4 ms·

> I was told it was a once in a generation vote - has that changed? What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote? How often should these type of ref

> I was told it was a once in a generation vote - has that changed? What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote? How often should these type of referenda be held? I don't think there's any fixed answer to such a question. But I'd say that if the population in general clearly changes their answer, then that merits putting that change in practice. > Yes, you must forgive me for thinking that principles and promises are worth sticking to. I should be as cynical as politicians and simply go by what is convenient, right? Yup. I'm a consequentialist. I care extremely little about iron-clad principles, and instead think that the thing we should be optimizing for is outcomes. There's no reason to live under the wrong outcome for the sake of some sort of idealism that brings no benefit to anyone. Rules can be changed as necessary, and promises can be reneged on (though IMO such promises shouldn't be made in the first place).

brigandish 4y ago
> I care extremely little about iron-clad principles, and instead think that the thing we should be optimizing for is outcomes. The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes. > There's no reason to live under the wrong outcome for the sake of some sort of idealism that brings no benefit to anyone. Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom? Re-running votes because you lost is of benefit to the whole of society how? Others in this thread have pointed out the opportunity cost problem, and the bias problem of re-running votes too often. > Rules can be changed as necessary Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time. The only thing that's of any significance that's changed is Brexit, and yet we had the SNP crowing the other day about how it's bringing in more outside investment than the rest of the UK (which was another mendacity, but what isn't from them?). They were also aware of UKIP and its support, and surely the anti-EU support within their own ranks at the time. There is no necessity here.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes. Having principles optimizes for consistency, not outcomes. To me, turning around on a dime 10 times a day can be perfectly justified, so long that in the end you end up somewhere better than before. Same as going forward in the same direction for a thousand years, so long that's the thing that works. > Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom? The voters who want the policy they propose. > Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time. That's quite unimportant to my point here. I'm not talking about UK politics, but specifically rejecting your view of "once in a generation choice". I wouldn't make such promises myself, and would ignore concerns about breaking such a promise. "Once in a generation" to me is never a legitimate rule. "However often, and whenever needed" is. If somebody made that promise, I'm all for breaking it whenever it seems there's any benefit from it.

brigandish 4y ago

> I care extremely little about iron-clad principles, and instead think that the thing we should be optimizing for is outcomes. The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes. > There's no reason to live under the wrong outcome for the sake of some sort of idealism that brings no benefit to anyone. Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom? Re-running votes because you lost is of benefit to the whole of society how? Others in this thread have pointed out the opportunity cost problem, and the bias problem of re-running votes too often. > Rules can be changed as necessary Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time. The only thing that's of any significance that's changed is Brexit, and yet we had the SNP crowing the other day about how it's bringing in more outside investment than the rest of the UK (which was another mendacity, but what isn't from them?). They were also aware of UKIP and its support, and surely the anti-EU support within their own ranks at the time. There is no necessity here.

dale_glass 4y ago
> The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes. Having principles optimizes for consistency, not outcomes. To me, turning around on a dime 10 times a day can be perfectly justified, so long that in the end you end up somewhere better than before. Same as going forward in the same direction for a thousand years, so long that's the thing that works. > Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom? The voters who want the policy they propose. > Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time. That's quite unimportant to my point here. I'm not talking about UK politics, but specifically rejecting your view of "once in a generation choice". I wouldn't make such promises myself, and would ignore concerns about breaking such a promise. "Once in a generation" to me is never a legitimate rule. "However often, and whenever needed" is. If somebody made that promise, I'm all for breaking it whenever it seems there's any benefit from it.