6 ms·

Can we stop claiming 52% is any sort of clear majority? 52% doesn't mean "most people want this", it means "the country is evenly split, so we flipped a coin,

Can we stop claiming 52% is any sort of clear majority? 52% doesn't mean "most people want this", it means "the country is evenly split, so we flipped a coin, and it came up Leave". You need much more than 52% of the population behind you to have a revolution (of any sort). There's a reason that most functional democracies have a constitution can only by changed by meeting a higher bar than simple majority: it's too important, too sensitive, and too irreversible to be decided without something closer to consensus. I would argue that that logic applies here.

rfrank 10y ago
If the UK had voted to stay, and this headline was actually "Why it's time to accept the fact that Remain may never happen" would you be making the same argument?
- Daishiman 10y ago
  Remain is the status quo. They are not equally weighed options.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    Why does the status quo matter? Would a 51% remain vote be more valid than a 55% leave vote, simply based on whether or not it preserves the status quo?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Status quo matters in this narrow context of discussing the validity of reversed headlines and responses to them because "Remain may never happen" would be nonsense with a reversed result; remain is what happens until some action by the government changes it, so if remain won, remain would immediately be happening, just as it was happening before the referendum.
      - rfrank 10y ago
        Simple questions like "would I find this argument acceptable if the outcomes were reversed" are important to consider, especially for a subject like ignoring/reversing the outcomes of democratic elections. If that sort of semantic point makes that impossible to realize, then I don't really know what to tell you.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Simple questions like "would I find this argument acceptable if the outcomes were reversed" are important to consider They can often be useful to consider, certainly, where they make sense. > If that sort of semantic point makes that impossible to realize, then I don't really know what to tell you. You could just recognize that sometimes the trick of reversing values doesn't result in a parallel (or even coherent) scenario to consider, because not every situation is symmetric in the way required for that to be a meaningful thing to consider.
        rfrank 10y ago
        If the remain vote had prevailed (and preserved status quo / done nothing / stayed put / whatever your word choice of preference is for "remain"), and leave voters were making the argument that their result is invalid due to insufficient majority percentage, and should consequently be ignored, would you consider the argument valid? Are you being obtuse on purpose?
        tolien 10y ago
        Farage himself said that a close-won Remain vote would result in a second referendum: http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/remembering-what-nigel-farage-said-about-a-new-referendum--Wk91X3XaNZ http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/remembering-what-ni... "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it" Obviously the side that wins isn't going to be in favour of having another go.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
redorb 10y ago
I'm under the impression that 52% means that most people who voted wanted the exit. Most in this case meaning 52 > 48.
- JohnStrange 10y ago
  That definition of 'most' is common in textbooks, but it's generally considered a bit too naive and that 'most' does not express a simple majority. Suppose you have $1000 and say "I've spent most of my money on drugs and hookers". Many people feel that this means that not much money is left, and it would be kind of misleading if you've spent $501 on drugs and hookers and have a generous $499 left. I think I remember vaguely that you can use ultrafilter logics for getting a better semantics for 'most'. Or, some sort of thresholds as a poor man's solution, I guess.
zinssmeister 10y ago
That's exactly why putting up this vote to remain or leave was a very poor decision in the first place. The drastic change of leaving the EU, decided by half the votes, many of which were very ill informed about what that actually means, is a giant political mess. I don't think I have ever seen such a unfortunate outcome from a political decision in my lifetime. Going forward, the UK should look at the referendum as a very weak signal by the public. There will be no "revolution" and definitely not a violent one if the government looks at the effort and outcome of leaving the EU but ultimately decides to remain.
khattam 10y ago
It was not decided that if there would be <60%, there would be another referendum or the other side will win. Staying in EU is a horrible idea as far as Britian is concerned. If they don't have to pay to corrupt government officials of poorer countries in the EU, it is already a win (for citizens of those countries and for Britain)... but I can see why the corrupt unelected EU officials don't want them (or anyone else for that matter) to leave.
- Oletros 10y ago
  > but I can see why the corrupt unelected EU officials don't want them Can you give any proof of those corruptions? And, by the way, calling them unelected is a good way of showing a lack of knowledge about the EU
  - Ygg2 10y ago
    He probably means, not directly voted for. You only directly vote for MEP.
    - makomk 10y ago
      Of course, right now Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister who we didn't vote for either, so...
- mcphage 10y ago
  > It was not decided that if there would be <60%, there would be another referendum or the other side will win. It also wasn't decided that the referendum was binding.
carsongross 10y ago
That's very true. However, if you start breaking it down you will find that Scotland, Northern Ireland and London were strongly in favor of the EU, and the rest of the country were not. There is obviously a strong disagreement on the matter. The humane thing to do would be to allow for further devolution, allowing Northern Ireland and Scotland to become independent and join the EU. London would be tricker, but Europe has had free cities before and could again. Or, perhaps Edinburgh could absorb the people that want to be part of the EU. Any polity where issues split 50/50 (and America is currently in this situation in most cases) is going to be inherently tyrannical. Secession is the humane way forward.
mrec 10y ago
> There's a reason that most functional democracies have a constitution can only by changed by meeting a higher bar than simple majority: it's too important, too sensitive, and too irreversible to be decided without something closer to consensus. In the general case I agree, but I think this vote is a bit different in that it was arguably about reverting another constitutional change - the ongoing abdication of many functions to an EU government with much less democratic accountability to the UK public - which was never legitimized by popular vote at all. The last relevant UK referendum was the 1975 one on "European Communities membership", and at the time the EEC was pitched to voters as a purely economic arrangement, with none of the aspects of supranational government later introduced by Maastricht. That economic phrasing found just over two-thirds support, while polling conducted around the same time on political integration found (IIRC) just under one-third support. As far as I know, every time European political integration has been put to a referendum, it's been rejected. The "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" was rejected by the French and Dutch populations in 2005; after that it was temporarily shelved then sneakily repackaged as the "Treaty of Lisbon" in 2008. Ireland held a referendum and rejected that too, but since that was the wrong answer it was forced to hold it again and voters were basically told to vote yes or else. So the situation is not at all like the formation of something like the USA, where state populations explicitly agreed to political union. Political union is happening against the wishes of national populations. I don't think national leaders, even democratically elected ones, have the right to take power away from the populations they represent, any more than they have the right to say "hey, guess what, we're not going to have any more elections, we'll just stay in office forever".
stonetomb 10y ago
If just a single digit % of the population took more than passive/peaceful stance then it would be game over. As I recall from studies the Nazis took control with far less than 50% support (I want to say < 30%).

rfrank 10y ago

If the UK had voted to stay, and this headline was actually "Why it's time to accept the fact that Remain may never happen" would you be making the same argument?

Daishiman 10y ago
Remain is the status quo. They are not equally weighed options.
- rfrank 10y ago
  Why does the status quo matter? Would a 51% remain vote be more valid than a 55% leave vote, simply based on whether or not it preserves the status quo?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Status quo matters in this narrow context of discussing the validity of reversed headlines and responses to them because "Remain may never happen" would be nonsense with a reversed result; remain is what happens until some action by the government changes it, so if remain won, remain would immediately be happening, just as it was happening before the referendum.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      Simple questions like "would I find this argument acceptable if the outcomes were reversed" are important to consider, especially for a subject like ignoring/reversing the outcomes of democratic elections. If that sort of semantic point makes that impossible to realize, then I don't really know what to tell you.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Simple questions like "would I find this argument acceptable if the outcomes were reversed" are important to consider They can often be useful to consider, certainly, where they make sense. > If that sort of semantic point makes that impossible to realize, then I don't really know what to tell you. You could just recognize that sometimes the trick of reversing values doesn't result in a parallel (or even coherent) scenario to consider, because not every situation is symmetric in the way required for that to be a meaningful thing to consider.
        rfrank 10y ago
        If the remain vote had prevailed (and preserved status quo / done nothing / stayed put / whatever your word choice of preference is for "remain"), and leave voters were making the argument that their result is invalid due to insufficient majority percentage, and should consequently be ignored, would you consider the argument valid? Are you being obtuse on purpose?
        tolien 10y ago
        Farage himself said that a close-won Remain vote would result in a second referendum: http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/remembering-what-nigel-farage-said-about-a-new-referendum--Wk91X3XaNZ http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/remembering-what-ni... "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it" Obviously the side that wins isn't going to be in favour of having another go.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

redorb 10y ago

I'm under the impression that 52% means that most people who voted wanted the exit. Most in this case meaning 52 > 48.

JohnStrange 10y ago
That definition of 'most' is common in textbooks, but it's generally considered a bit too naive and that 'most' does not express a simple majority. Suppose you have $1000 and say "I've spent most of my money on drugs and hookers". Many people feel that this means that not much money is left, and it would be kind of misleading if you've spent $501 on drugs and hookers and have a generous $499 left. I think I remember vaguely that you can use ultrafilter logics for getting a better semantics for 'most'. Or, some sort of thresholds as a poor man's solution, I guess.

zinssmeister 10y ago

That's exactly why putting up this vote to remain or leave was a very poor decision in the first place. The drastic change of leaving the EU, decided by half the votes, many of which were very ill informed about what that actually means, is a giant political mess. I don't think I have ever seen such a unfortunate outcome from a political decision in my lifetime. Going forward, the UK should look at the referendum as a very weak signal by the public. There will be no "revolution" and definitely not a violent one if the government looks at the effort and outcome of leaving the EU but ultimately decides to remain.

khattam 10y ago

It was not decided that if there would be <60%, there would be another referendum or the other side will win. Staying in EU is a horrible idea as far as Britian is concerned. If they don't have to pay to corrupt government officials of poorer countries in the EU, it is already a win (for citizens of those countries and for Britain)... but I can see why the corrupt unelected EU officials don't want them (or anyone else for that matter) to leave.

Oletros 10y ago
> but I can see why the corrupt unelected EU officials don't want them Can you give any proof of those corruptions? And, by the way, calling them unelected is a good way of showing a lack of knowledge about the EU
- Ygg2 10y ago
  He probably means, not directly voted for. You only directly vote for MEP.
  - makomk 10y ago
    Of course, right now Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister who we didn't vote for either, so...
mcphage 10y ago
> It was not decided that if there would be <60%, there would be another referendum or the other side will win. It also wasn't decided that the referendum was binding.

carsongross 10y ago

That's very true. However, if you start breaking it down you will find that Scotland, Northern Ireland and London were strongly in favor of the EU, and the rest of the country were not. There is obviously a strong disagreement on the matter. The humane thing to do would be to allow for further devolution, allowing Northern Ireland and Scotland to become independent and join the EU. London would be tricker, but Europe has had free cities before and could again. Or, perhaps Edinburgh could absorb the people that want to be part of the EU. Any polity where issues split 50/50 (and America is currently in this situation in most cases) is going to be inherently tyrannical. Secession is the humane way forward.

mrec 10y ago

> There's a reason that most functional democracies have a constitution can only by changed by meeting a higher bar than simple majority: it's too important, too sensitive, and too irreversible to be decided without something closer to consensus. In the general case I agree, but I think this vote is a bit different in that it was arguably about reverting another constitutional change - the ongoing abdication of many functions to an EU government with much less democratic accountability to the UK public - which was never legitimized by popular vote at all. The last relevant UK referendum was the 1975 one on "European Communities membership", and at the time the EEC was pitched to voters as a purely economic arrangement, with none of the aspects of supranational government later introduced by Maastricht. That economic phrasing found just over two-thirds support, while polling conducted around the same time on political integration found (IIRC) just under one-third support. As far as I know, every time European political integration has been put to a referendum, it's been rejected. The "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" was rejected by the French and Dutch populations in 2005; after that it was temporarily shelved then sneakily repackaged as the "Treaty of Lisbon" in 2008. Ireland held a referendum and rejected that too, but since that was the wrong answer it was forced to hold it again and voters were basically told to vote yes or else. So the situation is not at all like the formation of something like the USA, where state populations explicitly agreed to political union. Political union is happening against the wishes of national populations. I don't think national leaders, even democratically elected ones, have the right to take power away from the populations they represent, any more than they have the right to say "hey, guess what, we're not going to have any more elections, we'll just stay in office forever".

stonetomb 10y ago

If just a single digit % of the population took more than passive/peaceful stance then it would be game over. As I recall from studies the Nazis took control with far less than 50% support (I want to say < 30%).