Anyone know what time we're supposed to trigger Article 50 tomorrow?

[Burney]

But you would concede, at least, that the larger the margin required, the greater the chance of establishing whether or not a true majority opinion exists. I fully understand if you still think changing the margin required would be a bad idea (and probably on balance agree with you), but you must at the same time acknowledge that a 51-49 vote is as revealing of public opinion as a toss of a coin.

What is this 'true' majority of which you burble? There is a majority or there is not. And a vote on a given day is how we decide everything. Our votes are solemn and binding and we accept that whenever we walk into the voting booth. Political factions move mountains to get 'don't knows' to vote their way on any given day for precisely that reason. Whether they may change their minds subsequently is neither here nor there. Essentially, you are just trying to load the dice.
Also, in the context of this referendum, your argument presupposes that it was a level playing field. It was not. Remain had all the powers of the sitting PM and Chancellor, all the major parties, the Governor of the Bank of England, a £9m leafletting campaign, various acronyms and the President of the United States going into bat for it. In those circumstances, on could argue that a 52:48 vote for Leave in fact would have represented a vastly bigger margin in a more equal contest.

[Monty92]

What is this 'true' majority of which you burble? There is a majority or there is not. And a vote on a given day is how we decide everything. Our votes are solemn and binding and we accept that whenever we walk into the voting booth. Political factions move mountains to get 'don't knows' to vote their way on any given day for precisely that reason. Whether they may change their minds subsequently is neither here nor there. Essentially, you are just trying to load the dice.
Also, in the context of this referendum, your argument presupposes that it was a level playing field. It was not. Remain had all the powers of the sitting PM and Chancellor, all the major parties, the Governor of the Bank of England, a £9m leafletting campaign, various acronyms and the President of the United States going into bat for it. In those circumstances, on could argue that a 52:48 vote for Leave in fact would have represented a vastly bigger margin in a more equal contest.

True majority opinion - an opinion that we know exists because the margin of victory was sufficient to discount arbitrary factors as having swung it. And probably big enough to take into account the capricious nature of 'don't knows', too.

Your other points are entirely valid. But I fail to see how you can argue against the suggestion that the larger the margin of victory, the more certain we can be that a true majority opinion exists.

That this does not make it a good idea as an electoral system, we can agree on.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

The assumption, as with all unsuccessful campaigns, is that somehow those who did not vote would have voted for the losing option and thus made it the winner. There is never any statistical evidence to support this.

I have some sympathy with the idea that one vote can cause a major upheaval in the way a country is run and so forth but isn't that what general elections do all the time? One party may nationalise something, another privatises it. In between huge expenses and decisions which resound for years are taken.

That's democracy. A flawed system but the best one we've come up with so far.

[Burney]

True majority opinion - an opinion that we know exists because the margin of victory was sufficient to discount arbitrary factors as having swung it.

Your other points are entirely valid. But I fail to see how you can argue against the suggestion that the larger the margin of victory, the more certain we can be that a true majority opinion exists.

That this is ultimately insufficient to make it a good idea as an electoral system, we can agree on.

But arbitrary factors are part of the deal, I'm afraid How a given voter feels on a given day is what counts because we sort of assume they're adults and have actually thought about it before voting. Anything apart from where they put that mark is meaningless because - whatever other factors obtain - the result on the day and is the only thing that matters, regardless of the narrowness of victory. Demanding that the result of a close vote shouldn't count is like demanding that a flukey last-minute goal shouldn't count in a close football match.