Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
Thank you for proving my point. The whole basis of the 2016 vote was an immoral one: the socio-economic fate of an entire country possibly decided by 1 person.
|
You’re out of step with much of the world, where simple majority is the rule in the vast majority of cases. Where that is qualified, it is usually done so via a quorum or in federal systems by requiring a yes vote in a majority of states also.
https://researchbriefings.files.parl...09/SN02809.pdf
Quote:
Your other point also is flawed as you well know. The PR option in this referendum was deliberately chosen as the worse available:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/2011_Uni...ote_referendum
At the time of the referendum, three nations used AV for parliamentary elections: Australia, Papua New Guinea, and Fiji.
|
Yet the Lib Dems declared it a baby step in the right direction and campaigned for Yes.
I am sceptical that most of the British electorate saw the question in so technical terms as the reform campaigner cited at Wikiwand and am content that as an exercise in determining appetite for change, the referendum adequately showed that the British electorate are sufficiently happy with the present system to leave it as is.
In the 2017 election, despite the plurality of parties available, well over 80% of all votes went to either Labour or Conservative.