Brexit

[HylianSwordsman]

fatslob-:O said:

 

HylianSwordsman said:

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.

Again, the decision of representatives are NOT DEMOCRATIC because the citizens themselves get no say in those instances. You need to come to the realization that what happens in congress is the result of a republic rather than a democracy. The only time whenever democracy happens is election time so do not conflate democracy with decisions by an elected representatives as a justification for overturning the former because the two are entirely different concepts. As for your following sentences, unfortunately just having a different format alone is not going to be a good enough justification to call for a new referendum and so far an overwhelming majority in the parliament seems to think so too since they can't come to a consensus on one yet. Only under such EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES should a sovereign nation's greater powers even consider overturning a democratic mandate and the threat no-deal Brexit isn't severe enough grounds to withdraw Article 50 or holding another referendum with a "better format" (which is arguable in itself when both the parliament and the electoral commission converged on a agreed format initially) ... 

Why not though? Why is that not justification? Why is the bar so high? I'm not suggesting the elected representatives simply overturn the vote because they don't like it, I'm saying that there could be nothing more justifying to overturn the results of an election than a later election. Obviously there is no consensus in parliament, but that isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, which is not "will parliament do a ranked choice referendum?" (They won't) But rather "what if parliament did a ranked choice vote referendum?" I disagree with your conception of democratic republic, but I don't see any point in discussing that further. In a world where parliament could agree on a format, a second referendum could overturn the results of a first one, so long as it was equally as accurate as the first. Sure it would be better if it provided a more accurate measurement, and a more accurate measurement could provide parliament with sufficient reason to hold a second referendum, but even if they just did a redo referendum, with just Leave or Remain as the only options, if the results change, you just have to suck it up. You would end up on the losing side of democracy, something that happens. Elections have consequences, and all that. This elections consequences would just be to undo the consequences of the election your side won. Oh well, that's democracy. You've yet to explain why my reasons don't justify a new referendum, or why referendums should never be overturned even by other referendums, beyond "we've never done that before!" It's just not enough of a reason to not have a second referendum. At the very least, they could have a "second referendum" referendum with Yes and No options for holding a second referendum, and then what happens? That referendum referendum isn't itself a referendum, so it doesn't defy your arbitrary rules, but if the nation votes Yes to that referendum, then there's a contradiction in your logic. You have to honor both referendums, even though honoring the second referendum would mean a third referendum could overturn the first, but since the second one wasn't directly against the first, it's fine. It's just asking the electorate what it thinks. Why is what the electorate thinks on something a sacred matter for the first referendum, but not for subsequent referendums? Simple, it's because your side won the first referendum and you're scared of losing. Ultimately, if parliament decided to hold a second referendum, you could whine all you want, it would change nothing. If a referendum referendum were held and the result were Yes, then you really would have no ground to stand on, since the electorate spoke and said they wanted a redo referendum, and got what they asked for. You're constantly moving the goal posts here so that democracy is sacred when it works to your goals but something that must be defended against or somehow in conflict with itself if it is against your goals.

A vote should only be broken when it is absolutely necessitated in very extreme cases, arguably cases more extreme than a foreign invader. If a civil war or a constitutional crisis arises then maybe it'll be taken into consideration but even that's not guaranteed with massive amounts of chaos ... 

Oh good grief. Why? This is an unsubstantiated opinion. Give some reasons WHY things have to be so extreme to have a second referendum? Because that's what we're talking about here. Not "breaking a vote" which would be parliament going against the first referendum WITHOUT a second referendum to mandate it. We're talking about a second referendum, but you keep talking about it like the second referendum itself is the first vote being broken, when if it did get broken, it would get broken BY ANOTHER VOTE FROM THE PEOPLE. Why isn't that okay? You just keep making unsubstantiated claims that your definition of democracy is the right one without explaining why yours is right or mine is wrong.

@Bold Of course you don't understand since you're going trivialize a sacred custom that's a part of an entire nation's political process with your own example. You have yet to both observe and accept the wisdom that comes out of institutions that keeps standing up against the test of time. If you're going to pick and choose recalls for election results that you didn't like, you have a democracy at hand that's no better than a dictatorship in which a sole party has all of the power to keep calling for new elections until they get the results that they want. The biggest reason you can't come to grips with the mindset is because you simply can't accept democratic results which are in conflict with your beliefs and ideologies so you discard them instead ... (it creates a cognitive dissonance in which you believe that you are always somehow 'righteous' and that the majority will agree with you no matter what so this is your way of seeking validation within society but this is not a sign of being right rather it's just a sign of arrogance when people don't agree with you) 

What are you on about now? Referendums aren't parties, or decisions by parties, they're decisions by the people. There are Conservative Remainers and Labour Leavers. Referendums aren't one-party rule. If anything, they're a way to subvert one party rule, as if there is a referendum, and it goes against a majority parties wishes, that majority party has little recourse. You keep projecting your own issues onto me. I would like to see a second referendum with a new format. If the new format resulted in Hard Brexit, I wouldn't contest that (even if I were a UK citizen). You're the one who is scared that society might not agree with you. I'm not. It's not even my society for Christ's sake. It's yours. I live across the ocean. If you leave or remain it has little effect on me. Have I mentioned morality even once with regard to whether Leave or Remain is correct? No, I haven't. I've merely said that if I had a say, I'd want a second referendum, and described what I would want that to look like. And as for "trivializing" a sacred custom, there you go again making democracy sacred when it suits you. Why is another democratic choice not sacred just because it could go against the democratic choice you agree with? What makes the election you won sacred and the one that could overturn your results profane? They're both democratic referendums, one merely is more fair (mine, unless you'd like to say why first-past-the-post is more fair, something you've yet to do), but even if you did a straight redo of your FPTP referendum, that would just make both referendums the same, yet one is sacred because you won it, and the other is profane because you might lose (YOU MIGHT NOT, WOULD THE SECOND RESULT BECOME SACRED THEN?). And as for "trivializing" a sacred custom, that's nonsense. I made an analogy. A good one. That made a good point, that you couldn't argue with, so you just shooed it away as "trivializing the sacred." I merely described a scaled down version of what you disingenuously consider sacred when it suits you.

When it comes elections or referendums, I've yet to ever see a 'do-over' happen in my lifetime so the institutions that exist in place must be getting something right since we've never experienced a crisis in life. As far as "not taking turns" are concerned that's absolutely not true in real life when higher powers forbid that from happening. You are forgetting a good reason why we use a republic or a monarchy to install anti-democratic mechanisms in place such as 'term limits', 'fixed terms', 'states reigning supreme', 'lords', and even 'representatives' are all things that are undemocratic so that people just can't always call for a vote for whenever they want. The reason why you can't see a republic or a monarchy being a safeguard against democracy is because you lack the historical insights of how a democracy develops in reality. Before America was even a democracy, it was first and foremost a republic and to this day it rings true especially since 3/4ths of the state legislatures have even greater powers than the people themselves. Also, the monarch IS a safeguard against democracy theoretically speaking because their powers are much more far reaching than you think. I don't see the irony in needing safeguards in a democracy since we need higher powers of a monarchy or a republic to oversee the electoral process because the majority can't ever be trusted to organize elections but at the same time it is those higher powers that compel us to defend democracy too if the people demand it. The American Civil War sets a precedent as to why we need to keep respecting the democratic result because it is in a republics interest to also defend their own democratic result from being overturned. Right now, the zealous remainers are no better than the confederate states if both are to so blatantly deprive the public of social changes that they demand then they may as well reject the basic tenets of democracy too ...

You merely said, do-over, not specifically referendum. And here you are on again about anti-democratic mechanisms. We apparently need outside institutions to protect us from the sacred. You continue to fail to understand the fundamental ways that various governmental systems work.

And 'who' might exactly build the constitution itself ? You are mistaken if you think it is democracy that creates the constitution. Only the states or the royal houses get to have the final say in the matter. The constitution does not exist to represent the people, it exists to represent the republic or the monarchy. Rights are guaranteed by consensus from the higher powers so a democracy serves no purpose in that instance. I argue that there is no comparison between an elected representatives decision and the people voting because they are not equivalent in principle. The latter only exists to give the former a mandate to ascend to the office, the mandate as an elected representative to make decisions comes on behalf of the republic. To put it simply an elected representative is NOT compelled to represent the people, it is compelled to represent the republic itself and it's specifically why lawmakers break out of rank with their own constituency very often when the likes of Yvette Cooper does not agree with her own constituency (~70% leavers and likely hardcore ones at that) regarding Brexit by trying to block it. A decision made by an elected representative DOES NOT represent a mandate from the people, it represents the mandate from the republic or a monarchy and you need a better grasp at understanding this delicate power structure ... (you need to see the structure between democracy and a republic/monarchy not as a single indistinguishable entity but as the embodiment of two unique forces coupled to each other) 

Yep. You're completely out of touch with what democracy means. Maybe in your society it is fine for representatives to not represent the people that voted for them, but not in America. We clearly have fundamentally different values and principles regarding what democracy is and what the purpose of an elected official is. We can hardly argue something like this if we can't agree on the meaning of the terms we're supposed to be arguing about.

As for your last sentence, I found it to be more beautiful than funny ...