Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
1. But I don't think there can be anything more arbitrary than a 52-48 vote meaning victory for the 52. Because we know full well that a result of that small a margin is simply no more meaningful than tossing a coin to decide. A 60-40 victory, however, would tell us a lot more.

2. I'm surprised it would have needed me to qualify that OBVIOUSLY my idea would require a new system where you could retrospectively prove which way you originally voted in order to vote in the second referendum.
No, I'm sorry, but it's absolutely not arbitrary in a democracy to say that a majority vote should prevail. Moving the margin to 60-40 would simply be to fix the status quo and create the potential to leave a majority feeling rightly cheated and likely to seek recourse by other means.

Right. So in a situation where voters were denied the anonymity demanded by law and the authorities were to openly break the law by tracking individual votes, you think that would be a good plan? Why?