Democracy can be dangerous..37% decided Brexit on behalf of the majority

[True Earthling]

In the Brexit vote, a minority of 37% of the population (52% of 72% voter turnout) have made a monumentally important decision on behalf of the majority via an unchecked process. Make no mistake – this is not democracy working for the people. This is democracy exposing why it can be a dangerous system.

Authoritarian attitudes were highly predictive of Brexit vote... for example, those that believe that sex criminals should be publicly whipped are also very likely to support Brexit....

http://www.fabians.org.uk/brexit-voters-not-the-left-behind/

culture and personality, not material circumstances, separate Leave and Remain voters. This is not a class conflict so much as a values divide that cuts across lines of age, income, education and even party...the probability of voting Brexit rises from around 20 per cent for those most opposed to the death penalty to 70 per cent for those most in favour. Wealthy people who back capital punishment back Brexit. Poor folk who oppose the death penalty support Remain.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”

For remain voters, the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%). Just over three in ten (31%) reasoned that remaining would mean the UK having “the best of both worlds”, having access to the EU single market without Schengen or the euro. Just under one in five (17%) said their main reason was that the UK would “become more isolated from its friends and neighbours”, and fewer than one in ten (9%) said it was “a strong attachment to the EU and its shared history, culture and traditions.”

https://www.facebook.com/benjaminblaine/posts/10153470938266707?pnref=story

So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.

Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.

Clear?

[PoliticAverse]

1. "via an unchecked process.". - It's not an "unchecked process", it's not even binding. n/t

[bemildred]

2. Autocratic, oligarchic, and corporate rule can all be dangerous too,

In fact the historical record is pretty damning in that regard for our so-called elites.

[world wide wally]

4. All democracies should make it mandatory to vote

[Just reading posts]

6. I disagree. Anyone who has to be forced to vote is someone I don't want voting.

[world wide wally]

7. They do it in Australia and it seems to work out fine

[Throd]

9. That's a horrible idea.

[Igel]

12. And if they don't, what do you do?

If they can't, what do you do? Lop off their heads, or merely their hands? Perhaps just a finger, or impose a $500 fine?

Person: "I'm sorry, I was sick."

Government of the people, for the people: "Do you have a doctor's note?"

Person: "Did I say I was sick. Sorry, my religion teaches that I shouldn't vote."

Government: "Well, that's one religious doctrine that government will ban."

Person: "I was traveling."

Government: "We'll stop that freedom of movement for elections."

Person: "No, on reconsideration I was working."

Government: "We'll make sure companies are required to use their assets to give you a day off. With pay."

Person: "Will that include my landscaper I have come over some Tuesdays when I text him?"

Government: "Yes. And because we don't have a record of your paying FICA and Medicare for them, we're going to subpoena your records and invade your privacy. Hand over your phone, we'll unencrypt it for you."


The more obligations you impose, the more you're intruding into privacy and interfering with the pursuit of happiness. The more confiscatory the government, and the more authoritarian. The more you need to control people, the less important the vote is.

The general principle is that a right to do something presupposes the right not to do that same something. My right to free speech does not entail a government-imposed obligation to speak. The right to not incriminate myself does not mean I am not allowed to incriminate myself. A right to free religion does not impose an obligation to worship. A right to vote does not entail a legal obligation to vote.

Now, morally I may have an obligation to speak up, it may be foolish to incriminate myself, I may feel obliged to participate in the religious organization whose doctrines I agree with and I may feel a moral obligation to vote. But the government already ordains enough morality that privacy is often something reserved for special people.

[LanternWaste]

13. To what absolute and unequivocal end?

To what absolute and unequivocal end?

[pampango]

5. Older, more conservative voters tend to vote more than younger, more liberal ones. In close

elections/referendums, conservatives often win even if they may not be a majority in the population at large.

Conservatives won. Liberals lost. It's democracy. Sometimes they win and we lose. Liberals have to deal with it because it is reality and we are much better at dealing with reality than conservatives are. Get ready for the next battle with the conservatives rather than crying over spilled milk.

[Rex]

8. At least Cameron is done, stick a fork in him.

Con POS got what he deserves.

[Takket]

10. No one told the other 28% they couldn't vote.

And statistically speaking once you've taken a sample of 72%, you have sufficient confidence that that represents 100% as well. Brexit is not a case of the minority imposing their will on the majority. What it is, is a case of the majority not having a damn clue what they were doing in the voting booth because of misinformation and shoddy/no research by the voters, and regretting it now.

[BlueMTexpat]

18. Brexit is a horrible example of a majority of voters overall imposing their collective will

on the voting majorities of the two countries that voted to Remain. This is exactly the kind of issue that should never have been put to a referendum in a parliamentary democracy. And done so callously.

While it is true that the overall majority may not have had "a damn clue what they were doing" for the reasons you state and also because the Leave Campaign lied through its teeth, it is also true that at least one of the two countries that were effectively disenfranchised is very likely to "dis-unite" from the UK as a result. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36673126

France and Spain are said to oppose this idea. But it's early days yet.

[Katashi_itto]

11. I wonder what the % be of people who vote in the general election will be?

[Exilednight]

30. Somewhere between 50 to 60 percent of eligible voters.

We have piss poor turnout in this country. This is expected to be a downward year since both candidates have such low disapproval numbers.

[hobbit709]

14. and

[Bad Thoughts]

15. So 30% decided that either way was ok

Pre-referendum polls put both Leave and Remain at around 50%. Saying that only 1/3 of the voters decided is disingenuous.

[struggle4progress]

16. NC amended its constitution in May 2012 to forbid gay marriage:

the voter turnout was 34.7%; and the amendment won 61.0%; so the constitution was amended because 21.2% of registered voters wanted the amendment

[Bettie]

20. This should be blamed on those who chose not to vote

rather than those who were motivated to get out and vote.

Unless there was a coordinated voter suppression action.

[struggle4progress]

22. Our GOP legislature fixed the constitutional amendment vote for a primary

So basically only primary voters showed up

[Bettie]

28. That sucks and a vote like that should have been done in a "bigger" election

But the base problem is still that far too many people can not be bothered to get out and vote.

Voting is our civic duty.

Even when we don't feel like our votes count, we should all be getting out and voting.

[msongs]

17. when "your side loses" it is automatically not democratic lol nt

[pampango]

21. True. It was democratic. Sometimes conservatives win for all kinds of reasons. Liberals need to

accept that fact and move on. There will be more elections in the future. Maybe the young and liberal will bother to vote next time.

[Bettie]

19. So, what is the answer

Mandatory Voting:
Lots of people object to this. I personally think it is a good idea. In Australia people can opt out of voting, but they opt out of other societal benefits as well.

NO Voting At all:
The people in charge make all decisions, taking them out of the hands of the unwashed masses.

Suck it up and Deal With It:
If decisions are being made by a minority, because not enough people CHOOSE to vote, then work on getting out the vote.

I'm not at all sure what people think should be done about this. If people choose not to vote, then those who do choose to do it get to make the decisions for good or ill. That is just the way it works.

So, be angry at the people who chose not to come out.

[no_hypocrisy]

23. Another case of the majority of the minority making decisions for 100%.

[Press Virginia]

27. Those who didn't bother to vote can't really complain about the outcome

They made their choice

[Bettie]

29. The answer is quite simple

if it matters to you, get your butt out and vote.

If you make a choice not to vote, then you have no reason to complain about the outcome.

I've been disappointed many times in the outcomes of elections, but in the end, at least I know I was there and made my choice.

[FBaggins]

24. You have an odd notion of democracy

They had near-record turnout (highest in 25 years and higher than any US national vote in this century or the last one) and more people voting "leave" than any for any single item/candidate/party in UK history...

... yet somehow you're not satisfied?

Authoritarian attitudes were highly predictive of Brexit vote

This claim despite the fact that no exit polling was done and the pre-vote opinion polling was clearly way off?

[ripcord]

25. Democracy sucks

When it doesn't go your way.

[Press Virginia]

26. Isn't this the same ridiculous argument we heard about Bill Clinton's electoral wins?

it was stupid then, it's stupid now.

[True Earthling]

31. Electing a person does not change immigration or economic policy...

No comparison.

[Press Virginia]

33. actually it kind of does

as the President sets economic policies and enforces immigration laws, or not.

They argument had no merit then, it has no merit now.

[True Earthling]

37. The argument is govt by referendum vs. govt by elected officials

I don't have a problem with the election of a president or other politician with 37% of the population deciding the outcome. Elected officials have limitations under the law as to what policies they can change. Elected officials can also be negotiated with or blocked by the opposition.

I do have a problem with 37% directly deciding economic or immigration policy. Although the Brexit referendum will probably have to be ratified by Parliament.. I doubt that many of the MP's would risk political suicide by ignoring the "will of the people" and vote against it.

[WDIM]

32. Was that a Monty Python skit?

All central banks should be nationalized and ran to benefit all people of a nation not just to benefit a few wealthy bank owners.

[ManiacJoe]

35. Democracies work best when

the voters are interested and educated in the topics at hand.

Does that really describe the UK or the USA for that matter?

[ljm2002]

36. OFFS...

...OF COURSE it was a minority of the population who decided. Until and unless there is 100% participation, any vote that is at all close means that a minority of the population made the decision.

What counts, is it was a majority of the actual voters. That is how voting works. DUH.

[WinkyDink]

38. Wow. Haven't read anything this elitist since Republicans tried to say Bill Clinton's victory wasn't

legit, because of Ross Perot's numbers.

[Sam_Fields]

39. I've always supported requiring a person to vote to receive tax deductions or welfare

Last edited Thu Jun 30, 2016, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)

When the person turns in their ballot they get a receipt they can use at tax time or when filing for welfare. If you don't vote then you get nothing.