Not impossible but very difficult, I'm fairly sure that's the only case? As I said I'm not completely dismissing your arguments, I think if it is a close vote then all options need to be kept on the table for the future but the first thing that should be done is implement the majority vote as that's the only really fair way!

 

So, for example, if there was a referendum on criminalising homosexuality tomorrow and 30,000,001 voted for and 30,000,000 votes against, it should be implemented with options available even though 30 million people would be ignored?

 

Take a vote that is exactly on the threshold. 30 mill v 30 mill - always 30 mill ignored. 40 mill v 20 mill - a chance that only 1/3 is ignored.

 

Is it better to have a chance at 33% with a risk of 66% ignored, or a system that 50% is always ignored (if thresholds are just met)?

So, for example, if there was a referendum on criminalising homosexuality tomorrow and 30,000,001 voted for and 30,000,000 votes against, it should be implemented with options available even though 30 million people would be ignored?

 

Take a vote that is exactly on the threshold. 30 mill v 30 mill - always 30 mill ignored. 40 mill v 20 mill - a chance that only 1/3 is ignored.

 

Is it better to have a chance at 33% with a risk of 66% ignored, or a system that 50% is always ignored (if thresholds are just met)?

 

That's incredibly extreme though. It's better to have a system that respects democracy and majority vote. It'll never happen anyway though so y'all shouldn't get your hopes up :lol:

Edited November 3, 20177 yr by REPUTATION

I'd agree with others here that a 2/3rds majority (or Supermajority) should really be mandatory for referendums that are for important constitutional changes such as independence.

 

The only solution to this mess would have been for the Spanish government and the now former Catalan government to conduct talks which would hopefully lead towards a legal, fair and proper referendum on independence just like the 2014 one for Scotland.

 

The problem is the Spanish government and people are scared of a referendum and so hise behind the excuse of the constitution forbidding it, as if constitutions are god-written snd unchengeable. They stubbornly refuse even thr notion of a referendum. Meanwhile, the PP cancelled the agreement, using the politicised Supreme Court, that had given Cataluña more powers. The fault for all this starting lies with Rajoy and Spanish stubborness.

That's incredibly extreme though. It's better to have a system that respects democracy and majority vote. It'll never happen anyway though so y'all shouldn't get your hopes up :lol:

 

50% for sweeping constitutional change really is not enough. In such a case, the known must be the way forward. It means there is a divided country, not so unified vision for a grand change for the future. In Scotland, it should be the same.

No it isn't. If the referendum is about something that will be difficult to reverse (e.g declaring independence or leaving the EU) it is perfectly reasonable to say that support for the measure needs to be higher than 50% plus one. It is standard practice in many countries or organisations to require more than a simple majority to make a constitutional change.

 

I admit there is a degree in logic to that, but it is hardly likely to lead to political stability. If 3/5ths of an electorate vote for change, but are denied it through a 'technicality' it will inevitably generate resentment, and possibly even give birth to political movements who reject democratic solutions, as they no longer trust them.

 

I hadn't noticed you agreeing with the criticisms of the government's changes to the rules on strike ballots.

 

AFAIK, I've never gotten involved in a thread where the issue has come up. :unsure:

I repeat, there is no evidence that a majority of the people living in Catalonia voted for independence, and the vote wasn't official, regardless of the actions of either side.

 

The issue is complicated as it also means a Brexit-style vote linked with it. That wasn't part of the illegal vote.

 

It's also complicated by the decades of violent struggle from other areas in Spain, which would inevitably be reactivated by Catalexit. Spain is in a lose-lose as other areas would claim independence.

 

Nothing is ever black & white in life. If California declared independence from the USA would it be allowed? No, because they are super-rich and it would harm the USA and provoke potential disintegration of the country as others went the same way (and destabilise the world).

 

Assume Catalonia goes indie and half the population remain very unhappy about that (Brexit anyone?) then what? Does Catalonia freshly on new borders, non-EU, WTO terms suddenly become a great economic force in Europe, or does everyone suffer financially, get pissed off and decide they were better off under Spain, and suddenly opinion changes and 51% want to rejoin Spain. Then what?

 

That's why a clear majority is a sensible idea, you get a firm, clear, responsible majority that is unlikely to be challenged regardless of circumstances changing. To not do that you get results based on whims on how you feel on any given day and propaganda. Like Brexit. And ongoing unhappiness. Like Brexit.

I admit there is a degree in logic to that, but it is hardly likely to lead to political stability. If 3/5ths of an electorate vote for change, but are denied it through a 'technicality' it will inevitably generate resentment, and possibly even give birth to political movements who reject democratic solutions, as they no longer trust them.

AFAIK, I've never gotten involved in a thread where the issue has come up. :unsure:

The subject of strike ballots has been mentioned several times in this forum.

 

As for the first point, if the vote falls slightly short of the threshold the "losing" side would be entitled to call for another vote after, say, ten years or if there was a material change of circumstances.

 

If a simple majority is sufficient and there is a very narrow vote for change there is always the suspicion that the result would have been different if it had been held a week earlier or a week later. At least if there is a threshold and the change vote just scrapes over the line, you know that there would still have been a comfortable vote for change if the timing had been slightly different.

 

In the EU referendum there wasn't even any allowance for a recount. If you think the court cases over last year's result have been bad, just imagine what would have happened if the majority (either way) had been just a few thousand.

The subject of strike ballots has been mentioned several times in this forum.

 

As for the first point, if the vote falls slightly short of the threshold the "losing" side would be entitled to call for another vote after, say, ten years or if there was a material change of circumstances.

 

If a simple majority is sufficient and there is a very narrow vote for change there is always the suspicion that the result would have been different if it had been held a week earlier or a week later. At least if there is a threshold and the change vote just scrapes over the line, you know that there would still have been a comfortable vote for change if the timing had been slightly different.

 

In the EU referendum there wasn't even any allowance for a recount. If you think the court cases over last year's result have been bad, just imagine what would have happened if the majority (either way) had been just a few thousand.

 

iro strike ballots - I wasn't suggesting it hadn't come up before, only that I'd not seen those threads.

 

How narrow is 'very narrow'' anyway? 1.25m sounds quite substantial to me. ;)

 

iro recounts, you can bet Ms Miller would have called her lawyers ASAP if the result had been very close. :lol:

Edited November 4, 20177 yr by vidcapper

This is why Andrew and Vidcapper aee against a majority vote - because both have votes they would like to win- Brexit, Scot independence - which would not be favoured by 2/3s. However, it is a VERY resonable number. No matter what the BBC and Tory MPs tell you, the people HAVEN'T spoken, and the issue is still up in the air with basically a 50/50 split of the population and home nations. If you do not score 63%, but are close, well ok, wait until there is a material change or wait a few years when the voting population inevitably changes a little. If the number is FAR from a supramajority, as with Brexit or Cataluña, then there is NO need for change as what you have there is an entirely divided country. Yes, constiutional change WILL take longer, but that is democracy and that is REAL progress - it moves slowly.

iro strike ballots - I wasn't suggesting it hadn't come up before, only that I'd not seen those threads.

 

How narrow is 'very narrow'' anyway? 1.25m sounds quite substantial to me. ;)

 

iro recounts, you can bet Ms Miller would have called her lawyers ASAP if the result had been very close. :lol:

As would Farage. That's my point.

This is why Andrew and Vidcapper aee against a majority vite - because both have votes they would like to win- Brexit, Scot independence - which would not be favoured by 2/3s. However, it is a VERY resonable number. No matter what the BBC and Tory MPs tell you, the people HAVEN'T spoken, and rhe issue is still up in there with basically a 50/50 split of the population and home nations. If you do not score 63%, but are close, well ok, wait until there is a material change or wait a few years when the voting popularion inevitablt changes a little. If the number is FAR from a supramajority, as with Brexit or Cataluña, then there is NO need for chamge as what you have there is an entirely divided country.

 

Whereas everything is sweetness & light when you ignore what more than half of those who voted decided... :rolleyes:

Whereas everything is sweetness & light when you ignore what more than half of those who voted decided... :rolleyes:

Have you seen the requirements for passing an amendment to the US constitution?

Have you seen the requirements for passing an amendment to the US constitution?

 

Yes.

 

But we didn't even have a vote about *joining* the EEC!

Edited November 4, 20177 yr by vidcapper

That's incredibly extreme though. It's better to have a system that respects democracy and majority vote. It'll never happen anyway though so y'all shouldn't get your hopes up :lol:

 

Gov'ts tend to avoid letting the public directly decide on just about *anything* if they can possibly help it, instead using the bullsh1t claim that an election win gives them the mandate for just about anything. :(

As would Farage. That's my point.

 

Correction, just so I can underline this point yet again endlessly: as DID Farage at 4am when he thought Leave had lost, the huge hypocrite was saying "This is not the end of the story, when it's this close we demand another vote" All I am doing is repeating his sentiment. Can't have it both ways, either a close result is the end of the matter or it isn't. Farage already made his views clear - though he has lied about that ever since. Flim Flam Man who will say and do anything to get his way and who has no actual moral principles at all.

 

Funny how he wants the Catalonia non-democratic unproven vote to be allowed as it undermines the EU, as opposed to actually undermining democracy, which he doesn't give a shit about when it produces results he doesn't like.

 

Heil Hitler, eh, Nige, what were those songs again? Met any nice Nazi descendants lately?

 

I repeat, there is no evidence that a majority of the people living in Catalonia voted for independence, and the vote wasn't official, regardless of the actions of either side.

 

No, however recent polling showed for the first time in a while Yes with a small lead...

 

Spain (Catalonia): Majority of voters now supports independence: 53% (GESOP poll).

 

Independence Referendum

 

Yes: 53 (+6)

No: 47 (-6)

 

Clearly the 'strategy' by Madrid is really working wonders.

Yes.

 

But we didn't even have a vote about *joining* the EEC!

At that point we hadn't had a referendum about anything ever. The principle of the UK being a representative democracy was rigidly applied.

Correction, just so I can underline this point yet again endlessly: as DID Farage at 4am when he thought Leave had lost, the huge hypocrite was saying "This is not the end of the story, when it's this close we demand another vote" All I am doing is repeating his sentiment. Can't have it both ways, either a close result is the end of the matter or it isn't. Farage already made his views clear - though he has lied about that ever since. Flim Flam Man who will say and do anything to get his way and who has no actual moral principles at all.

 

Funny how he wants the Catalonia non-democratic unproven vote to be allowed as it undermines the EU, as opposed to actually undermining democracy, which he doesn't give a shit about when it produces results he doesn't like.

 

Heil Hitler, eh, Nige, what were those songs again? Met any nice Nazi descendants lately?

Correction to your correction. I was referring to what would have happened if Remain had won by a few thousand votes. With no provision for a recount Farage and Arron Banks would have launched legal action within days.

No, however recent polling showed for the first time in a while Yes with a small lead...

Clearly the 'strategy' by Madrid is really working wonders.

 

Didn't I predict precisely this in one post or another??

 

Repression does NOT and NEVER will win the hearts and minds. Spain lost this issue the second they sent their storm troopers in and was sealing their fate by being too stubborn to allow a referendum.

 

Of course, it is still not 2/3 majority but if the polls keep changin like that...

Correction to your correction. I was referring to what would have happened if Remain had won by a few thousand votes. With no provision for a recount Farage and Arron Banks would have launched legal action within days.

 

Absolutely!!