3 ms·
It's an argument against referendums, especially when they only require a simple majority required to pass. The Brexit referendum passed with about 52% of votes
by twblalock 6y ago
It's an argument against referendums, especially when they only require a simple majority required to pass. The Brexit referendum passed with about 52% of votes in favor -- not exactly a landslide.
Really big changes ought to have a higher bar than just a simple majority. A 2/3 majority is a much higher bar to overcome, and in the case of a referendum, it would mean the result represents the consensus view of the people, not just one side in a bitterly divided close fight.
- vidarh 6y agoI've long argued referendums ought to require supermajorities based on how easy the change voted on is to undo and an assessment of the extent of the change. It encourages the side that wants change to aim to find ways to minimise the change they ask for and maximise the viability of reversal to lower the bar for the vote. Achieving a reasonably objective assessment of what the required majority should be would be very hard, though.
- sgnelson 6y agoI was literally typing up the same thing when I read this. Anytime a simple majority can have such a large impact, it's probably a bad idea. It might not be tyranny of the majority in the classic sense, but it's "tyranny of the half plus one."
- ben_w 6y agoWhile it’s very tempting to say that (especially since Farage said something like “52% would be unfinished business” shortly before the result), IIRC the distribution of Leave voters was much more politically relevant than it merely being 52% – from what I remember it was such that, under the FPTP/constituency combination, it represented an overwhelming majority of constituencies if it had been a GE.