fatslob-:O said:
HylianSwordsman said:
You seem to be much more out of touch with the principles of democracy. Democracy simply means rule by the people. If they want to overturn a previous result, they can. Especially something with direct democracy like a referendum. In the United States we have something called the Congressional Review Act that allows a newly elected congress to undo things just done by a previous administration. This is fine because those previous things were done by democratically elected officials, and the new things are being done by new representatives. Both courses of action are being done by people acting on a platform that people then voted to represent them, so overturning previous results is fine. So there's an example of it being done with a representative democracy mechanism, but for direct democracy, the case is even stronger, since it is the directly stated, absolute will of the people (nonbinding or not, this is what the result of a referendum is understood to represent). Furthermore, if we simply had to come to terms with a specific elected official, impeachment wouldn't be an option. If we simply had to come to terms with results, recounts wouldn't be an option, nor would court challenges based on suspicions of electoral fraud.
Besides, if you're so insistent that this betrays some kind of precedent, then perhaps you could work out a deal with the EU to instantly reenter, so that for a fraction of a second, on March 29th, they'd be out, but immediately be back in again, thus fulfilling both referendums, strictly speaking. I mean if you admit that a second referendum could be held, just that it couldn't stop the results of the first referendum, there's no reason the second referendum couldn't be held now, but the conditions of the "Remain" option instead be "Rejoin" and a deal worked out with the EU to make that rejoining instant. I'm sure the EU would be interested in having the UK rejoin, especially if it were done so seemlessly.
Thanks for the clarification on Northern Ireland.
|
@Bold There is a time for making a decision but there is also a time carrying out that mandate as well. You cannot realistically propose that the former is to endlessly obstruct the latter. A famous politician who went on to become a president uttered, "elections have consequences" and if you supported the result to his mandate for presidency until the end of his term then you must support the result to the mandate for Brexit as well so you can't have it both ways. In practice, there are no do-overs in real life so you must either come to terms with the democratic result or admit that you harbour double standards ...
If the people want to overturn the result then do it after the mandate has been enacted. For democracy to be fair, it has to take turns otherwise what you propose is no different to doing 'polls'. Just as the American public deserves a peaceful transfer of power in the executive branch, the British people also deserve a peaceful resolution for their referendums ...
The Congressional Review Act is NOT democratically decided so it's not relevant for comparison purposes. Laws, bills, and amendments are often either decided as a republic or by a monarchy. What those democratically elected representatives or the monarchs do has no bearings on the democratic process itself so it cannot be used as a justification for 'overturning' what the people actually voted on. The process of impeachment, recounts, and the courts are all decided by higher powers like a republic or a monarchy which act as a safeguard against democracy but there's no precedent for undoing carrying out the mandate itself with democracy in any of your cases. At this point, you're just at grasping here and I reiterate that it is you who does not understand the underlying principles and institutions that truly comes with democracy ...
It should really come clearly and obvious to you in my argument from now on as to why we do not successively hold multiple votes since there is no 'rule' with endless obstructionism. You must now learn to come to reconcile with EVERYTHING ELSE (Brexit and Trump) that is offered with democracy and not just the results that are only compatible (ACA and Obama) with your views if you want to declare yourself as 'democratic' ...
Unfortunately, for your second paragraph it is not in my place to negotiate with the EU and it is in the British people's obligation to weather Brexit itself. The reason why Britain is not so keen on reentering the EU is because Donald Tusk revealed and told David Cameron to "get real" over his "stupid referendum" since he was absolutely spooked by the possibility of the UKIP party siphoning off the conservative voters but lo and behold without having the coalition of the Lib Dems, however little did Cameron know that UKIP ideology managed to infiltrate the Conservative party and then soon after a vote held place. After the vote, It brought tears of joy and laughter into my eyes how such a powerless party like UKIP managed to easily brainwash the political elites (Conservatives) into supporting their cause so there's no need for UKIP anymore when there's a little bit of UKIP to be had in the Conservatives. Since the EU is not willing to make a real compromise in the face of a democratic mandate, they'd rather see the UK crash out instead so here we are where there's about to be standoff between the EU and the UK because of a "stupid referendum" ...
Frankly, let's just leave the idea of a second referendum a total rest for now. Along with the reasons I stated previously, Theresa May is confident that there is NO current parliamentary majority for a second referendum and Jeremy Corbyn along with the front bench of the opposition keeps refusing calls for a second referendum too so it doesn't look likely to change in the near future. Corbyn in a last ditch attempt effort to appeal to the Remainers inside his party called for the revocation of article 50 but even he knows the conservatives won't let up easy on that demand either. If the Remainers truly believed that Brexit is no-compromise issue then they shouldn't have compromised their vote in the last election for another party that would "respect the referendum result" in their manifesto so that is why Corbyn does not truly give a shit either way since he plays both positions Brexit because be realizes his own party is also divided and is only in it to see the conservative party tank after taking the chaos of Brexit ...
|
Well I never said any of this was likely, or that we had the power to negotiate anything with the EU (you're a nobody, at least to the world of politics, and I'm an American for Christ's sake), I only meant that a second referendum was the only thing besides a hard Brexit I saw as having any likelihood beyond an immeasurably small one, and that if one happened, the ranked choice vote would be the way I'd prefer it to happen. I don't think a second referendum is the most likely option, and if there were one, I highly doubt they'd ever do a ranked choice referendum, as much as I'd rather they did. I merely started discussion of it as a thought experiment, and because OP asked my preferences regarding Brexit.
You don't seem to understand representative democracy very well if you think voting for an elected official means everyone in the country has to accept what they have the power to do, yet don't understand that the Congressional Review Act is an example of that. You seem to be still stuck on the idea that any more than one vote on something would have no rationale as to why not to have an infinite number of votes, but I just disagree with you here. I regard a ranked choice vote as a fundamentally more accurate vote than a first-past-the-post vote, and if a democratic populace agreed with that sentiment, and wanted to have a second referendum capable of changing the decided policy outcome of a prior one, based on the idea that a new format could more accurately represent their opinion, then I see no reason why it would subvert democracy in any way. Nor do I see why it would warrant an infinite number of votes. It seems to me it would only warrant as many votes as could be rationalized by the initial rationale for a new vote. In the case of a new format that the people could vote on as being more accurate or not, it would warrant as many votes as the people decided upon as being warranted by the rationale "the new format would give a more accurate result" which would in turn be limited by the number of better formats people could come up with and which of those new formats you could convince a populace was more accurate. That number would not be infinite. It might not even be non-zero.
You also seem stuck on this idea that any result must be honored in full before a new vote can be had, or it somehow isn't democratic. But I really just don't understand that mindset. If I have a group of friends and we vote on where to go out to eat, and a new person joins the group and another person leaves the group, and the new person's opinion on where to go, minus the leaving person's opinion, would change the result, it would just be more democratic to have another vote. If we found out that the restaurant we were considering failed its health inspection, or were out of a particular ingredient or dish, and this changed a number of opinions in the group such that it might result in a new choice, it would be more democratic to have another vote. If a third restaurant becomes an option, and people might want that one, it would be more democratic to have another vote. And seeing as the introduction of the third option could result in the initial winner losing when in reality more people would still have preferred the original choice, ranked choice should be incorporated to prevent unnecessary levels of disappointment. There's no reason why the third restaurant option should have to be the same kind of cuisine as the original top choice, and even if it was, that doesn't mean the second place choice with a different kind of cuisine should be excluded in the second vote, certainly not if a majority of people have no problem keeping that choice in the running. I recognize this analogy is happening on a smaller scale, and that scaling this up to the size of a country carries with it unique challenges, but none of those challenges include "it was democratic with the group of friends but no longer democratic with the population of a country." If you were part of that friend group and insisted that everyone had to go to the original choice of restaurant because to have a revote was against the values of democracy, they'd probably ignore your pleas, or best case scenario for you hold a quick vote of who agrees with you, and you'd likely be overruled and ignored.
Democracy isn't the issue here with regards to "do-overs", and there are absolutely do-overs in real life. Like, all the time. Not on everything, but certainly on plenty of things, and there certainly could be a do-over on a vote if that's what the voters wanted. Furthermore, there's no need to "take turns" in a democracy, not if that's not what the populace wants. If the people give a particular party extra turns, that's fine, so long as it's what the people wanted, as accurately measured through a fair vote. I don't see how you can claim that a democratically elected republic is a "safeguard" against democracy. And your queen is most certainly not a safeguard against democracy. Not to mention the irony that you're fussing so much about your perceived values of democracy while even suggesting that democracy needs safeguards beyond the rights that uphold its very possibility (freedom of speech and the like). Furthermore, such rights themselves are safeguarded not by some outside institution like a monarchy, but by the mechanisms built into the democracy itself (like our constitution, every word of which can be overwritten with enough popular support, based entirely on mechanisms the constitution itself describes, and the constitution itself had a democratic mechanism by which it was adopted). Still furthermore, for you to claim that no comparison can be made between representative democratic mechanisms like an elected republic deciding laws and direct democratic mechanisms like a referendum deciding a policy suggests that you think the actions of representatives are not endorsed by the mandate of the vote that put them into office (odd, considering your focus on mandates). Combined with your comment about republics acting as checks on democracy, it betrays just how poorly you understand how modern democracy works.
But yes, regarding the bold, I too found that hilarious. I don't know how you couldn't, regardless of your political persuasion.
(mostly)
