4 ms·
I dunno about undemocratic, but definitely tainted by the smell of "keep voting until we get the right result", which has its own problems.
by meddlepal 8y ago
I dunno about undemocratic, but definitely tainted by the smell of "keep voting until we get the right result", which has its own problems.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tzmudzin 8y agoSure. At the same time there is a difference in voting on a vague concept and voting on a specific agreement.
- Piskvorrr 8y agoSo, any choice ever made is permanent, never mind if the conditions change? Oh. How come the 1975 referendum is invalid then, and a new one was needed? Smells like "keep voting etc" ;o)
- coldtea 8y agoThere were 43 years in between. If you do a new one before you even enforce the decision of the previous referendum it's hardly democracy, it's "keep voting".
- Piskvorrr 8y agoLooking at how the prospect of Brexit changed from "we'll bring you Empire 3000 and a pony" through "meh, it was all lies, but we won, nyah nyah" to "at least it won't be much worse than the Blitz...we hope," I believe that the conditions have changed enough. But whatever, let the British drive off a cliff if they so fervently desire their Splendid Isolation. Indeed, as you say, who am I to tell them "that's patently idiotic," even if I do think so.
- krapp 8y ago>So, any choice ever made is permanent, never mind if the conditions change? Yes. That's the entire premise of a voting process. The will of the people who vote, at the time the vote is taken, is binding even if they change their minds later.
- Piskvorrr 8y agoOk, that makes sense. (I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole technicality of "binding" vs. "advisory")
- vkou 8y agoMany parliamentary democracies have recall processes, where you can vote to remove someone that you voted to elect. It's occasionally used when voters realize that what they voted for was incredibly stupid. So yes, you do get take-backsies in democracies.
- krapp 8y agoIf an existing process allows for it then I wouldn't consider that a "take-back." I guess it depends on the system involved. You can't just decide a vote doesn't count because you don't like the outcome, though. Setting that precedent would mean no one who disagreed with a result would ever accept its legitimacy. There has to be a limit set somewhere.
- vkou 8y agoYou can, though, in matters of legislature and referendum. A vote passing is not a suicide pact that locks you into that course of action between now and the heat death of the universe. It's possible to pass something, and then do another vote, later, to revert the changes you've made. Likewise, in a parliament, you can keep bringing an issue up to a vote over, and over, and over again (See: Everything that Congress did after passing Obamacare). There's occasionally some set of procedures that prevents this kind of denial-of-service from being used all the time... And occasionally not. This happens in referendums, as well. The same issue appears on the ballot every few years, until the people pushing it get 50% + 1 support for it. It's often the only way to actually get social progress. Keep hammering on your pet issue, until enough people agree with you, and it wins. As long as you're not breaking any laws, or referendum procedures, it's completely fair game.
- petre 8y agoThe ’75 referendum was for joining the EEC not the EU.