4 ms·

I'm sorry, I differ. 17 million people voted to leave. 16 million voted to remain. There are 64 million people in the UK. 2 major regions voted to remain.

I'm sorry, I differ. 17 million people voted to leave. 16 million voted to remain. There are 64 million people in the UK. 2 major regions voted to remain. This is the best example I have seen thus of the 'Tyranny of the minority', and this is not democracy in action.

sbov 10y ago
This is just how voting tends to end up in many countries. First, not everyone is eligible to vote. Second, not everyone who is eligible to vote does so. In the 2012 US presidential election, 65 million people voted for Obama. In the 2008 election, 69 million voted for him. The population was around 314 and 306 million respectively. A larger percentage of the population voted for brexit than the most recent US president.
- hackbinary 10y ago
  Okay, first, why the downvote? My points are valid, and they add to conversation: Quorum is an important question. 26% of the population voted to leave, a great many of whom won't be alive in the next 10 years. 25% voted to remain, most of whom will be alive in the next 30-40 years. And by your logic, similarly, a larger proportion of the population voted to \remain\ than in the US Election. Just because Also, there are a very many important rights afforded to UK citizens by virtue of their treaty rights, which they will lose on actual Exit from the EU. The UK had a good in the EU, and it is shocking that we are chucking it away so frivolously.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - rm445 10y ago
    I didn't downvote but I found your point utterly specious. Meetings have quorum rules to prevent skulduggery, a minority group colluding to pack a low-attendance meeting and vote on momentous issues. A national referendum is open to anyone eligible who cares to vote. Let's say, fantastically, only one person had turned out to vote in the Brexit referendum, and the whole thing were decided by one vote to nought. So long as the referendum had been free and fair, adequately publicised and properly counted, it would completely represent the will of the whole country. Elections are decided on the opinion of those who bother to come out and vote. As for the regions and demographics, it's a decision for the whole United Kingdom. Are there actually any serious alternative ideas to giving one vote to each living adult person? p.s. I voted Remain and agree with 'chucking it away so frivolously'. I just think trying to re-slice the sausage different ways based on subsets of the voting is pointless.
    - hackbinary 10y ago
      The Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, had to have a minimum threshold of 40% of the population voting yes. Furthermore, the Clarity Act of Canada implying some sort of 'quorum' by stating "Giving the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority had expressed itself following any referendum vote, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success" for the independance of a province of Canada, but generally thought of as Quebec. There is the legal principle of maintaining the 'status quo' and the preponderance of maintaining the status quo to maintaining a stable and governable society. My contention is that if 26% of the populace can decide the destiny of the wider society, and by a very slim margin, then democracy has not been served. If it was 26% to 10% that would be a different story, but it was not, it was 26% to 25% and that is a very slim margin indeed.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - sbov 10y ago
        Note that the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979 had a minimum threshold of 40% of the electorate. This meant registered voters. If you want to make a fair comparison to brexit, 37% of the electorate voted to leave.
        hackbinary 10y ago
        So it was 33% of the electorate voted /for/ the national assembly in 1979.
  - sbov 10y ago
    I downvoted for "not democracy" and "tyranny of the minority". They are hyperbolic statements you would likely not be making if your side won, especially given what you based these statements on are present in every open, contentious vote ever, would still be true even if your side won, and only serves to inflame the conversation.
    - hackbinary 10y ago
      I think they would only be 'hyperbolic' if the corollary wouldn't be true. As in, if there was a second referendum held now, the 'join' side would likely win. If 'my side had won' then that would have meant that the status quo would have 'remained'. It is a shockingly low threshold that 25-26% of the population could make such a large decision. That is my point. The threshold should have been higher. So, in my view, 'tyranny of the minority' holds true. 26% of the UK polulation is a minority of that population.
defen 10y ago
"Tyranny of the minority"? I want to reply to your comment but before I do I want to make sure that was a typo (as in, you meant to type "majority"), and not my misunderstanding what you are saying.
- DanBC 10y ago
  The UK has a population of about 63m. 46m of those could vote. 30m of those did vote. 17.5m of those voted to leave. That's 52% of the turnout; 38% of the electorate; 25% of the population. One quarter of the population is a minority.
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    Does this logic not work in reverse? Only a quarter of the population voted to stay.
    - notahacker 10y ago
      Sure, but it's not uncommon to set higher thresholds for major, breaking changes to the status quo than a simple plurality of votes. Brexit is also unusual, as others have alluded to, in how skewed the demographics were by age, which is pretty significant if the repercussions are expected to last for a decade and affect the proportion of the public too young to vote significantly more than the proportion of the public most significantly in favour of Brexit. The other side of that argument is that the referendum saw an unusually high turnout for a UK election and the margin as wide as those which have produced comfortable Parliamentary majorities. On the other hand, more people voted against Brexit than for any party that ever governed the UK by itself.
      - tedunangst 10y ago
        I don't disagree, but that's every vote. Every law affects young people more than dead people. And every time somebody like Al Franken gets elected there's a loud chorus of "It's not fair; I would have voted if I knew it would be close." What else are we going to do? Have a pre-vote to see whose vote counts double?
DanBC 10y ago
Especially since 16 and 17 year olds were not allowed to vote, even though they're going to be disprortionatly affected.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  This shouldn't be downvoted/ignored -- there was a significant campaign to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the EU referendum, as was done for the Scottish independence referendum. It had backing from several political parties, but didn't happen. http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votes-at-16 http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votes-at-16
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    But, if it had happened, it wouldn't have changed the outcome (assuming that 16-17 year olds would have voted the same as 18-19 year olds did).

sbov 10y ago

This is just how voting tends to end up in many countries. First, not everyone is eligible to vote. Second, not everyone who is eligible to vote does so. In the 2012 US presidential election, 65 million people voted for Obama. In the 2008 election, 69 million voted for him. The population was around 314 and 306 million respectively. A larger percentage of the population voted for brexit than the most recent US president.

hackbinary 10y ago
Okay, first, why the downvote? My points are valid, and they add to conversation: Quorum is an important question. 26% of the population voted to leave, a great many of whom won't be alive in the next 10 years. 25% voted to remain, most of whom will be alive in the next 30-40 years. And by your logic, similarly, a larger proportion of the population voted to \remain\ than in the US Election. Just because Also, there are a very many important rights afforded to UK citizens by virtue of their treaty rights, which they will lose on actual Exit from the EU. The UK had a good in the EU, and it is shocking that we are chucking it away so frivolously.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rm445 10y ago
  I didn't downvote but I found your point utterly specious. Meetings have quorum rules to prevent skulduggery, a minority group colluding to pack a low-attendance meeting and vote on momentous issues. A national referendum is open to anyone eligible who cares to vote. Let's say, fantastically, only one person had turned out to vote in the Brexit referendum, and the whole thing were decided by one vote to nought. So long as the referendum had been free and fair, adequately publicised and properly counted, it would completely represent the will of the whole country. Elections are decided on the opinion of those who bother to come out and vote. As for the regions and demographics, it's a decision for the whole United Kingdom. Are there actually any serious alternative ideas to giving one vote to each living adult person? p.s. I voted Remain and agree with 'chucking it away so frivolously'. I just think trying to re-slice the sausage different ways based on subsets of the voting is pointless.
  - hackbinary 10y ago
    The Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, had to have a minimum threshold of 40% of the population voting yes. Furthermore, the Clarity Act of Canada implying some sort of 'quorum' by stating "Giving the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority had expressed itself following any referendum vote, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success" for the independance of a province of Canada, but generally thought of as Quebec. There is the legal principle of maintaining the 'status quo' and the preponderance of maintaining the status quo to maintaining a stable and governable society. My contention is that if 26% of the populace can decide the destiny of the wider society, and by a very slim margin, then democracy has not been served. If it was 26% to 10% that would be a different story, but it was not, it was 26% to 25% and that is a very slim margin indeed.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - sbov 10y ago
      Note that the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979 had a minimum threshold of 40% of the electorate. This meant registered voters. If you want to make a fair comparison to brexit, 37% of the electorate voted to leave.
      - hackbinary 10y ago
        So it was 33% of the electorate voted /for/ the national assembly in 1979.
- sbov 10y ago
  I downvoted for "not democracy" and "tyranny of the minority". They are hyperbolic statements you would likely not be making if your side won, especially given what you based these statements on are present in every open, contentious vote ever, would still be true even if your side won, and only serves to inflame the conversation.
  - hackbinary 10y ago
    I think they would only be 'hyperbolic' if the corollary wouldn't be true. As in, if there was a second referendum held now, the 'join' side would likely win. If 'my side had won' then that would have meant that the status quo would have 'remained'. It is a shockingly low threshold that 25-26% of the population could make such a large decision. That is my point. The threshold should have been higher. So, in my view, 'tyranny of the minority' holds true. 26% of the UK polulation is a minority of that population.

defen 10y ago

"Tyranny of the minority"? I want to reply to your comment but before I do I want to make sure that was a typo (as in, you meant to type "majority"), and not my misunderstanding what you are saying.

DanBC 10y ago
The UK has a population of about 63m. 46m of those could vote. 30m of those did vote. 17.5m of those voted to leave. That's 52% of the turnout; 38% of the electorate; 25% of the population. One quarter of the population is a minority.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  Does this logic not work in reverse? Only a quarter of the population voted to stay.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Sure, but it's not uncommon to set higher thresholds for major, breaking changes to the status quo than a simple plurality of votes. Brexit is also unusual, as others have alluded to, in how skewed the demographics were by age, which is pretty significant if the repercussions are expected to last for a decade and affect the proportion of the public too young to vote significantly more than the proportion of the public most significantly in favour of Brexit. The other side of that argument is that the referendum saw an unusually high turnout for a UK election and the margin as wide as those which have produced comfortable Parliamentary majorities. On the other hand, more people voted against Brexit than for any party that ever governed the UK by itself.
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      I don't disagree, but that's every vote. Every law affects young people more than dead people. And every time somebody like Al Franken gets elected there's a loud chorus of "It's not fair; I would have voted if I knew it would be close." What else are we going to do? Have a pre-vote to see whose vote counts double?

DanBC 10y ago

Especially since 16 and 17 year olds were not allowed to vote, even though they're going to be disprortionatly affected.

Symbiote 10y ago
This shouldn't be downvoted/ignored -- there was a significant campaign to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the EU referendum, as was done for the Scottish independence referendum. It had backing from several political parties, but didn't happen. http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votes-at-16 http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votes-at-16
- ptaipale 10y ago
  But, if it had happened, it wouldn't have changed the outcome (assuming that 16-17 year olds would have voted the same as 18-19 year olds did).