Brexit: with 52 and 48, simplifying, it is now husband remain, wife leave. Why a stronger threshold (60 or more to win) had not be choosen?
- SigmondLv 45 months agoFavorite Answer
There are many examples of more than a simple majority being required for a major change. Boris Johnson for example would require the support of two-thirds of MPs to call a general election before 2022. Many organisations require more than a simple majority and a quorum for major rule changes.
- ZirpLv 75 months ago
they chose the wrong question to begin with (and allowed both campaigns to lie), and now pretend to "just do what the majority wants".
the questions that should have been asked are
- do you worry about "mass" immigration? and
- do you think the EU is democratic enough
- Jacks AnsLv 65 months ago
To be honest if characterised in such a way "52 and 48" its probably more like Husband Leave, Wife Remain, but that's besides the point.
The point is, some say that there shouldn't have been a referendum in first place because the people didn't fully understand or were incapable of understanding what they were voting for, others say that not enough people voted for it to stand as a result, then there are those who say there was cheating, lies, miss-information, not enough information, WHATEVER.
Its as simple this, once asked you either believe in the people's answer or you don't, there's no ifs or buts, no half way, the people, its as simple as that, you either believe in them or you don't.
- Land-sharkLv 75 months ago
It wasn't properly designed.There were 46,500,001 registered voters so 23,250,001 or more would have been needed to get an unambiguous result for one side or the other. Without compulsory voting or a valid mathematical threshold it cannot be the will of the people; just an opinion poll. Also unanimity of all of the countries of the UK should have been deemed necessary for such an important constitutional change.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous5 months ago
You are an imbecile.
- Jack HLv 75 months ago
They could have and should have set a threshold, thresholds really, for both vote and turnout results, but, Camoron was convinced of a remain win, he didn't bother setting one, shame really, but you got a result... bye, bye...
- Mr ScepticLv 45 months ago
There should have been no referendum at all. Referendum makes for poor government - the Conservatives have done nothing for three years while the nation decays, and when Brexit causes economic collapse and job losses, they have the excuse "we were only doing what you asked for". The morons will accept that, and once again vote for the party which has made them poorer.
But if there was going to be a referendum, it should have been to empower the government to negotiate terms to leave the EU, making clear there would be a confirmatory vote on the final leave deal v. remain.
And the Electoral Commission should have been given the teeth to annul the vote if one side told outright lies, or illegally overspent.
I don't think a higher threshold is particularly relevant.
- catrin lLv 75 months ago
Because Cameron was complacent and reckless when he called the referendum.
It would be unthinkable to change the status quo by a simple majority in just about any other situation.
- FØXY ÐïLv 55 months ago
The difference between 52% and 48% of votes equates to 1.7 million. That is quite decisive so stop moaning and betraying a democratic decision or go live in North Korea.
- SquidmasterLv 75 months ago
Because thats not how democracy works.
Think of this. If the threshold had been sixty for example, and leave had hypothetically gotten 59%. That would be a Remain result even though over half voted to Leave.
Its not just to impose something when over half don't want it.