It's amazing that such deep constitutional change will be achieved with such a slim majority. 48% of British people will be ejected out of the EU essentially against their will. The UK has always embraced first past the post voting, but it really shows here how it creates very discontinuous inflection points.
Isn't it insane how close the race between G.W. Bush and Al Gore was in 2000? Consider the consequences of that decision for a moment. And the voter turnout was only 51.2% in that election, not ~70%. Saying that in the end a small amount of voters make all the difference, that's true in so many cases...
At least regarding the Brexit-vote no one can complain that there wasn't a discussion about the issues, everyone spoke out, politicians, musicians, actors, companies, banks, ... and the people were bombarded with information and arguments for months. And the people have spoken.
(Others have pointed out that this is not legally binding, true, but it's certainly going to happen. There is no other viable way at this point)
If 51% of voters choose to murder all minorities, would that be allowed? The US has constitutionalism which requires supermajorities to effect fundamental changes. It slows down progress on issues like universal health care, but when progress is made, it is rarely rolled back.
The point is that majorities are allowed to make some decisions, not all. At the broadest level, there are rights which no majority can take away. Some fundamental changes require super majorities. Then at a geographical level, decision making can also be split. Local councils handle local affairs. Devolution allows some decisions to be made at a regional level. While many Brits bristle at decisions being made in far off Brussels, many Scots bristle at decisions made in London.
If only more people understood this. It's frustrating how often people focus on the moral element of a comparison to the exclusion of the actual point being made.
> "If 51% of voters choose to murder all minorities, would that be allowed"
If you feel the need to resort to such hyperbolic examples to make your point, then you should really reevaluate whether or not you actually have a point worth making.
I don't think there was ever a supermajority for going in (and the EU has gradually crept into something much bigger than it originally was), so it doesn't make much sense to require a supermajority for getting out.
> It slows down progress on issues like universal health care
That's an odd example because somewhere around half the U.S. feels like the ACA was jammed through without a supermajority of popular approval.
Also, there are many who think mandating the purchase of a product (health insurance) is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that they could squint at the law and call it a tax, but the bill was never passed as a 'health insurance tax', which goes back to popular approval.
Anyway, maybe civil rights reforms, the direct election of senators, or lowering the voting age would be better examples.
It actually was a supermajority of 60 senators that passed it. The House concurred, the President signed it, and five supreme court justices repeatedly affirmed it. These all reflect different cross sections of voting behaviour. A majority of Congress now wants to repeal it, but that majority is checked and balanced by the need to get the President on board as well. I generally dislike how the system favors the status quo, but I think in many cases, it has helped avoid extreme outcomes.
> It actually was a supermajority of 60 senators that passed it.
I was talking about popular support. It didn't have 60% approval of the voting public. In fact, that wouldn't have even been possible because it was a monster of a bill they were trying to cram through. It was so haphazard that some Supreme Court decisions were about what to do when the bill itself doesn't make sense.
And you mischaracterized the Supreme Court decision. The legal precedent was that an individual tax on not having healthcare is legal as long as it's not too onerous. That was a very odd decision because that tax was not the plan as presented to the American public. The whole process was convoluted, which brings its legitimacy into question.
Again, big decisions should have clear support from the American people. Deciding people can be taxed for nothing (not having healthcare) is a change in the rules of the game and should have required an amendment, IMO.
I recently read a point which made a lot of sense to me: that regular, multi-party elections are much less winner-takes-all than referendums. Even if they aren't run under proportional systems, a government can be thrown out and replaced, its policies changed, so there's always a chance for a do-over, it's always worth waiting rather than throwing a fist. A referendum, while it technically can be re-run, tends to burn out the public's willingness to listen, while decisively fixing a choice that can no longer be changed. So it's much more divisive and traumatic.
So there's democracy and democracy, basically. And they aren't the same.
> And the voter turnout was only 51.2% in that election, not ~70%. Saying that in the end a small amount of voters make all the difference, that's true in so many cases...
And the voter turnout in the US only matters for the 18 or so contested states - so it's misleading to talk about really..
Absolutely not. Democracy means decisions made by the people. There's NOTHING about the concept of Democracy that requires using THE WORST possible method of decision-making, i.e. majority rule yes/no.
There's all sorts of other ways to make collective decisions such as score voting, consensus, requiring approval from a combination of stakeholders (such as in a case like this requiring that all parts of the UK all approve), and so on. Majority rule brings tyranny of the majority and is the worst way to run a democracy.
I don't think you should be getting downvoted. I totally agree with this. Plurality voting is awful, and at least in the US, probably the most fundamentally broken part of politics. There's a good organization that is working to promote better voting methods, the Center for Election Science, that people should take a look at if they doubt this: https://electology.org/
In reality, staying in or leaving the EU is a lot more complicated than a simple two-way choice. The two most obvious paths for exit - leaving the free trade area altogether and somehow joining the EFTA and retaining free trade - have less in common with each other than they do with remaining in the EU. Then there's the issue of what to do if we can't meet the Leave campaign's promises, which seems almost certain as they're self-contradictory and beyond optimistic, but couldn't be guaranteed even if they were more reasonable since so much depends on negotiations with the rest of Europe.
Score voting works perfectly fine with 2 choices. There's no basis to say otherwise.
Consider simple realistic hypothetical: what if 10% of the pro-Brexit voters are gung-ho and 90% are only slightly leaning toward it with a lot of hesitation; and 90% of the anti-Brexit voters are strongly opposed to the Brexit? With score voting, the pro-Brexit voters can still be majority but the decision will be voted down because the pro-Brexit voters weren't as sure. Even if the majority of voters decide to vote strategically, it would make a difference. I know I would never vote extreme one side or the other on something I myself actually feel conflicted about.
For clarity, instead of scoring 1-10 on "yes" as an option and 1-10 on "no" as an option, it makes more sense for yes/no votes to be on a standard strongly-disagree/disagree/somewhat-disagree/somewhat-agree etc. scale.
I'm not advocating for unanimous support as a mechanism. Tyranny of the minority is shitty, yes.
We absolutely know better ways that FPTP. Score voting is better, period. And just like FPTP can still put the post at higher than 50% (which is necessary for major systematic changes like this), score voting can put a requirement on what level of average score is needed to pass a measure.
Good luck doing this in practice. What looks good on paper and what works in reality is not always the same. And making elections more complicated might not be the best way to go.
I didn't advocate for making elections more complicated. There are lots of stupid ways to get more complicated. Score voting is not complicated at all. It's the same damn thing as rating books on Amazon.com or whatever.
And even a simple vote can (and in most cases DOES already) simply set the post further than 50% mark for decisions of such fundamental significance.
Just for comparison: to pass a US Constitutional Amendment, it requires consent of 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of all US states. Treaties require consent of the President and 2/3 of the Senate.
And none of those -- even if you assume every representative in every body involved is elected solely based on their position on the issue in question and votes in accordance with the position on which they got elected -- requires even a majority (much less a 2/3 or 3/4 supermajority) in the electorate.
You do under stand that those 3/4 and 2/3 representatives can all be elected with 51% of the vote right?
So if a hot upstart party filled both houses of the Congress with 51% win margins per representative, they can then easily pass a constitutional amendment.
and the US has the absolute worst recording on changing their constitution. The last amendment (the 27th) was ratified in 1992 and took nearly 203 years to become law. I think they should lower the barriers to getting stuff done.
Absolutely not. Changing the structural framwork of the nation is not something to be done based on an issue's short term popularity. If the issue can maintain consistent support for a decade or more that's a lot better signal that it might be a good long-term idea.
What an incredibly misleading statement. Even a minimal review of the history[1] shows that the 27th amendment was not under consideration for 203 years; rather, it was originally proposed in 1789, and interest in it was not revived for roughly 200 years.
As to the other amendments[2], 203 years is an extreme and unrepresentative outlier. The original bill of rights took a little over 2 years to ratify, and nearly all of the rest have taken under 1.5 years. The only one to take longer than 3 years was the highly controversial 16th amendment.
The wikipedia article you quote doesn't back up your claim. In fact quite the opposite.
From the article.
1) The 27th amendment was first introduced in the house in 1789.
It was first ratified by a state in 1789 "Maryland – December 19, 1789"
It was last ratified in 1992 "Michigan – May 7, 1992"
This is the most shocking thing to me. It's almost non-negliible. It makes me feel slightly better about living in a republic like the US as opposed to a direct democracy.
This is not direct democracy. This referendum is not legally binding. In theory, the government could ignore this result. However, all major parties have stated they would follow the result.
There will be discussion about how soon to file the request to leave, though (actually, that is being discussed on the BBC right now. Problem is that the rules say that, after the request is made, a country must leave within two years. It may be smarter to make sure one can comply with that schedule before formally applying for an exit. Also, they were talking about timing the formal request w.r.t. upcoming elections in France and Germany)
It's technically a non binding referendum, and the UK is not a direct democracy. And you can't have something other than FPTP for a two choice decision. Unless you raise the barrier for change.
If you get consistent splits of that nature, you should really look into breaking into two countries.
This point in particular resounded with me:
> The referendum has underlined the social and cultural gap between London and provincial England.
This applies pretty much everywhere. You have the temperate / urban / high-immigrant liberal places, and the more desolate / isolated / sparsely populated / resource rich conservative places, and for some bizarre reason we still keept forcing them to operate under one government.
I have long advocated that in the era of NATO, the UN, and nuclear arms that massive states on the scale of the US or what the EU was designed to be (effectively, over the long term, another US) is counter to all notions of democracy. You only need an independent state so long as it can assert its own borders and have enough economic significance to have bargaining power in international negotiations.
The Northeast Corridor in the US, the West Coast from SF to SD, the Rust belt, and the Carolina's are examples of fairly homogeneous societies, that would make a lot of sense being their own countries, and are all fairly distinct, but would all have significant enough size and GDP to still function easily as first world countries.
Texas is an example of the opposite problem. It has 4 liberal cities surrounded by cowboys. You would almost just want to make 3 cities (Austin / San Antonio are close enough to form one) that are independent states that behave like Luxembourg by being landlocked around the Midwestern Confederacy of Rednecks that spans from the Carolina's to the Rockies.
No, politics is a process to resolve disputes without violence. There should be a supermajority required to decide something so fundamental, and absent that, there should be a compromise found that satisfies people 70/30 rather than splitting the country 51/49.
Thing is, you can't require a supermajority from both sides; if you say that 70% is needed to validate a "Leave" vote, you're essentially saying that 31% is enough for a "Remain" vote.
Requiring a supermajority is just privileging the side that prefers the status quo.
> "Requiring a supermajority is just privileging the side that prefers the status quo."
Rather, requiring a supermajority is to privilege the status quo, period. There are benefits to stability, no matter how it's constituted. These benefits are codified through mechanisms like supermajority votes.
A more rational referendum would have been a far more serious endeavor, perhaps one in which the population voted multiple times.
Big changes should, in general, not be easy to make.
It's going to take 2-3 years before the UK is out of the EU, that is in no way simple. The referendum was only called after decades of political squabbling over the issue and Cameron was extremely confident in putting the question to rest. You are zooming in on one night and ignoring everything that has happened before and what is to happen after.
US requires 3/4 of states to amend the Constitution. The thinking at the time of the Constitution's drafting is that transient majorities are the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
Yes, and the same people who thought that dearly hoped the Senate would transform into a hereditary aristocracy with life-long terms and the Presidency would become a hereditary monarchy because of the same fears.
I don't think citing that line of thinking (by Hamilton and Adams and the others) says a whole lot. It is, perhaps, ironic, that this line of thought was driven by the belief the British system of government was the best in the world. (Incidentally, during that time period, the 'three branches of government' were considered to be the House, Senate, and Presidency, not the legislative, judicial, and executive.)
Could MPs block an EU exit if Britain votes for it?
Michael, from East Sussex asks an intriguing question - could the necessary legislation pass the Commons if all SNP and Lib Dems, nearly all Labour and many Conservative MPs were in favour of staying?
The answer is that technically MPs could block an EU exit - but it would be seen as political suicide to go against the will of the people as expressed in a referendum. The referendum result is not legally binding - Parliament still has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28 nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The withdrawal agreement would also have to be ratified by Parliament - the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report.
It adds: "If the Commons resolves against ratification, the treaty can still be ratified if the Government lays a statement explaining why the treaty should nonetheless be ratified and the House of Commons does not resolve against ratification a second time within 21 days (this process can be repeated ad infinitum)."
In practice, Conservative MPs who voted to remain in the EU would be whipped to vote with the government. Any who defied the whip would have to face the wrath of voters at the next general election.
One scenario that could see the referendum result overturned, is if MPs forced a general election and a party campaigned on a promise to keep Britain in the EU, got elected and then claimed that the election mandate topped the referendum one. Two thirds of MPs would have to vote for a general election to be held before the next scheduled one in 2020.
"The withdrawal agreement would also have to be ratified by Parliament - the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report."
Amendments will be made. Then they will have to go back to EU for approval. EU will modify/apend amendments. Then there is the committee stage, and the Lords.
Could be stretched out for a long time quite easily, so will of people not ignored but end result not much different from now.
However, EU might want a quick process because of the internal politics they have to face. 'Twill be interesting to watch but possibly uncomfortable in parts.
The scenario to have another election is logistically hard to organize: the expected deadline for the UK to exit is in 2 years. The time can be easily consumed by having negotiations on post-EU agreements.
Ah yes, the classic EU way of disrespecting the will of the people so popular since the Lisabon Treaty.
Another way out of this mess is to perform European Voting: rinse and repeat until Brits get the message and vote as they are supposed to. Worked with the Irish...
> I've heard yesterday that the referendum itself is non-binding, and that Parliament is still in charge of the final decision.
As I understand it, that's not strictly correct: triggering article 50 is an exercise of royal prerogative[0][1], so it is a matter for the PM and cabinet (or, rather, the monarch alone, who is bound by strong convention to adhere to the advice of the PM and cabinet in its exercise.) [2]
Once article 50 is triggered, the UK is out of the EU in 2 years under default terms unless either that term is extended by the EU (member states acting unanimously) and/or a UK/EU agreement on alternative terms is ratified before the period expires (which, again, requires the EU to be unanimous.)
The British parliament can block an exit agreement after Article 50 is triggered, but that just leaves the UK with the default exit terms.
There's also elements of its relations with European institutions that are written into Britain's domestic law; Parliament could drag its feet on repealing those, but that wouldn't keep the UK in the EU it would make the UK a non-EU nation that choose to remain subject to some EU rules and institutions.
It would achieve nothing: what would happen if the UK stays in the EU while the British have voted to leave? EU criticism and discontent would become so loud it would be impossible to lead a normal life. Everything would be blamed on the EU.
I do not think any politician can fight for such a prospect. They will need to accept the result.
Remains to be seen what "leave" really means. All these things must still be voted on and negotiated in Parliament and with EU. My feeling is that it won't be as drastic once the dust settles. The elites in UK don't give up that easily.
It amazes me that such a vote was not compulsory. About 28% (~13m voters) didn't care enough to vote. I suspect that a large majority would have voted to stay if they had to choose. This would likely have resulted in the UK staying in the EU.
IMHO, a change from the norm should require a greater majority (60% majority) if the vote is not compulsory.
1.3 million more people voted to leave. It's funny - if the vote had gone to remain, you wouldn't be complaining about the "slim majority" that voted for them to stay.
Everyone in a country will not agree upon anything. This is how democracy works, and to me it seems to be working well. 52% got what they wanted while 48% did not.
