I’m trying to figure out how the U.K. can make decisions given that very few will have a literal majority given that there are so many non-voters (eg, babies and comatose).
What is a better form of determining the will of the people than an election?
In the US there is a constitution so huge changes can’t be made by referendum. Would the U.K. adapt a system like that? And how could they if it required 50.1% of every soul in the U.K. to vote for it?
China governs very well as an autocracy, if I had to measure by the quality of life of its citizens. Yes, their will is not expressed through representation, but China has done more than any other nation or company to pull an enormous amount of humans out of poverty in a short amount of time. They have traded a reduction in representation and exerted will for a reduction in suffering.
It's a similar thought exercise to "What is success?" I cannot answer your question unfortunately.
My ideal state is where the government executed the will of the people in spirit but not in letter. (Ie, people want heroin literally but happiness and freedom in spirit)
The United States has two branches of Congress to insulate the country from the whims of the mob. Pure democracy has long been derided as an anti-pattern in government.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” -- Winston Churchill (edit: supposedly Churchill did not say this; I'm keeping it, as it helps express the idea)
Disclaimer: American
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-majority-of-british-peo... (POLL: A majority of British people regret voting for Brexit)
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-polls/britain-... (Britain would now vote to stay in the EU by six point margin, new poll shows)
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vot... (‘I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who regret voting leave)
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United... (Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum)
Why not just leave major decisions to a committee, if we're going to pick and choose which elections are decided "correctly."
We do this in the US, but the committee is formed of three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. People vote for representatives. Representatives enact legislation or executive orders. Those legislation or executive orders can be challenged by our judicial branch and thrown out, regardless of the will of the people and their representatives (see: same sex marriage, abortion, asking people if they're citizens on our census, blocking immigration from countries based on religion, laws that bring about voter suppression). Works well, checks and balances and all that.
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest...
Besides, given the quality and moral scruples of "decision makers" that governments are usually comprised of, why would you so completely trust them with the fate of the republic in the first place, especially if the populace does not have the benefit of either the first or the second amendment of US constitution?
This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain. You can't pick and choose. If your position is that government knows best, you should be prepared that the government will make decisions you don't like, too.
Your bet would be wrong. If the data showed exit was superior, I'd hope the government went for it. I am entirely comfortable with the government making decisions I don't like; I'm American and am used it it.
1. Stay
2. Soft leave (May's deal)
3. Hard leave (No deal)
With months and months of nonstop coverage, one could now say that there's broad understanding of what these precise options mean (though probably not their longer-term consequences, especially of option 3).
In any case, you don't have to be "ignoring the will of the people" to go back and ask again now that there's better information.
Could you make the same argument that people voted yes for multiple reasons?
I think it’s difficult to see an outcome where a single referendum would be sufficient to solve all doubt.
Especially with three options, if no option has majority would you stick with original referendum? Or not exit?
In any case, the point of a ranked ballot is you use runoff to reallocate the last place option votes, so you do get a clear majority in the end.
In particular, "reallocate the last place votes" could lead to quickly rejecting an option that is hardly anybody's first choice, yet is everyone's second choice (or preferred fallback if they can't have their first choice). That doesn't seem like a desirable outcome.
And what about the leavers? What justification would be sufficient for them to not call for a 3rd referendum.
I didn’t know that the UK used ranked ballots or how common they are.
My concern is largely that it’s hard for me to understand well given that all of these issues existed before the referendum and are not novel.
If you just default to force something through would violate the rights of those who voted for members who are voting "No" to the deal.
Call it a runoff referendum.
Having it as a ranked ballot with runoff allows the further refinement of distinguishing between options like:
- I'd like a soft Brexit, and if I can't have that, I'd prefer a hard Brexit over remaining.
- I'd really like to remain, but if I can't have that I'd rather a soft Brexit.
- I'd really like to remain, and I have no second choice.
Why should a single non-binding vote taken at one point in time two years ago be considered forever irrevocable? Especially considering all of the pro-Brexit fake news and false promises at the time? Most of the promises made by the Brexiteers have turned out to be lies; the UK will not be better off, the NHS will not be better funded, etc. Given how so many underlying rationales for pro-Brexit votes have turned out to be false, of course it makes sense that a different result would be obtained today.
Assuming the UK wants to remain a sovereign nation rather than an EU client.
Quite extreme, I know. My point is that the government is elected to make decisions taking the economical and political consequences into account.
Expecting the general public opinion to be the end-all response to whatever decision is simply wrong.