Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
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
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. |
Not so. The use of the Supermajority is common across the world for important, high impact decisions - see
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Supermaj...ound_the_world
The major lesson learnt here is that the approach the UK took to this referendum was deeply flawed.
You last point is self evident: in a FPTP system, of course the two main parties would get the majority of the votes. That is the natural evolution of such an electoral system.
---------- Post added at 17:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:38 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
I think he was highlighting Hypocrisy full stop.
|
and that many, including members on this forum, are content with.