Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackbinary | Hacker News Reader

Okay, first, why the downvote? My points are valid, and they add to conversation: Quorum is an important question. 26% of the population voted to leave, a great many of whom won't be alive in the next 10 years. 25% voted to remain, most of whom will be alive in the next 30-40 years.

And by your logic, similarly, a larger proportion of the population voted to \remain\ than in the US Election. Just because

Also, there are a very many important rights afforded to UK citizens by virtue of their treaty rights, which they will lose on actual Exit from the EU. The UK had a good in the EU, and it is shocking that we are chucking it away so frivolously.

View on HN

I didn't downvote but I found your point utterly specious. Meetings have quorum rules to prevent skulduggery, a minority group colluding to pack a low-attendance meeting and vote on momentous issues. A national referendum is open to anyone eligible who cares to vote.

Let's say, fantastically, only one person had turned out to vote in the Brexit referendum, and the whole thing were decided by one vote to nought. So long as the referendum had been free and fair, adequately publicised and properly counted, it would completely represent the will of the whole country. Elections are decided on the opinion of those who bother to come out and vote.

As for the regions and demographics, it's a decision for the whole United Kingdom. Are there actually any serious alternative ideas to giving one vote to each living adult person?

p.s. I voted Remain and agree with 'chucking it away so frivolously'. I just think trying to re-slice the sausage different ways based on subsets of the voting is pointless.

The Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, had to have a minimum threshold of 40% of the population voting yes. Furthermore, the Clarity Act of Canada implying some sort of 'quorum' by stating "Giving the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority had expressed itself following any referendum vote, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success" for the independance of a province of Canada, but generally thought of as Quebec.

There is the legal principle of maintaining the 'status quo' and the preponderance of maintaining the status quo to maintaining a stable and governable society. My contention is that if 26% of the populace can decide the destiny of the wider society, and by a very slim margin, then democracy has not been served. If it was 26% to 10% that would be a different story, but it was not, it was 26% to 25% and that is a very slim margin indeed.

Note that the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979 had a minimum threshold of 40% of the electorate. This meant registered voters. If you want to make a fair comparison to brexit, 37% of the electorate voted to leave.

So it was 33% of the electorate voted /for/ the national assembly in 1979.

I downvoted for "not democracy" and "tyranny of the minority". They are hyperbolic statements you would likely not be making if your side won, especially given what you based these statements on are present in every open, contentious vote ever, would still be true even if your side won, and only serves to inflame the conversation.

I think they would only be 'hyperbolic' if the corollary wouldn't be true. As in, if there was a second referendum held now, the 'join' side would likely win.

If 'my side had won' then that would have meant that the status quo would have 'remained'. It is a shockingly low threshold that 25-26% of the population could make such a large decision. That is my point. The threshold should have been higher.

So, in my view, 'tyranny of the minority' holds true. 26% of the UK polulation is a minority of that population.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com