4 ms·

One thing I have trouble with understanding that in a normal democratic system all of us (I hope) reasonably expect that democracy and elections are a continuou

One thing I have trouble with understanding that in a normal democratic system all of us (I hope) reasonably expect that democracy and elections are a continuous process, a repeated game (I'd say without this repetition, we're not really talking about a democracy any more). I might vote for a certain party now hoping that they implement what they promise, or at least a substantial part of it that satisfies me as a voter. They might also not, however. Sometimes voters get disappointed, change their ideas, viewpoints, or their personal life simply changes. No matter, the populace as a whole gets a chance to vote in new people and parties next time around. It's exactly this willingness to change one's viewpoint or political orientation which embodies the responsibility voters carry to maintain this democratic process. Why is this referendum that fundamentally different? A lot of things have changed, a lot of issues have occurred. I also don't see why subdividing the options would be that harmful. Otherwise, following your reasoning, a two-party system would also be the best system in any democratic country (either this person, or that other fellow).

vkou 7y ago
The reason repeating referendum questions rubs people the wrong way is because you're changing the rules under them. In a democracy, we know that an election will take place every 4 years/5 years/whenever the government fails a vote of confidence. Those are the rules, we vote for people with that expectation. (I also believe that representative democracy is rubbish, but that's neither here nor there.) In a referendum, you are asked a question. Should Brexit happen, or not. Not 'Should Brexit happen, oh, and if we don't like the outcome, should we have another referendum?' I supposed that technically, nothing about posing a referendum question precludes another referendum from taking place, before the first referendum is enacted into law. But can you imagine if, when we had an election, if the government didn't like the result, they'd just delay transitioning power to the winners, and would instead host another election? And another one? And another one, until they win? It's also not clear that in the past three years, a single person living on the British Isles has changed their opinion on the matter of whether or not Brexit should actually happen.
- jibal 7y ago
  "The reason repeating referendum questions rubs people the wrong way is because you're changing the rules under them." No rules are being changed, and "people" is obviously too broad here. "In a referendum, you are asked a question. Should Brexit happen, or not. Not 'Should Brexit happen, oh, and if we don't like the outcome, should we have another referendum?'" Who is "we" here? The folks who want a new referendum are those who regret the outcome of the first one for various reasons, including being lied to. "if the government didn't like the result, they'd just delay transitioning power to the winners, and would instead host another election? And another one? And another one, until they win?" It's not "the government" who doesn't like the result. This framing is invalid, and frequently intentionally so. "It's also not clear that in the past three years, a single person living on the British Isles has changed their opinion on the matter of whether or not Brexit should actually happen." It is extremely clear that many have. If not, there wouldn't be so much pushback against another referendum.
pessimizer 7y ago
> A lot of things have changed, a lot of issues have occurred. Have they? The problem with this vision of a continuous process is an obvious one. The people (Parliament) who have both the power to call a referendum and to delay Brexit overwhelmingly support remain. There's nothing stopping them from delaying and holding referendums until they get the answer they want. Virtually none have made any effort to design any kind of a Brexit (other than May, who really came back with the most obvious and possible plan that anyone would have expected her to), which looks like they're planning to fail. That Parliament is trying every possible way to cancel doing something they didn't want to do in the first place seems utterly unsurprising. Britain had a bit of a sweetheart deal in the EU, anyway, it's no wonder that they aren't willing to give them an even better deal in some sort of half-exit.

vkou 7y ago

The reason repeating referendum questions rubs people the wrong way is because you're changing the rules under them. In a democracy, we know that an election will take place every 4 years/5 years/whenever the government fails a vote of confidence. Those are the rules, we vote for people with that expectation. (I also believe that representative democracy is rubbish, but that's neither here nor there.) In a referendum, you are asked a question. Should Brexit happen, or not. Not 'Should Brexit happen, oh, and if we don't like the outcome, should we have another referendum?' I supposed that technically, nothing about posing a referendum question precludes another referendum from taking place, before the first referendum is enacted into law. But can you imagine if, when we had an election, if the government didn't like the result, they'd just delay transitioning power to the winners, and would instead host another election? And another one? And another one, until they win? It's also not clear that in the past three years, a single person living on the British Isles has changed their opinion on the matter of whether or not Brexit should actually happen.

jibal 7y ago
"The reason repeating referendum questions rubs people the wrong way is because you're changing the rules under them." No rules are being changed, and "people" is obviously too broad here. "In a referendum, you are asked a question. Should Brexit happen, or not. Not 'Should Brexit happen, oh, and if we don't like the outcome, should we have another referendum?'" Who is "we" here? The folks who want a new referendum are those who regret the outcome of the first one for various reasons, including being lied to. "if the government didn't like the result, they'd just delay transitioning power to the winners, and would instead host another election? And another one? And another one, until they win?" It's not "the government" who doesn't like the result. This framing is invalid, and frequently intentionally so. "It's also not clear that in the past three years, a single person living on the British Isles has changed their opinion on the matter of whether or not Brexit should actually happen." It is extremely clear that many have. If not, there wouldn't be so much pushback against another referendum.

pessimizer 7y ago

> A lot of things have changed, a lot of issues have occurred. Have they? The problem with this vision of a continuous process is an obvious one. The people (Parliament) who have both the power to call a referendum and to delay Brexit overwhelmingly support remain. There's nothing stopping them from delaying and holding referendums until they get the answer they want. Virtually none have made any effort to design any kind of a Brexit (other than May, who really came back with the most obvious and possible plan that anyone would have expected her to), which looks like they're planning to fail. That Parliament is trying every possible way to cancel doing something they didn't want to do in the first place seems utterly unsurprising. Britain had a bit of a sweetheart deal in the EU, anyway, it's no wonder that they aren't willing to give them an even better deal in some sort of half-exit.