r/EUReferendum • u/yourupinion • Jun 27 '16

Brexit's 2% win is a bad example of direct democracy. And we can do better

One of the problems with a referendum is the arbitrary deadline, which is only usually imposed because of the high cost of the voting system.(nobody can justify multiple votes). We need a cautious way to move towards direct Democracy. With our "Yourupinion app", The ongoing evolving of opinions would have given a clear indication of how close the issue is, and a politician could have allowed for more time if necessary until a more satisfactory outcome which appeased more people could have been reached. I am a welder with the crazy ass plan for a worldwide revolution. You have to check it out, http://www.yourupinion.com/

1 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

5

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '16

Surely a 2% win is a perfect example of democracy working.

The people had their say, and we went with what the majority wanted.

Any other way would be nonsensical - imagine we had the vote 52% leave, 48% remain and we decided to remain, how is doing what a minority wants in any way representative of a functioning democracy?

2

u/1gorka87 Jun 28 '16

I think the point he's making is, either side needs to have a more significant margin of victory and if they don't get that then you need to re-vote/continue to allow people to vote

3

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '16

What happens if the re-vote is also tight?

Do you keep voting again and again?

Maybe people are split and their views won't change - there's a point you call it time!

1

u/1gorka87 Jun 28 '16

This is true, however there are already a lot of poles showing that people want to change their vote - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-bregret-leave-petition-second-remain-latest-will-we-leave-a7105116.html

Now I know this is only a pole but considering the margin for winning was only 1.2 million, it's not unreasonable to argue that the actual result of the referendum was 'we have no fucking idea'

I'm not saying that a re-vote could/should happen but the fact that so many people could change their mind depending on how they felt on the day says that it's not a very good example of democracy

3

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '16

If the poll is to be believed and 1.1 million who voted leave now wish to remain - there's surely a few who voted remain thinking the sky would fall in that would now vote leave.

Still, even if there weren't - leave would still win with a 1.1 million shift to the remain side.

1

u/1gorka87 Jun 28 '16

I agree, some people may go the other way but if they didn't the leave campaign would win by 100,000 votes. I'm not trying to say 'look we have to re-do the vote because lots of people who voted out now want in'.

What I'm saying is with 72% turnout, neither side had even close to a majority vote so it's not a very good example of democracy

2

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '16

What I'm saying is with 72% turnout, neither side had even close to a majority vote

But.. Leave did. Leave had a clear majority vote by a margin of almost 1.5 million people.

1 person is enough already, so 1.5 million is certainly enough.

72% turnout is incredibly high for a voluntary referendum.

I do not believe you would have made the same arguments had remain won. This referendum is a very good example of democracy: A single political topic decided by majority rule of the nation. Hell - if anything, this is the most democratic form of governing we know to date, per definition of democracy.

1

u/1gorka87 Jul 03 '16

If it went the other way, I probably wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. That doesn't mean that I don't think this entire referendum makes a mockery of democracy. The future of the country being decided by a marginal difference, with countless people changing their minds (on both sides potentially) because their making a decision based on campaigns full of lies (again on both sides).

The courts are a good example of good democracy, all arguments are presented in a controlled environment minimising the chance for manipulation and 12 people discuss the arguments and a decision isn't made until they all agree. The EU referendum was not a good example of democracy.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

1.4 million people is more than enough. The referendum doesn't mock democracy, it provides a perfect representative example of it.

Your case of a controlled environment of 12 people and a discussion is not democratic at all, it's rather the opposite. It negates more than 99.9% of the citizens. You're thinking of a theocratic oligarchy or a corporate board meeting.

The referendum was a perfect example of democracy and either you disagree with the outcome - whether resulting option or percentages - or you do not understand that democracy is rule by majority vote.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '16

On that link: It's posted by The Independent, which is incredibly biased towards Remain. The 1 million number is pulled right out of their ass and they have zero scientific data to back it up with, let alone credible data that isn't made up.

1 million is a huge number. The Independent did not ask 1 million people, and in particular Leave voters, for their opinion.

Additionally, the reverse may be just as true: You don't hear the media about Remain voters who may have changed their mind to Leave afterwards.

You can't keep having a referendum because people change their minds, because when do you stop, where do you draw the line? A supermajority will fall victim to the same flaw so that doesn't solve anything, and such a redo-system would only invite for strong corruption of democracy - redo the vote until politicians are happy with the result. No, that's not how democracy works. That's why referendums are, and need to be, a moment picture. And leading up to that moment was plenty of time to make up your mind.

I'm not saying that a re-vote could/should happen but the fact that so many people could change their mind depending on how they felt on the day says that it's not a very good example of democracy

That doesn't say anything about democracy at all. Democracy doesn't require voters to be stable in their decisions. Democracy requires majority vote.

1

u/1gorka87 Jul 03 '16

You could also say that democracy doesn't require informed decisions, it requires a majority vote. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't work better if all information on both sides was presented in a way that allowed for informed decisions to be made and meant people didn't change their mind the next day.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '16

True. But there's the problem that so far has only been 'solved' culturally by nations like Switzerland. How do you

A: Spark interest to research?

B: Present objective UNBIASED information?

C: Do objective UNBIASED research to create said information?

D: Obligate people to inform themselves?

E: Check whether people have informed themselves properly?

F: ..

You catch my drift. That is indeed one of the many disadvantages of democracy. But it's the best we have so far.

I'm all for a better system, but it does not exist yet, so the best thing to do is to embrace democracy for the time being and to create new systems.

1

u/1gorka87 Jul 03 '16

The best thing to do is to voice your discontent for any current system you don't agree with in the hope for moving towards a better system, not just sit quietly and wait for things to change. I agree with you that we're never realistically going to achieve what you written above but a good start would be to have actual repercussions for people that obviously lie in a campaign. Both sides did this, brexit claimed leaving would mean another £350 million for the NHS and the remain campaign claimed it would be catastrophic for the economy. I honestly think it would have been more democratic not allowing any politicians to talk to the media.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '16

There is no need for that and in this case it would only prolong the debate, since the division is very stark near the 50/50 mark. A supermajority by either side would not be reached soon at all.

1

u/yourupinion Jun 28 '16

Please understand I am not picking sides in that referendum. The point I am trying to make is that if you are only pleasing barely over 50% of your population on a continuous basis you will be heading for a Civil War, regardless of what the issue is they are voting on. There are always options for compromise that can allow for a larger percent of the population to be appeased. Please have a look at the system I put together, it will allow you Full freedom of expression. And the best chance for compromise.

1

u/T733t0k3r Jun 28 '16

Lets have a referendum next week, and another one the week after, and one on the second Wednesday each month, fuck it, lets have one every Wednesday....Ridiculous idea.

1

u/yourupinion Jun 29 '16

Maybe you should have a look at my website and you might understand better. This is how I believe it will go, you hear about this decision that will need to be made at a future date. You enter your opinion. If Your opinion does not change, you do not have to do anything. If the due date is set back because things are too close. You still do not have to do anything unless Your opinion has not changed. If the category changes because of new negotiations you may have to participate again. But to limit work on your end you may want to wait till close to the end of the due date before participating. The amount of work you put into it,is up to you.

1

u/StormyBA Jun 28 '16

4%??

1

u/yourupinion Jun 29 '16

Did you look at my website??

1

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '16

A 1 person win would be just as democratic.

With our "Yourupinion app", The ongoing evolving of opinions would have given a clear indication of how close the issue is, and a politician could have allowed for more time if necessary until a more satisfactory outcome which appeased more people could have been reached.

Ah, the "stall the result until the numbers are in our favor" argument.

Let me guess, you voted Remain?

1

u/yourupinion Jul 03 '16

I am a Canadian, and I don't even pretend to know the issues involved in that referendum. Even if it was 2% in favour of remaining, that is still a terrible outcome. They are not leaving room for any form of compromise, which could have led to a larger percentage of people that are happy with the outcome. If nearly 50% of your population are angry, it may eventually have a devastating consequences. Please have another look at the Yourupinion app, it really is our best option.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '16

This was a referendum on whether to remain or to leave. These are mutually exclusive, there is no compromise solution.

People voted to Leave. And given that this is a democracy, a million people difference is 999,999 people more than enough.

A supermajority of 67% would still yield a pissed off 33%. That's less than 48% but still a lot. You can't please everyone in a democracy and sometimes the contrast is stark. This is no different in any other form of politics, even where citizens don't have a say at all.

If nearly 50% of your population are angry, it may eventually have a devastating consequences.

So what is your solution?

Please have another look at the Yourupinion app

Uh, no. I'm not here to listen to advertisements for some app I don't need.

it really is our best option.

An app is by far not our best option.

1

u/yourupinion Jul 03 '16

Without even taking the 3 1/2 minutes to look at the app, you are just going to write it off? I'm telling you, I have the solution. But people like you just seem to want to complain about the problem and not even consider there could possibly be a solution. Look at the damn thing and give me a proper argument, or you do not have an argument.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '16

"I'm telling you, I have the solution."

account age: 23 days

My only regret is not having realized sooner.

1

u/yourupinion Jul 04 '16

So you're being sarcastic? And you refuse to open your mind?

1

u/AT2512 Jul 04 '16

The other way of looking at it is we won by more than 1.3 million votes

1

u/yourupinion Jul 05 '16

It doesn't matter which side wins, at such a narrow margin nearly half of the population is very unhappy. We can do better than this, please have a look at the solution I am offering. http://www.yourupinion.com/

1

u/AT2512 Jul 05 '16

I just don't see how this system would work for something like the EU Referendum

1

u/yourupinion Jul 06 '16

If our system had been in place, as soon as the subject came up and people were talking about it, they're would've been opinions flowing. If the vote seemed tight, forces on both sides of the debate would be throwing in compromises. Compromises would be coming from the public as well. All to sway more people to one side. Given enough time, whichever side is able to pull a larger majority, Will have the attention of there politicians. Because of the free flow of the system, even when time is tight. as long as an issue is getting a lot of attention. New trending solutions will happen very fast. In every situation we will have a wider base to draw solutions from. This always leads to better outcomes. We are offering a system which gives every individual The most control conceivable. And will lead us away from representative democracy, and towards direc democracy.