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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Indeed. My old dear recovered my dad's remains from the bottom of the garden this morning, after we'd promised faithfully that we were to renounce the grain for a bit. My fault entirely, of course, but I avoided the rod as I at least made it back into the house. Lunch will be a tense affair
:-|

---

You left your poor elderly father to sleep in the garden in March? Dear God, man! You're a monster!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat Vegas

:hehe: it could lead to disgusting role play. "You want another referendum? what you gonna do for it?
Yeah that's right how much do you want that 2nd referendum"

back in 5.

---

:nod: 'Oh, you want to keep the pound, do you? Well you'd better get rusty tromboning, hadn't you?' :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

You left your poor elderly father to sleep in the garden in March? Dear God, man! You're a monster!

---

The man had just polished off about a thousand pounds worth of my whisky, some of it in seasoning a suckling pig.

Under the circumstances, I was the model of gallantry and valour. Brilliant old *******.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

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.

---

Your first point presupposes that there is such a thing in a democracy as 'a bad decision'. There isn't. There is only what the people decide and the government (who serve us, remember, not the other way around) must then act upon that decision. The whole idea is predicated on exactly the technocratic, 'nanny knows best' principle that the Brexit vote rejected. It is essentially a recipe for nothing ever changing.
It's also utterly impractical. Look at Scotland. I defy you to try and keep Scotland in the Union on the basis of a 59:41 vote in favour of independence.

As to the second vote idea - besides the logistical and legal issues - I see no practical merit in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:nod: 'Oh, you want to keep the pound, do you? Well you'd better get rusty tromboning, hadn't you?' :hehe:

---

oh ffs.

pass me the mind bleach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

oh ffs.

pass me the mind bleach.

---

:hehe: :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Your first point presupposes that there is such a thing in a democracy as 'a bad decision'. There isn't. There is only what the people decide and the government (who serve us, remember, not the other way around) must then act upon that decision. The whole idea is predicated on exactly the technocratic, 'nanny knows best' principle that the Brexit vote rejected. It is essentially a recipe for nothing ever changing.
It's also utterly impractical. Look at Scotland. I defy you to try and keep Scotland in the Union on the basis of a 59:41 vote in favour of independence.

As to the second vote idea - besides the logistical and legal issues - I see no practical merit in it.

---

Your original contention was that shifting the margin of victory would be arbitrary (which of course it would). I maintain that the current system is even more arbitrary for the reason I've stated: that a 51-49 vote is no more meanintful in terms of representing the "majority" opinion than a toss of the coin would be. A 60-40 vote would be significantly more meaningful as it would prove that a majority opinion does exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Your original contention was that shifting the margin of victory would be arbitrary (which of course it would). I maintain that the current system is even more arbitrary for the reason I've stated: that a 51-49 vote is no more meanintful in terms of representing the "majority" opinion than a toss of the coin would be. A 60-40 vote would be significantly more meaningful as it would prove that a majority opinion does exist.

---

So shouldn't the Scottish parliament have a 60:40 before they can call for an independence vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Your first point presupposes that there is such a thing in a democracy as 'a bad decision'. There isn't. There is only what the people decide and the government (who serve us, remember, not the other way around) must then act upon that decision. The whole idea is predicated on exactly the technocratic, 'nanny knows best' principle that the Brexit vote rejected. It is essentially a recipe for nothing ever changing.
It's also utterly impractical. Look at Scotland. I defy you to try and keep Scotland in the Union on the basis of a 59:41 vote in favour of independence.

As to the second vote idea - besides the logistical and legal issues - I see no practical merit in it.

---

Right. Our democracy is essentially based on banter, rather than actual, statistical, proveable fact. This is what alot of folk do not understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Your original contention was that shifting the margin of victory would be arbitrary (which of course it would). I maintain that the current system is even more arbitrary for the reason I've stated: that a 51-49 vote is no more meanintful in terms of representing the "majority" opinion than a toss of the coin would be. A 60-40 vote would be significantly more meaningful as it would prove that a majority opinion does exist.

---

As I have said before, there is nothing arbitrary whatsoever in a democratic system about the idea of the majority view prevailing. It's the principle upon which the whole thing is predicated, in fact.

Has the dictionary definition of "majority" changed since I last checked it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

As I have said before, there is nothing arbitrary whatsoever in a democratic system about the idea of the majority view prevailing. It's the principle upon which the whole thing is predicated, in fact.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe

Has the dictionary definition of "majority" changed since I last checked it?

---

A majority on one day, which could just as easily be a minority the next day, depending on something as trivial as the weather, may still be a majority, but it tells us nothing. These decisions are intended to reveal whether or not there is a majority opinion. The current system does not do this in any meaningful way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

These decisions are intended to reveal whether or not there is a majority opinion.

---

No. They are to provide a result. Like a football match, it is not about who the better team is. We just need a result so everyone can move on, move forward. All the rest is banter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

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 :shrug: 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.