This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Democracy - where two idiots can outvote a genius.
Anyone else think there could be a better way of doing things? As it stands only 36% of the population as a whole have decided this referendun...
Anyone else think there could be a better way of doing things? As it stands only 36% of the population as a whole have decided this referendun...
5
22
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
Christ why don't you make another referendum thread. It's not like we have many.
Christ why don't you make another referendum thread. It's not like we have many.
14
1
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
It's interesting to note that the people who the decision will affect the most (the children and future generations) - don't get a say at all. (I'm obviously not suggesting fetuses and zygotes should get a vote before anyone starts with that nonsense). But it does show that our current ideal of democracy is flawed from that respect. A better system would perhaps take into account that future generations need to have a voice too, even if it is by proxy. Similar to how Ecuador has given nature enshrined legal rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Nature
It's interesting to note that the people who the decision will affect the most (the children and future generations) - don't get a say at all. (I'm obviously not suggesting fetuses and zygotes should get a vote before anyone starts with that nonsense). But it does show that our current ideal of democracy is flawed from that respect. A better system would perhaps take into account that future generations need to have a voice too, even if it is by proxy. Similar to how Ecuador has given nature enshrined legal rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Nature
1
13
1
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
No doubt if 'Remain' won the vote it would be hailed as a victory for common sense?
What do you propose? Compulsory voting?
The same comments were made when Cameron was elected while convieniently ignoring that Tony Blair's last election win was with a lesser share of the vote.
No doubt if 'Remain' won the vote it would be hailed as a victory for common sense?
What do you propose? Compulsory voting?
The same comments were made when Cameron was elected while convieniently ignoring that Tony Blair's last election win was with a lesser share of the vote.
11
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
Now they've got a taste for it. Let's have some democracy about the death penalty. Then why don't we have a vote on bringing in American style gun laws so we can defend ourselves more. I don't mean our elected representatives, I mean us, the Bridish peeble.
Now they've got a taste for it. Let's have some democracy about the death penalty. Then why don't we have a vote on bringing in American style gun laws so we can defend ourselves more. I don't mean our elected representatives, I mean us, the Bridish peeble.
1
3
In reply to Cú Chullain:
Odd. I recall people objecting to the 2005 results and suggesting it was a good reason for electoral reform.
> The same comments were made when Cameron was elected while convieniently ignoring that Tony Blair's last election win was with a lesser share of the vote.
Odd. I recall people objecting to the 2005 results and suggesting it was a good reason for electoral reform.
In reply to KevinD:
Some people were indeed, not Labour supporters though
> Odd. I recall people objecting to the 2005 results and suggesting it was a good reason for electoral reform.
Some people were indeed, not Labour supporters though
4
In reply to Cú Chullain:
really. Fairly sure I remember some.
> Some people were indeed, not Labour supporters though
really. Fairly sure I remember some.
1
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
I was going to write a genuine counter argument. I believe that would be a waste of time.
Prick.
That is all.
I was going to write a genuine counter argument. I believe that would be a waste of time.
Prick.
That is all.
6
3
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
Please bear with me, but I'm just a thicko Leave voter, who is this genius you speak of?
> Democracy - where two idiots can outvote a genius.
Please bear with me, but I'm just a thicko Leave voter, who is this genius you speak of?
13
1
1
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
That attitude is in part what lost it for the remain campaign - there are plenty of good reasons to have voted out, they should have been talked about much more. And this attitude may also be what kills off what remains of the EU, there is a huge amount of arrogance and bloody mindedness in Europe.
I wasn't able to vote btw, too long out of the UK. Would probably had voted remain but it wouldn't have been an easy decision.
That attitude is in part what lost it for the remain campaign - there are plenty of good reasons to have voted out, they should have been talked about much more. And this attitude may also be what kills off what remains of the EU, there is a huge amount of arrogance and bloody mindedness in Europe.
I wasn't able to vote btw, too long out of the UK. Would probably had voted remain but it wouldn't have been an easy decision.
6
In reply to Matt Vigg:
We can vote again (not you), new petition up!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
We can vote again (not you), new petition up!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
Post edited at 19:47
1
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
Well those who don't vote, don't count. End of. Why should anybody take note of their views?
As for the alternative, well, a benevolent dictatorship, courtesy of moi. There will be a few changes around here, I can tell you, but all for the common good...
Well those who don't vote, don't count. End of. Why should anybody take note of their views?
As for the alternative, well, a benevolent dictatorship, courtesy of moi. There will be a few changes around here, I can tell you, but all for the common good...
6
In reply to Cú Chullain:
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
jk
> No doubt if 'Remain' won the vote it would be hailed as a victory for common sense?
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
jk
2
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
Why not weight a vote by the IQ of the voter. i.e. If you have an IQ of 120 you get 1.2 votes or an IQ of 80 would give you 0.8 of a vote. I'm pretty sure we'd have secured a remain vote if this was the case.
Why not weight a vote by the IQ of the voter. i.e. If you have an IQ of 120 you get 1.2 votes or an IQ of 80 would give you 0.8 of a vote. I'm pretty sure we'd have secured a remain vote if this was the case.
5
7
7
In reply to Lusk:
Touched a nerve have I? It occurs to me that a large proportion of the brexiteers have done so as a bit of a laugh, so used to being voiceless they've rocked the boat as an act of anarchy. Now we all have to live with the consequences.
Touched a nerve have I? It occurs to me that a large proportion of the brexiteers have done so as a bit of a laugh, so used to being voiceless they've rocked the boat as an act of anarchy. Now we all have to live with the consequences.
4
5
In reply to broken spectre:
Not at all, Boss (tugs forelock)
Good, instead of wallowing in the turgid shit pool of Toryism for the next n decades, a bit of anarchy might get rid of them. But you know best Sir!
> Touched a nerve have I?
Not at all, Boss (tugs forelock)
> It occurs to me that a large proportion of the brexiteers have done so as a bit of a laugh, so used to being voiceless they've rocked the boat as an act of anarchy. Now we all have to live with the consequences.
Good, instead of wallowing in the turgid shit pool of Toryism for the next n decades, a bit of anarchy might get rid of them. But you know best Sir!
6
1
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
Have you? What are you proposing exactly? We all take an IQ test and our vote is multiplied by our IQ to give it an overall points value in an election?
Maybe we should just limit voting to people who have degrees? Those working class plebs don't know what's going on but don't worry the Guardian readership knows whats best for them (and everyone else for that matter) so lets just have them decide their fates for them shall we?
Why do you think you have any more right to decide what is right or wrong than anyone else? Ironically smacks of everything the left are supposed to hate, but of course it doesn't count for them because they 'know they are correct and 'know' whats best.
> Democracy - where two idiots can outvote a genius.
> Anyone else think there could be a better way of doing things?
Have you? What are you proposing exactly? We all take an IQ test and our vote is multiplied by our IQ to give it an overall points value in an election?
Maybe we should just limit voting to people who have degrees? Those working class plebs don't know what's going on but don't worry the Guardian readership knows whats best for them (and everyone else for that matter) so lets just have them decide their fates for them shall we?
Why do you think you have any more right to decide what is right or wrong than anyone else? Ironically smacks of everything the left are supposed to hate, but of course it doesn't count for them because they 'know they are correct and 'know' whats best.
9
1
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
I don't think you should be so prickly. Patently there's an issue- you wouldn't want someone dragged out of their local at random having equal weight discussing a life threatening medical condition with a qualified consultant. But it seems that our children 's futures have been determined on opinions that are based on nothing more than 'gut instinct'... and, of course, Murdoch bile.
I don't think you should be so prickly. Patently there's an issue- you wouldn't want someone dragged out of their local at random having equal weight discussing a life threatening medical condition with a qualified consultant. But it seems that our children 's futures have been determined on opinions that are based on nothing more than 'gut instinct'... and, of course, Murdoch bile.
4
6
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
How about a Parliamentary democracy with proportional representation?
Plenty of Tories get degrees too! In fact, there's quite a few that come out of Oxbridge...
> Have you? What are you proposing exactly?
How about a Parliamentary democracy with proportional representation?
> Maybe we should just limit voting to people who have degrees? Those working class plebs don't know what's going on but don't worry the Guardian readership knows whats best for them (and everyone else for that matter) so lets just have them decide their fates for them shall we?
Plenty of Tories get degrees too! In fact, there's quite a few that come out of Oxbridge...
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Murdochs bile is undermining our Democracy..its pretty obvious that a lot of people believe the crap they read. We cannot make rational decisions when all the information in the press is biased racist and bigoted.
Murdochs bile is undermining our Democracy..its pretty obvious that a lot of people believe the crap they read. We cannot make rational decisions when all the information in the press is biased racist and bigoted.
5
4
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Is that really going to work?
I was amused when the Professor of Politics on the BBC’s referendum coverage couldn’t work out 20% of 4.5million.
So perhaps a simple maths problem before you can enter the polling booth would be more appropriate.
> Maybe we should just limit voting to people who have degrees?
Is that really going to work?
I was amused when the Professor of Politics on the BBC’s referendum coverage couldn’t work out 20% of 4.5million.
So perhaps a simple maths problem before you can enter the polling booth would be more appropriate.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
So you'd be happy with the Conservative - UKIP coalition which would have likely formed after the last election then? We'd already be long out of Europe if that was the case.
So you'd be happy with the Conservative - UKIP coalition which would have likely formed after the last election then? We'd already be long out of Europe if that was the case.
1
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
What percentage of the population voted in the leader that gave the population a referendum vote on Europe ? Ffs. What was he thinking of? It's all a set up anyway. Cameron wanted out but double bluffed. He's probably sat laughing his arse off at a 'result of a day'.
> Democracy - where two idiots can outvote a genius.
> Anyone else think there could be a better way of doing things? As it stands only 36% of the population as a whole have decided this referendun...
What percentage of the population voted in the leader that gave the population a referendum vote on Europe ? Ffs. What was he thinking of? It's all a set up anyway. Cameron wanted out but double bluffed. He's probably sat laughing his arse off at a 'result of a day'.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I've always been passionate about PR and people's vote counting, until today. I've just seen what happens.
I've always been passionate about PR and people's vote counting, until today. I've just seen what happens.
2
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
That tired old argument again?
This was the most democratic vote in recent British political history, possibly the most democratic ever.
The turnout was the highest since 1992. Each vote, be it cast in Tower Hamlets or the Shetlands had exactly equal weight. Prince or pauper had the same weight in the final decision, one vote. There were huge campaigns to increase voter registration and actual voting, seemingly with some success. The issue was debated endlessly in all media, with all possible viewpoints being voiced, though with widely varying degrees of coherence.
If after all that publicity and frantic effort, some people cannot be bothered to vote, then both literally and metaphorically they do not count. So the "% of total electorate" argument is complete nonsense, you can only ever go on those who do vote, i.e. take 5 minutes to complete an online voter registration and submit a vote in person or postally. Postal votes are actually a much graver danger to democracy than non-voters, but that is another matter.
In any case, there is no reason to believe that non-voters split dramatically differently to voters, such research as has been done (obviously very hard to do, since they don't vote,they are not very likely to provide illuminating answers as to why they don't),suggests that non-voters don't split significantly different to voters. So there is no reason at all to consider non-voters, you cannot know what they think as they voluntarily exclude themselves.
Of those who did vote, who are the only ones who matter, there was a clear though small margin. You can criticise the resulting decision, but not on the grounds it was anti-democratic - it was supremely democratic, even if not the one you wanted. You are simply wildly distorting language to describe it as "anti-democratic", mere sophistry.
> As it stands only 36% of the population as a whole have decided this referendun...
That tired old argument again?
This was the most democratic vote in recent British political history, possibly the most democratic ever.
The turnout was the highest since 1992. Each vote, be it cast in Tower Hamlets or the Shetlands had exactly equal weight. Prince or pauper had the same weight in the final decision, one vote. There were huge campaigns to increase voter registration and actual voting, seemingly with some success. The issue was debated endlessly in all media, with all possible viewpoints being voiced, though with widely varying degrees of coherence.
If after all that publicity and frantic effort, some people cannot be bothered to vote, then both literally and metaphorically they do not count. So the "% of total electorate" argument is complete nonsense, you can only ever go on those who do vote, i.e. take 5 minutes to complete an online voter registration and submit a vote in person or postally. Postal votes are actually a much graver danger to democracy than non-voters, but that is another matter.
In any case, there is no reason to believe that non-voters split dramatically differently to voters, such research as has been done (obviously very hard to do, since they don't vote,they are not very likely to provide illuminating answers as to why they don't),suggests that non-voters don't split significantly different to voters. So there is no reason at all to consider non-voters, you cannot know what they think as they voluntarily exclude themselves.
Of those who did vote, who are the only ones who matter, there was a clear though small margin. You can criticise the resulting decision, but not on the grounds it was anti-democratic - it was supremely democratic, even if not the one you wanted. You are simply wildly distorting language to describe it as "anti-democratic", mere sophistry.
Post edited at 22:54
16
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
I don't think that would have come about, since the Tory leadership was pro-EU! Now of course, we have the right wing of the Tory party in charge and no opposition, in other words, we're f*cked!
> So you'd be happy with the Conservative - UKIP coalition which would have likely formed after the last election then?
I don't think that would have come about, since the Tory leadership was pro-EU! Now of course, we have the right wing of the Tory party in charge and no opposition, in other words, we're f*cked!
1
3
In reply to Dave the Rave: I agree , the Old School Gang, all planned a long time ago, my turn now David,,,,,,,,,,
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
We just had a referendum (bad idea), and ended up with Boris Johnson and Michael Gove running the country. That's pretty much the opposite of electing a government under PR.
> I've always been passionate about PR and people's vote counting, until today. I've just seen what happens.
We just had a referendum (bad idea), and ended up with Boris Johnson and Michael Gove running the country. That's pretty much the opposite of electing a government under PR.
4
1
In reply to Removed Userbennett_leather:
I learned something today. Apparently referendums are specifically outlawed in the German constitution because of the experience in Nazi times when referendums (four) were used to put a mask of public acceptance on their policies. Of course, this is different to present day referendums as you wouldn't have put a tick on the wrong box if an SS thug was looking over your shoulder, but it makes you think.
I learned something today. Apparently referendums are specifically outlawed in the German constitution because of the experience in Nazi times when referendums (four) were used to put a mask of public acceptance on their policies. Of course, this is different to present day referendums as you wouldn't have put a tick on the wrong box if an SS thug was looking over your shoulder, but it makes you think.
2
In reply to Pekkie:
What exactly are you trying to say by that comparison?
Nazi plebiscites, enforced normally after invasions such as the anschluss produced results of 95% upwards for the view approved by brutal dictatorships, not 52 - 48 which we have just had. The tragic death of Jo Cox aside, no-one was threatened with brutality when they voted, other than a bit of booing of Boris this morning, people just went in and filled in a form in a rather mundane way.
Other than the fact that they were both votes out of the run of the normal electoral process, there is absolutely nothing in common between the referendum we have just had and Nazi plebiscites. This is simply an attempt at guilt by association.
What exactly are you trying to say by that comparison?
Nazi plebiscites, enforced normally after invasions such as the anschluss produced results of 95% upwards for the view approved by brutal dictatorships, not 52 - 48 which we have just had. The tragic death of Jo Cox aside, no-one was threatened with brutality when they voted, other than a bit of booing of Boris this morning, people just went in and filled in a form in a rather mundane way.
Other than the fact that they were both votes out of the run of the normal electoral process, there is absolutely nothing in common between the referendum we have just had and Nazi plebiscites. This is simply an attempt at guilt by association.
Post edited at 23:10
4
1
In reply to Pekkie:
Is that the best you can come up with to comfort your loss?
Some one earlier on here was trying to compare a no mark MEP with a megalomaniac leader of a huge industrialised country, hell bent on world domination.
Is that the best you can come up with to comfort your loss?
Some one earlier on here was trying to compare a no mark MEP with a megalomaniac leader of a huge industrialised country, hell bent on world domination.
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Have you actually considered that there may be many people who voted to leave, who are completely uninterested in ' Murdoch's bile' or indeed Farage's racist rhetoric , but who genuinely believe their children's interests are best seved by a new, still close, but less integrated relationship with our friends ( yes friends) in Europe, rather than sticking with an unwieldy behemoth heading in the wrong direction.
Can you honestly say that the posturing of the likes of Jean Claude Juncker endears you to a closer relationship with the EU ?
Have you actually considered that there may be many people who voted to leave, who are completely uninterested in ' Murdoch's bile' or indeed Farage's racist rhetoric , but who genuinely believe their children's interests are best seved by a new, still close, but less integrated relationship with our friends ( yes friends) in Europe, rather than sticking with an unwieldy behemoth heading in the wrong direction.
Can you honestly say that the posturing of the likes of Jean Claude Juncker endears you to a closer relationship with the EU ?
5
In reply to Simon4:
Apparently Australian referendums require a 60% majority. Perhaps better if a change in the course of history is a stake.
Plebiscites should only be employed for single issues.
When Cameron said a "simple in-out" vote he was talking nonsense. What's just happened is probably the least simple thing to occur in my lifetime. The young will not forgive him.
Apparently Australian referendums require a 60% majority. Perhaps better if a change in the course of history is a stake.
Plebiscites should only be employed for single issues.
When Cameron said a "simple in-out" vote he was talking nonsense. What's just happened is probably the least simple thing to occur in my lifetime. The young will not forgive him.
2
3
In reply to Lusk:
It's going to be your loss as well as mine, mate.
> Is that the best you can come up with to comfort your loss?
It's going to be your loss as well as mine, mate.
1
2
In reply to Shapeshifter:
I don't think the majority of the voters have a clue what Juncker looks or sounds like or can quote anything he has said. But they have been convinced he is a very bad man indeed and needs pulling down a peg or two.
> Have you actually considered that there may be many people who voted to leave, who are completely uninterested in ' Murdoch's bile' or indeed Farage's racist rhetoric , but who genuinely believe their children's interests are best seved by a new, still close, but less integrated relationship with our friends ( yes friends) in Europe, rather than sticking with an unwieldy behemoth heading in the wrong direction.
> Can you honestly say that the posturing of the likes of Jean Claude Juncker endears you to a closer relationship with the EU ?
I don't think the majority of the voters have a clue what Juncker looks or sounds like or can quote anything he has said. But they have been convinced he is a very bad man indeed and needs pulling down a peg or two.
2
3
In reply to Shapeshifter:
Yes, it's just hard to understand how they came to that conclusion!
> Have you actually considered that there may be many people who voted to leave, who are completely uninterested in ' Murdoch's bile' or indeed Farage's racist rhetoric , but who genuinely believe their children's interests are best seved by a new, still close, but less integrated relationship with our friends ( yes friends) in Europe, rather than sticking with an unwieldy behemoth heading in the wrong direction.
Yes, it's just hard to understand how they came to that conclusion!
3
2
1
1
In reply to Pete Pozman
They would if they saw the 6 o'clock, 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock news funnily enough
> I don't think the majority of the voters have a clue what Juncker looks or sounds like or can quote anything he has said. But they have been convinced he is a very bad man indeed and needs pulling down a peg or two.
They would if they saw the 6 o'clock, 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock news funnily enough
3
2
In reply to Shapeshifter:
If you call campaigning on spurious and false information funny, then yes, it's absolutely hilarious. The punchline will come when the NHS is saved by an extra 350 million a week...
If you call campaigning on spurious and false information funny, then yes, it's absolutely hilarious. The punchline will come when the NHS is saved by an extra 350 million a week...
6
1
In reply to Simon4:
I agree I felt this referendum was characterised by remarkably little intimidation. Comparing to the Scottish Indy ref which the independence supporters where physically and verbally aggressive to the stay supporters (I was living in Aberdeen at the time - a very unpleasant round of intimidation was taking place) I think we should be proud of ourselves (the public not the politicians) for our restraint.
I agree I felt this referendum was characterised by remarkably little intimidation. Comparing to the Scottish Indy ref which the independence supporters where physically and verbally aggressive to the stay supporters (I was living in Aberdeen at the time - a very unpleasant round of intimidation was taking place) I think we should be proud of ourselves (the public not the politicians) for our restraint.
4
In reply to Siward:
I would have voted but wasn't allowed to as I've been living outside the UK for too long, along with maybe a million others. There are others who for one reason or another couldn't vote - did those commuters stuck at Waterloo get home in time to vote ?
> Well those who don't vote, don't count. End of. Why should anybody take note of their views?
I would have voted but wasn't allowed to as I've been living outside the UK for too long, along with maybe a million others. There are others who for one reason or another couldn't vote - did those commuters stuck at Waterloo get home in time to vote ?
In reply to Pete Pozman:
There can be arguments for quotas, or minimum pass requirements. But there is no British tradition of them in electoral processes, clearly it is also utterly hypocritical to retrospectively claim the rules should have been different when it is obvious that you would have extended no such latitude to your opponents. Had your side won - 1 vote, even 1 postal vote, would have been quite sufficient for you to claim complete democratic legitimacy.
Bitching about the rules now is no different to a sporting team whining about the ref when their performance was inadequate. As for suggesting that schoolchildren should be allowed to vote, or IQ tests should be applied, you might as well say that fat people should get more votes as they have more body mass to be considered. If you are in fact anti-democratic, have the courage to say so, don't try to pretend you are seeking some sort of new, refined, super-sophisticated democracy. Really you think that people who don't agree with you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Not sure why, given that they are not that different to elections. In any case, staying in or leaving the EU IS a single, binary issue, of the most stark variety.
> Apparently Australian referendums require a 60% majority. Perhaps better if a change in the course of history is a stake.
There can be arguments for quotas, or minimum pass requirements. But there is no British tradition of them in electoral processes, clearly it is also utterly hypocritical to retrospectively claim the rules should have been different when it is obvious that you would have extended no such latitude to your opponents. Had your side won - 1 vote, even 1 postal vote, would have been quite sufficient for you to claim complete democratic legitimacy.
Bitching about the rules now is no different to a sporting team whining about the ref when their performance was inadequate. As for suggesting that schoolchildren should be allowed to vote, or IQ tests should be applied, you might as well say that fat people should get more votes as they have more body mass to be considered. If you are in fact anti-democratic, have the courage to say so, don't try to pretend you are seeking some sort of new, refined, super-sophisticated democracy. Really you think that people who don't agree with you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
> Plebiscites should only be employed for single issues.
Not sure why, given that they are not that different to elections. In any case, staying in or leaving the EU IS a single, binary issue, of the most stark variety.
Post edited at 09:10
1
In reply to Simon4:
Really? This is stark: When the shit hits the fan you're going to find out what complicated looks like.
> Not sure why, given that they are not that different to elections. In any case, staying in or leaving the EU IS a single, binary issue, of the most stark variety.
Really? This is stark: When the shit hits the fan you're going to find out what complicated looks like.
In reply to Pete Pozman:
I dont know about that. He is someone who makes it hard even for those who were pro EU to be fully behind it.
Considering how Luxembourg operated under his control (as finance minister and then prime minister) it does make me wonder how dedicated he is to the EU as an actual principle rather than just using it to aid Luxembourg.
> But they have been convinced he is a very bad man indeed and needs pulling down a peg or two.
I dont know about that. He is someone who makes it hard even for those who were pro EU to be fully behind it.
Considering how Luxembourg operated under his control (as finance minister and then prime minister) it does make me wonder how dedicated he is to the EU as an actual principle rather than just using it to aid Luxembourg.
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Fully agreed. Democracy as properly implemented is not the politics of the mob. It is not only Australia that requires more than a simple crowd majority for constitutional change; it is the norm and even required by the constitutions of private clubs etc. Simon does not understand constitutional affairs or is ignoring normal sensible affairs. Constitutional change is not analagous at all to voting in a normal election
There is a lack of grown ups involved in the whole process. Reminds me of the old adage about people getting lost not because of bad navigation (voting) but because of a complete failure to navigate at all (ie set up a grown up process)
Fully agreed. Democracy as properly implemented is not the politics of the mob. It is not only Australia that requires more than a simple crowd majority for constitutional change; it is the norm and even required by the constitutions of private clubs etc. Simon does not understand constitutional affairs or is ignoring normal sensible affairs. Constitutional change is not analagous at all to voting in a normal election
There is a lack of grown ups involved in the whole process. Reminds me of the old adage about people getting lost not because of bad navigation (voting) but because of a complete failure to navigate at all (ie set up a grown up process)
Post edited at 10:57
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...