**** Elections thread *****

[boost]

Many have made excellent points on both sides of this in the recent posts, but I don't think this one's gotten the credit it deserves.

There can be reasons to go against this, but I don't recall any good ones being posited for this specific case.

@poop:
Do you agree with the quoted bit. At least vis-a-vis the integrity of democracy?

If not... care to show me how I'm being stubborn and not seeing your reasons?

If so... what are the outstanding circumstances that we should consider in making an exception for this specific issue?

It's asymmetrical. Imagine the referendum resulted in a remain win. When exactly would it be ok to have another vote? Because of this, it makes Ong's stance a assertion that leave is to have infinite swings and remain only gets the one.

I agree that some sort of cooling off period needs to take place before a vote to keep the losing side from continually rolling until they come up on top. Unfortunately I just don't think that there's an obvious clear cut rule of thumb that works. In the case of remain winning, I think if the EU further eroded British sovereignty, there's a clear case to be made that the board has changed and a new vote may make sense. In the case of leave winning, significant and unforeseen (or at least not commonly understood to exist) hurdles and probably knock on effects have been revealed-- these are things that the average voter does not seem to have understood.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but imagine if a convict, sentenced to death, could only mount an appeal after their sentence had been carried out. I get the appeal of "we do the thing we decided to do first, then we can regroup." But the British are not deciding which VHS to rent from the local =MegaVideo= in 1996. There are significant consequences to leaving and staying,

You only want democracy when you win.

The ironing is delicious.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's asymmetrical. Imagine the referendum resulted in a remain win. When exactly would it be ok to have another vote? Because of this, it makes Ong's stance a assertion that leave is to have infinite swings and remain only gets the one.

I agree that some sort of cooling off period needs to take place before a vote to keep the losing side from continually rolling until they come up on top. Unfortunately I just don't think that there's an obvious clear cut rule of thumb that works. In the case of remain winning, I think if the EU further eroded British sovereignty, there's a clear case to be made that the board has changed and a new vote may make sense. In the case of leave winning, significant and unforeseen (or at least not commonly understood to exist) hurdles and probably knock on effects have been revealed-- these are things that the average voter does not seem to have understood.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but imagine if a convict, sentenced to death, could only mount an appeal after their sentence had been carried out. I get the appeal of "we do the thing we decided to do first, then we can regroup." But the British are not deciding which VHS to rent from the local =MegaVideo= in 1996. There are significant consequences to leaving and staying,

As usual, I agree with all you've said.

At the time of that post, I was under the misunderstanding that it was a legally binding referendum, when it wasn't.
That changes my support thereof. Asking what your partner wants for dinner isn't promising them any specific meal.



=Mega Video= ... more like =Kilo Video=, amirit?