7 ms·

Given the 72.2% turnout[1] it was just 37.5% of the voting-eligible population that voted for Brexit. The whole Brexit saga makes me think more than ever that

by exox 10y ago

Given the 72.2% turnout[1] it was just 37.5% of the voting-eligible population that voted for Brexit. The whole Brexit saga makes me think more than ever that voting on issues of such national importance (including general elections) should be made mandatory. [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/how-did-turnout-affect-the-eu-referendum-result/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/how-did-turnout-a...

avar 10y ago
The referendum to enter the EU had a 64% turnout with 67.23% voting yes & 32.77% voting no. So that's around 43% that voted to enter[1]. Regardless, I think this entire line of reasoning makes no sense. You could dismiss pretty much any election by multiplying the "yes" votes with voter turnout to get less than 50%. That's just how democracies work, if you don't care enough to vote you don't get a say, that doesn't mean the opinions of people who do turn up should be given less weight. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun...
- anon1385 10y ago
  Well, the UK has run referendums that way in the past. Most famously the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. Yes got 51.62% but did not win because there was a requirement for 40% of the electorate to vote Yes for it to pass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum...
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Yup. One of the reasons why referenda are such a bad idea in the UK is that every single one has been run with different rules, usually for the purpose of putting a thumb on the scale. The Brexit referendum excluded resident EU nationals - who are allowed to vote in Parliamentary elections.
    - tehwalrus 10y ago
      Are they? I thought they could only vote in local authority and European elections. Parliamentary is only British and commonwealth citizens.
      - pjc50 10y ago
        Sorry, I was confused because they're allowed to vote in Scottish Parliamentary elections. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-can-register-to-vote http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registr... "Citizens of EU countries other than the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta cannot vote in UK Parliamentary general elections, but can vote at local government elections, Scottish Parliamentary elections if they are registered in Scotland, National Assembly for Wales elections if they are registered in Wales and Greater London Authority elections if they are registered in London. They can also vote at European Parliamentary elections if they fill in a form stating that they wish to vote in the UK and not in their home country" Bonus points to people who can give a rational non-imperialist argument as to why Ireland, Cyprus and Malta nationals get that privilege.
        cpcallen 10y ago
        The reason is that the UK is best buddies with Ireland, while Cyprus and Malta are members of the Commonwealth and so their citizens get the same privileges as all other Commonwealth citizens (including the right to vote in UK parliamentary elections). That's not a non-imperialist argument, but it is the reason.
        goodcanadian 10y ago
        Bonus points to people who can give a rational non-imperialist argument as to why Ireland, Cyprus and Malta nationals get that privilege. Well . . . the reason is pretty much imperialist in nature. In recent history, citizens of those countries (along with citizens of commonwealth countries) were unequivocally citizens of the United Kingdom. When the countries became independent, the UK government chose not to take away those erstwhile citizens' right to vote.
- nothrabannosir 10y ago
  That's just how democracies work Not really, no. Especially if it's not clear there's an option to say "idk". Say you care very much but don't know what's best? Does your vote not matter, now? If so, doesn't that make the election wrong? But how do you express that? There may be an answer to this deep inside some legislature chapter XVI section 16 paragraph b, but if people don't know, does that matter? Anyway, not saying that was the case for brexit. But "That's just how X works" is typically not the strongest argument. There are a hundred ways to implement a democracy, and they all have their own flaws.
  - josho 10y ago
    Good point. You can express an I don't know by spoiling your ballot. Unfortunately not many people consider this option. Nor is this approach perfect.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    > Say you care very much but don't know what's best? Does your vote not matter, now? Yes, your vote doesn't matter in that case, because you have no information to convey to the system: you have no preference. Only votes which are conveying a preference about how the situation should be handled are useful. There's no reason to distinguish between "I care, but don't have anything to say about the topic" and "I don't care" if you're not even willing to vote based on which candidate talks about the issues you care about, at least as far as elections go. Write a letter or something. Ed: In a slightly less snarky sense, your vote really doesn't matter at that point. The point you should participate in the process, if you feel candidates aren't addressing your issues, is way before that. It just requires actual amounts of time and effort to shift platforms, though, and participation beyond checking a box every year/few years.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - gravypod 10y ago
    > Especially if it's not clear there's an option to say "idk". There is: you don't go to vote.
- Veen 10y ago
  > That's just how democracies work Our democracy is a parliamentary democracy in which Parliament is supreme. We elect representatives so that they can make the decisions for us. Any referendum is really just advisory.
  - Nursie 10y ago
    I always wonder with people who say this - if the vote had gone the other way but Parliament decided to leave the EU anyway, would you still be saying the vote was only advisory so it's fine?
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      Rhetorical question, isn't it. Of course they wouldn't. Support for the EU is deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves: they need to delegate 'complex matters' to elite experts who, of course, only have the people's best interests at heart. The sudden belief that the referendum was only a fancy opinion poll entirely fits with this narrative.
      - Veen 10y ago
        > deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves Of course I believe that. Everyone who isn't a rabid libertarian or anarchist believes that, whichever side of political spectrum they come from. I imagine you believe it too to some degree. In representative democracies we don't rule ourselves, we choose the people who will rule us, which isn't the same thing at all. There's a lot of valid arguments to be had around the process of choosing, the institutions, and what power those chosen should have, but no serious person believes that the best solution for a species that lives in societies is for every member to rule themselves in every particular.
        Nursie 10y ago
        I think (s)he was talking about collectively ruling ourselves rather than individually. You don't have to be a rabid libertarian or anarchist to think that Direct Democracy has something to offer.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > You could dismiss pretty much any election by multiplying the "yes" votes with voter turnout to get less than 50%. Not in Australia. Here we have compulsory voting, and referendums have to have a double majority in order to pass (so there's no question about whether the majority of the people actually wanted the change). So multiplying by voter turnout would not meaningfully change the results (voter turnout is >95%). Maybe more countries should adopt mandatory voting...
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    How are voters compelled in practice?
    - Tomte 10y ago
      In the Austrian case I suppose "not at all", but usually compulsory voting doesn't mean that you're dragged to the urn, but that you're paying a fine if you donÄt vote.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      You get a fine if you're on the electoral roll but were not counted as "having voted". Since we have a private ballot system, you can write whatever you want on your ballot (so you can "abstain" by writing "fuck you all" on your ballot and it'll be considered an invalid vote). You don't get fined for placing an invalid vote, you just get fined if you don't show up (and didn't vote by post and so on). We have many different ways of voting, so it's designed to be as easy as possible for people to vote (in contrast to what I've heard from Americans). The fines are not that bad for first-time offenders but they're large enough that it discourages people from not voting (the fine gets larger for subsequent offenders). The rules for voting in elections and referendums are also the same (so the same fines apply).
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        Thank you, excellent explanation. And i don't think i even mind the system. :)
  - 10y ago
colmvp 10y ago
Kind of surprised that only 72.2% turned out, given the implications of the vote. When Quebec was voting for sovereignty in 1995, 93.52% of the eligible voters in the province voted. When Scotland voted for the same recently, it was around 85%. In any case though, if people don't want to show up, then why force them? I'd put the 'blame' on the campaigners for not underlining the importance to get out to vote to constituents.
- notahacker 10y ago
  "Do you prefer this complex, useful but far-from-ideal trade bloc to a raft of (mostly implausible) hypothetical alternative arrangements?" is a somewhat less basic question than "which country do you want to be part of?" though. 72.2% is high, considering the turnout at UK General Elections.
- youngtaff 10y ago
  Don't forget there were lots of people e.g. EU nationals who live and pay tax in the UK, who didn't have a vote
lordnacho 10y ago
This kind of argument only makes sense if there's a reason to think the people who didn't vote would be significantly different to the people who did. For instance you say only 37.5% of them voted to leave. That means you'd have to find fewer than 12.5% of the 27.8% who'd agree with them, basically 45% of the non-voters. So you need some sort of explanation of why a selection of the population, which is a lot of people, came out 52-48, while the non-voters would have come out 45-55. Without such an explanation, you'd have to think the law of large numbers would suggest that people who didn't vote were pretty much the same as the ones who did.

by exox 10y ago

avar 10y ago

The referendum to enter the EU had a 64% turnout with 67.23% voting yes & 32.77% voting no. So that's around 43% that voted to enter[1]. Regardless, I think this entire line of reasoning makes no sense. You could dismiss pretty much any election by multiplying the "yes" votes with voter turnout to get less than 50%. That's just how democracies work, if you don't care enough to vote you don't get a say, that doesn't mean the opinions of people who do turn up should be given less weight. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun...

anon1385 10y ago
Well, the UK has run referendums that way in the past. Most famously the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. Yes got 51.62% but did not win because there was a requirement for 40% of the electorate to vote Yes for it to pass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum...
- pjc50 10y ago
  Yup. One of the reasons why referenda are such a bad idea in the UK is that every single one has been run with different rules, usually for the purpose of putting a thumb on the scale. The Brexit referendum excluded resident EU nationals - who are allowed to vote in Parliamentary elections.
  - tehwalrus 10y ago
    Are they? I thought they could only vote in local authority and European elections. Parliamentary is only British and commonwealth citizens.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      Sorry, I was confused because they're allowed to vote in Scottish Parliamentary elections. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-can-register-to-vote http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registr... "Citizens of EU countries other than the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta cannot vote in UK Parliamentary general elections, but can vote at local government elections, Scottish Parliamentary elections if they are registered in Scotland, National Assembly for Wales elections if they are registered in Wales and Greater London Authority elections if they are registered in London. They can also vote at European Parliamentary elections if they fill in a form stating that they wish to vote in the UK and not in their home country" Bonus points to people who can give a rational non-imperialist argument as to why Ireland, Cyprus and Malta nationals get that privilege.
      - cpcallen 10y ago
        The reason is that the UK is best buddies with Ireland, while Cyprus and Malta are members of the Commonwealth and so their citizens get the same privileges as all other Commonwealth citizens (including the right to vote in UK parliamentary elections). That's not a non-imperialist argument, but it is the reason.
      - goodcanadian 10y ago
        Bonus points to people who can give a rational non-imperialist argument as to why Ireland, Cyprus and Malta nationals get that privilege. Well . . . the reason is pretty much imperialist in nature. In recent history, citizens of those countries (along with citizens of commonwealth countries) were unequivocally citizens of the United Kingdom. When the countries became independent, the UK government chose not to take away those erstwhile citizens' right to vote.
nothrabannosir 10y ago
That's just how democracies work Not really, no. Especially if it's not clear there's an option to say "idk". Say you care very much but don't know what's best? Does your vote not matter, now? If so, doesn't that make the election wrong? But how do you express that? There may be an answer to this deep inside some legislature chapter XVI section 16 paragraph b, but if people don't know, does that matter? Anyway, not saying that was the case for brexit. But "That's just how X works" is typically not the strongest argument. There are a hundred ways to implement a democracy, and they all have their own flaws.
- josho 10y ago
  Good point. You can express an I don't know by spoiling your ballot. Unfortunately not many people consider this option. Nor is this approach perfect.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  > Say you care very much but don't know what's best? Does your vote not matter, now? Yes, your vote doesn't matter in that case, because you have no information to convey to the system: you have no preference. Only votes which are conveying a preference about how the situation should be handled are useful. There's no reason to distinguish between "I care, but don't have anything to say about the topic" and "I don't care" if you're not even willing to vote based on which candidate talks about the issues you care about, at least as far as elections go. Write a letter or something. Ed: In a slightly less snarky sense, your vote really doesn't matter at that point. The point you should participate in the process, if you feel candidates aren't addressing your issues, is way before that. It just requires actual amounts of time and effort to shift platforms, though, and participation beyond checking a box every year/few years.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- gravypod 10y ago
  > Especially if it's not clear there's an option to say "idk". There is: you don't go to vote.
Veen 10y ago
> That's just how democracies work Our democracy is a parliamentary democracy in which Parliament is supreme. We elect representatives so that they can make the decisions for us. Any referendum is really just advisory.
- Nursie 10y ago
  I always wonder with people who say this - if the vote had gone the other way but Parliament decided to leave the EU anyway, would you still be saying the vote was only advisory so it's fine?
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    Rhetorical question, isn't it. Of course they wouldn't. Support for the EU is deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves: they need to delegate 'complex matters' to elite experts who, of course, only have the people's best interests at heart. The sudden belief that the referendum was only a fancy opinion poll entirely fits with this narrative.
    - Veen 10y ago
      > deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves Of course I believe that. Everyone who isn't a rabid libertarian or anarchist believes that, whichever side of political spectrum they come from. I imagine you believe it too to some degree. In representative democracies we don't rule ourselves, we choose the people who will rule us, which isn't the same thing at all. There's a lot of valid arguments to be had around the process of choosing, the institutions, and what power those chosen should have, but no serious person believes that the best solution for a species that lives in societies is for every member to rule themselves in every particular.
      - Nursie 10y ago
        I think (s)he was talking about collectively ruling ourselves rather than individually. You don't have to be a rabid libertarian or anarchist to think that Direct Democracy has something to offer.
cyphar 10y ago
> You could dismiss pretty much any election by multiplying the "yes" votes with voter turnout to get less than 50%. Not in Australia. Here we have compulsory voting, and referendums have to have a double majority in order to pass (so there's no question about whether the majority of the people actually wanted the change). So multiplying by voter turnout would not meaningfully change the results (voter turnout is >95%). Maybe more countries should adopt mandatory voting...
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  How are voters compelled in practice?
  - Tomte 10y ago
    In the Austrian case I suppose "not at all", but usually compulsory voting doesn't mean that you're dragged to the urn, but that you're paying a fine if you donÄt vote.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    You get a fine if you're on the electoral roll but were not counted as "having voted". Since we have a private ballot system, you can write whatever you want on your ballot (so you can "abstain" by writing "fuck you all" on your ballot and it'll be considered an invalid vote). You don't get fined for placing an invalid vote, you just get fined if you don't show up (and didn't vote by post and so on). We have many different ways of voting, so it's designed to be as easy as possible for people to vote (in contrast to what I've heard from Americans). The fines are not that bad for first-time offenders but they're large enough that it discourages people from not voting (the fine gets larger for subsequent offenders). The rules for voting in elections and referendums are also the same (so the same fines apply).
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      Thank you, excellent explanation. And i don't think i even mind the system. :)
- 10y ago

colmvp 10y ago

Kind of surprised that only 72.2% turned out, given the implications of the vote. When Quebec was voting for sovereignty in 1995, 93.52% of the eligible voters in the province voted. When Scotland voted for the same recently, it was around 85%. In any case though, if people don't want to show up, then why force them? I'd put the 'blame' on the campaigners for not underlining the importance to get out to vote to constituents.

notahacker 10y ago
"Do you prefer this complex, useful but far-from-ideal trade bloc to a raft of (mostly implausible) hypothetical alternative arrangements?" is a somewhat less basic question than "which country do you want to be part of?" though. 72.2% is high, considering the turnout at UK General Elections.
youngtaff 10y ago
Don't forget there were lots of people e.g. EU nationals who live and pay tax in the UK, who didn't have a vote

lordnacho 10y ago

This kind of argument only makes sense if there's a reason to think the people who didn't vote would be significantly different to the people who did. For instance you say only 37.5% of them voted to leave. That means you'd have to find fewer than 12.5% of the 27.8% who'd agree with them, basically 45% of the non-voters. So you need some sort of explanation of why a selection of the population, which is a lot of people, came out 52-48, while the non-voters would have come out 45-55. Without such an explanation, you'd have to think the law of large numbers would suggest that people who didn't vote were pretty much the same as the ones who did.