3 ms·

In either situation it didn’t change the numbers dramatically. About half of voters actually want what is happening to the country.

• wat10000 2y ago
  Which makes it insane that such massive disruption can happen as a result. When the result is balanced on a knife edge, the outcome ought to reflect that, instead of swinging dramatically one way or the other. I don’t know how you design a system like that, but this is nuts.
  • School-Cotton 2y ago
    The US was the first modern democracy, since then we’ve learned how to make better ones (proportional representation parliamentary systems), but the US system is just stable enough to keep limping along.
  • chgs 2y ago
    A similar number removed citizenship from all Brits in 2016. A few hundred votes slipped the US election in 2000 and caused the invasion of Iraq. You tackle this by having societal norms and strong institutions. The internet broke that. The concentration of wealth broke that. The unprecedented algorithmic manipulation broke that. Some love it.
    • wat10000 2y ago
      Brexit was especially wild. At least the US has the excuse that the law says we do it this way. To make such a drastic change based on a simple majority in a nonbinding referendum is really out there.