fatslob-:O said:
The standard is high because respecting the past precedent is a part of just about EVERY western liberal democracies institutions. We pay the price of having to uphold the original democratic results in order to keep stability. if we don't apply calling for elections before a politician's term has ended then it shouldn't be applied to referendums before the result is implemented. Stability, social change, and protecting the legitimacy of democracy are the benefits we get by upholding result and if you don't believe the reasoning behind why these benefits outweigh the drawbacks then we'll agree to disagree but by that point you should question if you're truly an advocate for democracy ... I did not move goal posts, it's that you do not to actually care about respecting the results. You didn't see me pout or cry foul when Obama won all the while rabid calling for another immediate election so it's now time for you to accept both Trump and Brexit as the legitimate outcomes. In democracy there are NO right sides and if you can't come to terms with it then you need to stop speaking for democracy ... Lol, if you dont apply calling for elections before a politician's term has ended? Your own prime minister called snap elections! And nearly lost them! Now that's something I'd have found "beautiful". Past precedent matters only to a point. If "we haven't ever had a referendum capable of overturning a previous one" is what you call a precedent, then I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's a good enough reason to not hold a new election if that's what the people want? Simply never having done something before doesn't make it a precedent not to do it. Again, why does democracy only need to be respected when it works your way? When it's the first referendum, it's sacred democracy, when it's the second, you pull the "precedent" nonsense because a second referendum could make you lose, and that scares you, so now the formerly sacred democracy must be protected from its own will so that its own will can be carried out. That's ridiculous.
Instead of demanding a reason from me as to why we shouldn't break a precedent, give me a better reason why we should in this instance with Brexit ?! Elections in the US have NEVER been overturned even when the confederate states challenged Abraham Lincoln's ascension to the White House and the UK has made good on it's obligations so far regarding all referendums it's held ... As a famous politician once said, "elections have consequences" and if you can't come to that reconciliation then maybe we shouldn't have had him as president in the first place ? I have. Multiple times. It's because in my case, you have a more accurate way of measuring the result, and public understanding has increased so they can make a more informed choice. And black people couldn't vote before Abraham Lincoln's ascension to the White House either. Some precedents need to be broken. And if you're that obsessed with precedent, there's no reason they couldn't have a "Rejoin" referendum, where instead of overturning the first referendum, the choices are "Leave" or "Rejoin" and "Rejoin" means that Britain makes a deal with the EU to rejoin the EU immediately after leaving. Technically this doesn't break precedent, it just isn't very satisfying for leavers, but then neither would staying out for a couple years before a new referendum rejoined you later. Yes, elections have consequences, and you're scared of the consequences of a second referendum. Again, it COULD go your way. I think you know you'd lose though, which is why you're so scared of it. Now stop squirming away from good arguments and give me a reason why things have to be so extreme to have a second referendum.
I could've used the term 'faction' instead of 'party' and my point still stands at the end. In democracy, there are NO right sides and referendums can also exist to enhance a single party's rule like we see with the 2017 Turkish constitutional referendum letting Recep Tayyip Erdoğan having an even tighter grip on power so case in point it goes both ways ... No it doesn't. Referendums aren't a party. Factions like Leave and Remain are cross-partisan, even non-partisan at times. Referendum's like Turkey's hardly serve as an example with how much manipulation of the process we saw. That was electoral fraud. @Bold It's hypocritical of you to call me scared when you won't respect the results of the original format. A new format is not necessarily better ... No it isn't. Because I'm not scared. I'm in America. This doesn't affect me. And I respect the results of the first format, which is why I think ONLY a second referendum could overturn it. That's democratic. Only the current will of the people can overturn the past will of the people, because to me, democracy is always sacred, but to you, it's only when it works for you. Why isn't my format better? If you don't see democracy as being sacred then why on earth should we even accept any results at all or even with a second vote ? If there's anything I've learned it's that you do not like the democratic results when it does not suit you which is why you are invested to have an argument over Brexit ... (it's not THAT hard to see that if you can take in Trump as being the president then you can accept Brexit as well) I do see it as sacred. All the time. I'm saying for you, it's only sacred when it works for you. A second referendum wouldn't profane the sacredness of democracy, it would enhance the sacredness, because it measures the will of the people more accurately and currently with the most informed populace possible. We'd respect the results of the second because we respected the results of the first as well. After all, the second includes the winner of the first, and the first will be done if there is no referendum, it will only be overturned if the people want to. A third referendum wouldn't be needed because people aren't going to get more informed than they are now, and it's doubtful another better format will present itself. If it did, again you have the "referendum referendum" I suggested to see if the people think a new referendum is warranted. Hell, the people might not want to hold another referendum just because they're tired of the stress of politics, in which case they might vote No to the second Brexit referendum. BTW, a flaw with your "ranked voting" proposal is that there is no way to define either a 'soft' or a 'hard' Brexit so what exactly is the "middle ground" in this instance ? If you can't define that then don't bring up the idea again because otherwise there was no flaw with the original referendum in that regard since both options and the question were clear and unambiguous. The original referendum can be described as watertight. It's also a failure on the part of a democracy to NOT honour it's own results so if it doesn't then it may as well be a failed democracy ... Now see, finally you're actually addressing my proposal instead of just complaining about precedent. I did define them though. Hard Brexit is No Deal. I know that was several responses ago, but hopefully you recall. If you do, you may also recall that soft Brexit was May's deal. Remain then is revoking article 50. The original referendum was NOT watertight precisely because it didn't show exactly what the Brexit deal would be. If things were being done properly, the first referendum would have been to persue a Brexit deal, not actually Brexit. The Brexit talks should have been done BEFORE article 50 was invoked, May would have come out with her deal, and THEN the second referendum would be held to decide on whether to take No Deal, May's Deal, or Remain. In this case, No Deal means invoke 50, let the period expire without pursuing a deal with the EU, use the time to build a trade network with other nations, while May's Deal means invoke 50, use May's deal for the EU, use the time to build a trade network with other nations. Remain would just mean to call of pursuit of the Brexit and remain, the possibility of which would have been written into the first referendum to be perfectly transparent with the people. This reality would be much better as May would have much more time to negotiate a good deal, and the maximum amount of time could be devoted to securing better trade deals elsewhere, and the whole process would be more orderly for business and citizens alike. But it's too late for that because your government fucked up majorly and didn't even try to plan ahead. So instead, the best we can hope for is to allow a second Brexit referendum, or at least a referendum on whether to have a second Brexit referendum, with the choices for the second Brexit referendum being No Deal, May's Deal, and Remain, as described at the beginning of this paragraph. Since people would in this circumstance know what precisely a hard and soft Brexit would be, this resolves your perceived flaw. It isn't perfect, I suppose, as it isn't the ideal situation described in my second scenario with the planning ahead, but it's better than forcing a public that may have changed its mind to accept an outcome it doesn't want anymore. A single vote matters more because the date becomes of even greater importance thus we can also get an accurate reading of turnout ... So not only did I layout a previous case against holding a second vote but we can also add another reason such as lower turnout ... Then mandate turnout if that bothers you so much. Your problems aren't hard to solve, you're just being disingenuous with your arguments.
We also need institutions to protect democracy as well so it's balancing act and protecting it's results is the consensus ... Yes but not outside institutions like a monarchy.
@Bold Even in America a representative doesn't have to fall in line with it's voters because they are simply not obligated to. The voters only compel politicians to take seats, not for politicians to decide on behalf of them so that goes squarely with the republic. This is why America is bipartisan so the representatives will very often vote along party lines despite the fact that there are probably districts that are middle ground on a multitude of issues. Perfect representation is NOT a thing ... (it's not physically possible to gauge what exactly over hundreds of thousands of people want as a single person) Yes, not the entire electorate, but they have to fall in line with the voters that voted them, or they won't get voted in again. I do wish we had multi-member districts or mixed member proportional representation to make it more accurate and represent as many people as possible as closely as possible, but that'll be a lot of work to get that to change. The UK doesn't have much that's fundamentally different to the US aside from being a monarchy and they even have "boundary review" (redistricting in the US) along with "unequal voting power" just like the electoral college ... I identify as independent here in the states, but I'd definitely be a Republican if I lived in Ireland. Screw your monarchy. No offense meant to you personally of course, I just have strong feelings about monarchies in general. Matter of fact, Americans are so culturally and historically tied by heritage to the entire developed commonwealth realm to the point where they don't even have EU style freedom of movement! Oops, I guess freedom of movement was wrong for the UK after all if they feel there's more friction to be had from the other Europeans rather than the high end Anglosphere outsider nations ... I'm certainly not arguing there aren't flaws with our system. I don't experience any hindrance to freedom of movement between states though. I recognize there are laws around interstate commerce, but it certainly has never restricted my movement, so I feel like I effectively have freedom of movement. |
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
