Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
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?
I understand there is both principle and pragmatism behind a majority vote. But I do think that requiring a larger margin of victory would provide a certain safeguard against the electorate making bad decisions based on whims and the way the wind was blowing on the day of the vote. If there was a 60-40 vote, we could say with almost absolute certainty that if the vote was held the next day, it would go the same way (give or take a small swing). The same cannot be said of a 52-48 vote.

Regarding anonymous voting, I'm sure there could be some clever technological solution that allows us to retain anonymity while being able to prove, discreetly, later which way you voted if you wish to participate in a second vote.