The Newsroom

BBC Parliament to repeat EU referendum results

Sat 23rd June (June 2018)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
SP
Steve in Pudsey
Indeed, and if Cameron and co wanted a binding referendum they should have legislated as such rather than persuading MPs to drop amendments introducing a threshold because "it's only advisory". That kind of bait and switch is entirely unacceptable.

The other issue we have is that everyone knew what remain meant, the status quo. Leave was so ill-defined that it made it inevitable that it would win, because it meant that every snake-oil salesman could tell people whatever they wanted to hear.

That is why we have the great paradox that there is no way of leaving that all of the 52% will accept, because they all think they voted for a different outcome from this, particularly on the single market (Hannan, D: absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market, and others). Even if it's only 3% who believed that, add them to the remain vote and you have a majority for remaining in the single market.

Add to that May's "give me more seats to strengthen my negotating position" General Election, in which she lost her majority - a clear vote of no confidence in the trajectory she is leading us down, and in any other circumstance would be a resignation matter - but is carrying on regardless, it's clear to see why people don't feel that this is very democratic.
BA
bilky asko
cityprod posted:
bilky asko posted:
james-2001 posted:

Well Donald Trump WON with over twice that many fewer votes than Hillary clinton, so you know...

In terms of 33 million people voting- 1.2 million just isn't a huge margin. Certainly not big enough to ride roughshod over the country, declare it the "will of the people" and not even try to compromise. Most major consitutional referendums in the world need a much bigger margin than that to pass, 50% just isn't enough for such a massive issue with such big consequences.

And I'm sure 1.2 million wouldn't be seen as such a big margin by the brexiteers had it been a remain victory won on a pack of lies...


The American electoral system is broken and always has been.

The margin is large because the turnout was high. The chances of getting such a turnout again are slim to nil; if it were a low turnout, then the margin would be more defeatable and much less significant.


You do realise you're talking absolute rubbish.

The turnout was around 55%. 8 years earlier, the turnout had been 58%. Since WW2, the highest turnout for an election had been 62.8% in 1960. The lowest since WW2, was Bill Clinton's second term in 1996, where the turnout was 49%. The average turnout prior to 2016 since WW2, was 55.6%, so 2016 scores as right around average turnout. It wasn't a high turnout at all.

The record for turnout in an American Presidential Election, was the 1876 election of Rutherford B Hayes, where 81.8% of the electorate turned out to vote. So, even on a historic basis, this is low.


The first sentence doesn't relate to the rest the post, which deals with the EU Referendum.
CI
cityprod
Hatton Cross posted:
cityprod posted:
james-2001 posted:
I don't think the threshold should be that high, but it should certainly be higher than a simple 50%+1 of the people who bothered to vote.


There's a mathematical reason why I selected that threshold. On a 75% turnout, a 2/3rds majority equates to a majority of everybody, even those who didn't vote. Getting over that point, means there can be no arguement, that it is the will of the people, unlike currently, when the maths do ot allow for anybody making that claim to have it have any validity.


Next time there is a referendum, a minimum turnout and a clear water margin percentage of victory should be declared. The EU referendum should have been 75.1+% and clear margin of +2%.

Indeed, whenever I hear a little England racis.. sorry, Brexiteer trot out that phrase, I like to remember them the correct wording should be 'the will of just over half of the British people, and even then, just under three quarters of the population'.


Either you don't get maths, or you don't understand elections and referendums, in which case, what are you doing commenting?

If the electorate is 200 people, and 151 vote (hence more than 75%), and 101 vote for something (more than two thirds of those who voted), and 50 against, that's a decisive victory, and therefore, would pass the requirements.

Oh and I don't hear many Brexiteers trotting out Mathematics to support their claims, mainly because their brains can't handle it.
AS
Asa Admin
Was hoping this would get back on topic but this isn’t the place for another Brexit discussion. The programme is on the 23rd, feel free to create a new thread then to discuss the show.

Newer posts