upset by the outcome.
  • zghst 10y ago
    Over 1 million more people decided to leave. Percentages say one thing, but over 1 million people is a huge number.