Voting

In an attempt to continue a discussion in another thread, I have decided to make a new one here.

Generally, what dictates what is and is not democratic?

Specifically, in the case of Brexit, why would a second referendum be democratic, or not be democratic?

I almost missed this.
Good topic. I like.

It would be undemocratic to have another vote because that is not how democracy works. You don't get a do-over just because some powerful people do not like the will of the majority as revealed by their vote. Nor do you get a do-over just because the political class dislike the result and are actively trying to punish the people for their... "wrongvote" as I like to call it.

Nor do you get to say, "we thought we would win because the media and political class and global corporations and the EU heralded doom and gloom if we left, and this propaganda was so convincing we were convinced, and we therefore didn't bother to vote because we knew there's no way we could lose."

Nor do you get to say, "we need another vote because the other party in the election misconstrued reality," as though the full weight of the media propaganda machine was not behind your campaign.

Nor do you get a do-over because you think those that voted leave didn't know what they were voting for, but now they have cast off their ignorance and will understand that I was, am, and always will be right.

If it's the will of the majority of the people (leave) - then what harm would a do-over be? The results should be the same, right?
Other than a waste of time, money, and the embarrassment.

No. The problem with a do over is that it would now be predicated on years of an anti-democracy ruling elite that favour the EU doing all they can to screw the people. I'm really sorry but you don't get to screw the people over then tell them to vote again and get it right in a democracy.

I understand that that's how it's done now. The DNC and media have been desperate to make the glorious Trump election win invalid, and every attempt, no matter how sad, pathetic, illegal or desperate, has failed. And that is how it should be.

People are free to whine and cry. They can put their vadge hats on, march through the streets, call everyone that laughs at or disagrees with them a racist or a phobic or a moron or a misogynist or some other kind of bigot or fascist then take to the streets and beat people up for disagreeing with them and adopt Nazi slogans and tactics and call everyone a Nazi who will not embrace Nazism. All that's fine. It's psychotic and retarded, but it's ok (illegal, but ok).

What you do not get to do though is say that because of all of our violence or unending tanties or incessant whining or hysterical crying or bungling incompetence that the election result should be overturned.

It's a remarkably simple concept.

What makes a re-vote any different from a change in policy? You vote for one policy, the mood maybe shifts about said policy, and you vote on whether or not to continue said policy. Suppose Brexit goes through, how much time can pass before the voting public is allowed to vote on whether or not to rejoin the EU?

Read what I wrote in post #4 as it answers those questions.

Did you? From what I read, what you are saying is that a vote can never be overturned later down the line no matter what. This is an interesting stance, since as I understand it, there was a referendum to enter the EEC to begin with. Doesn't voting to leave overturn that previous vote?

Well yes, the EU has a track record of punishing or ignoring "wrongvote." The point I was making was that the British government has a responsibility to do what the people voted for. However, the majority of UK politicians wanted to stay in the EU. Letting them act like bungling morons and start wrecking everything, then have them say that Brexit as we have designed it will be a disaster so let's have another vote and get it right this time, is unacceptable.

But if you believe that the political elite bungled negotiations, why would you take the deal they offered to begin with? Wouldn't it be smarter to drag this out until you're in a better position to 'do it right'?

This is not accurate at all. The election cannot be ruled invalid, nor can or has the DNC attempted to get such a ruling, if that were even possible (which it isn’t). Even if Trump were found guilty of conspiring and impeached, the Presidency would just be given to the next person down a preset line of succession. There is no redo election. The next election remains at 2020 no matter what.


Which brings me to my next response:




But you did not answer his question (I was looking for it as well). You are simply stating that there cannot be a redo of an already elected result. However he was asking how such a redo would be any different than the automatic redo that occurs when the next election or referendum cycle is due.

In other words, how would an expedited re-election in 2018 be different than an already scheduled re-election in 2020 in terms of your propoganda/ruling party manipulation explanation.

There is a difference between regular elections where we vote for a political party of our choice and a referendum on the direction of the country on the other.

The argument being made here is that if a referendum is held and the political class are displeased, they can punish the people then make them vote again. I don't need to argue against this. You guys need to argue why that's ok.

Welcome to political gamesmanship. That very thing happens all the time.

What are the rules about getting a referendum on a ballot? Whatever the rules are that got the exit on the ballot, why does this break these rules and prevent another referendum from ever getting on a ballot again? And why can’t that be a referendum to reverse a previous referendum?

Here in California, referendums make it to a ballot every two years that gather a certain number of signatures. Say one gets passed that legalizes heroin. Are you saying that another referendum should not be allowed to make it to the next ballot 2 years later that reverses this even if it gathers enough signatures?

I think the UK system is a bit different to the US. The UK (and Australia) very rarely hold referenda, and it is not simply a matter of getting a number of signatures. I really can't be bothered looking at it more thoroughly, but a referendum is almost a matter of consent by the people through prolonged pressure - the UK has only had 2 -3 of them in total.

Lets use a different example than yours.

In Australia in 1967 we held a referendum to give Aboriginal people voting rights. By the time it was done it was already a foregone conclusion due to consistent long running pressure, and got a yes vote.

Now, if the Australian government had then started adding on other things like making Aboriginal people kings with absolute power over whitey, then started handing them billions of dollars and millions of acres of land, then said, let's revote and people voted no, is that legitimate?

It's not the role of government to punish wrongvote and force people to get it right by tearing everything down. It seems like a really dangerous precedent to set to me.

The government should hand negotiations to people who are qualified and pro Brexit.

So there's no middle ground between giving Aboriginals voting rights and having them become landed kings? If you don't want the latter you can't have the former? I don't understand how a redo referendum on voting rights at all impacts what the legislature already did in regards to kingship of Aboriginals.

As an aside, who would you have picked to lead EU negotiations?

I was using a hypothetical scenario. Australia did not say now that Aborignals can vote they're now our kings. What I am saying is, if we held a referendum to give Aboriginal people the vote, then our government (who, for the sake of this hypothetical opposed allowing them to vote), started drafting legislation to make Aboriginals kings and give them all the homes, farmland etc, and then told people to revote on that referendum, is that legitimate? Of course not.

The government can't reasonably sabotage a vote because they don't like it and then ask people to vote again on whether they get the sabotaged version that is terrible, or, get to remain in a system they voted out of. There is no sense in which that is legitimate.