a decisive majority…

listening to the radio this morning this seems to be the agreed terminology.

I know mathematically it is anything >50% but ignoring whether you voted leave or remain. what would you consider to be a decisive majority?

edit: and two answers depending on win/lose don’t count…

Something like 60% of a 75% turnout.

65%+ would be the lowest I would consider decisive.

A decisive majority is the smallest majority you need to take a decision. So in this case, just over 50%.

Would have been nice to have set the bar a bit higher, but that’s just me being on the wrong side of the vote.

In a non binding referendum, there didn’t need to be higher bar set. Cameron should not have come out and stated that it was a mandate for activating clause 50 so soon. What should have happened now is that it was taken to parliament discussed, looked at the options and come up with a way forward. Out of spite he has **** us as much as bojo, gove and IDS have.

Decisive to me should really mean most of the people who can decide have decided. In the 1970s scottish indy referendum the threshold required most of the people who could have voted to have voted for independence. Ie to make a substantial change more than half of the people being asked had to vote for that change – not more than half of the people who answered. In that referendum not voting counted as a ‘no’ vote.

Not having that mechanism means people who don’t or can’t vote on the day effectively get counted into the result.

If the vote is a choice between two new options – i.e. change happens no matter which way you vote then the threshold for ‘decisive’ might be different but to change from an existing condition to a new one you shouldn’t really count a proportion of people who didn’t or couldn’t vote as part of the mandate for that change.

Its great to be having the debate about this after the event isn’t it 🙂

The SNP would consider 50.001 vs 49.999 decisive if it was Yes vote

The EU Referemdum was decisive. We should have been given referendums on every EU treaty. The Dutch have them now and thats why the EU does all it can to avoid Treaty change as they knkw (susoect) Dutch would vote against

60/40 is approaching 2:1, that would be a landslide

would you still say that if it had gone against your views?

60/40 is approaching 2:1, that would be a landslide

That’s a good threshold for constitutional change…

A decisive majority? Something made up by people who don’t like a certain result..I just don’t see how you can have a fair and democratic process and not respect the result..

The SNP would consider 50.001 vs 49.999 decisive if it was Yes vote

If you recall, 1979 devolution referendum had exactly this type of ‘gateway’ (edit as macruisikeen says above, but IIRC it was 40% of the total electorate! not half) and the SNP spent thirty odd hears complaining about it. Perhaps after the outcome of the EU referendum we should reintroduce it before they get to vote again on independence?

Or how about introducing some form of ‘constitutional lock’ that said Scotland could only leave the UK if there was a referendum in all four countries and they all voted in favour? Like they reckon should have been done over the EU vote?

Many on here would argue that it is the majority of people that didn’t vote Leave.

Many on here would argue that it is the majority of people that didn’t vote Leave.

They always do. But they’re talking crap.

Including the opinions of people who don’t care either way as a positive vote for the loser would mean the loser will always win. It would be a winning formula for Corbyn.

I just don’t see how you can have a fair and democratic process and not respect the result..

Possibly because the Leave campaign knowingly peddled lies, and a reasonable number of gullible voters – perhaps enough to have changed the outcome – swallowed those lies hook, line and sinker.

ignore the who did what to who. I’ll rephrase the question:

if remain had won, what % would the leavers accept as a conclusive result.

as leave did win, what % would the remainers have accepted as a conclusive result.

The government requires a minimum of 50% turnout and the support of at least 40% of all those entitled to vote before it considers a public sector strike ballot to be valid.

So that might be one measure (which, incidentally, the referendum fails).

51% takes you out of the dodgy area of recounts and legal challenges. Anything under that would have been awkward.

Can’t see how which side you support comes into it.

maccruiskeen – Member
Decisive to me should really mean most of the people who can decide have decided. In the 1970s scottish indy referendum the threshold required most of the people who could have voted to have voted for independence. Ie to make a substantial change more than half of the people being asked had to vote for that change – not more than half of the people who answered. In that referendum not voting counted as a ‘no’ vote.

In that referendum being dead counted as a ‘no’ vote.

A majority is 50%, the mere fact that they feel the need to use “Decisive” means they’re looking for a greater margin.

I’d say 65%, give or take 2/3rds majority.

would you still say that if it had gone against your views?

Yes but the campaigning would go on with the full knowledge that it was unlikely we would ever be asked again.

That’s a good threshold for constitutional change…

Agreed, when did we have a 60/40 vote for giving away all that authority and becoming part of a politcial union project ?

I’d say 65%, give or take 2/3rds majority.

Ask Alex Salmond, or the Trade Unions what they think aboit that

Most organisations have minimum numbers for decision making. Again the word “Decisive” suggests more than 1 vote either side. In this case the answer was 37/36/28 (ish) which is not a blinding mandate for constitutional change.

Carswell (UKIP) described it as a “narrow majority” if you want a different view.

Qualified majority voting is only acceptable if voting is also compulsory. Why should folk who can’t be arsed to vote be assumed to care one way or the other?

You can see why people say bringing a change should require a bigger majority; there’s an assumption that not voting means you’re happy with the status quo, so it’s got some logic. The problem is, it makes it damn near impossible to do anything. In the end, decision making has to be done by the people who’ll make a decision. Not voting is not a vote for no change, it’s a vote for no opinion.

Naturally people want to pick and choose, things they want to do should be easy to achieve and things they don’t want should be hard. So Tories are happy to rule the country as a majority with 36.1% of votes, but are trying to use this as a mandate to ban strikes unless you get at least a 50% turnout (meaning that the minimum mandate to hold a strike for 1 day is 25.01% of the entire electorate, higher than the 24.5 share of their electorate that entitles them to run a country for 5 years). All part of the same thing.

For this one, 48/52 would be unfinished business, according to Nigel Farage 😉 There’s a reason you need to make these calls before the vote.

“60/40 is approaching 2:1, that would be a landslide”

That’s a good threshold for constitutional change…

The Maastricht Treaty had massive constitutional implications, in fact it was a Constitutional Treaty.

There was no UK referendum on Maastricht quite simply because the UK government couldn’t be certain that UK voters would approve of it.

And if it had been won it certainly wouldn’t have been on a 60/40 basis.

The EU true to its profoundly anti-democratic agenda did not require Member States to seek approval from their voters.

for a major constitutional change i would expect for it to be irreversible a 2/3 majority of voters or at least a majority of those eligible to vote. People not wanting to change the status quo being less inclined to vote that those wanting to achieve something .

we live in a Parliamentary Representative Democracy where Parliament has an obligation to debate consider and vote on issues , which is probably why no one seems to have thought through the ground rules for the referendum . We are now trapped by a snapshot of how 27% of the population thought on one particular day following a hardly reasoned media shouting match.

Having a referendum with a 50% threshold does seem a bit daft as you could end up with 49.99% pissed off and 50.01% happy, which doesn’t seem a very ‘good’ outcome if you consider the collective happiness / good.

As many psychology studies show that loss of something is generally considered twice as bad as an identical gain [1], if you make a win/lose decision with a 50% threshold, your collective gain is actually negative as the weighted losers outnumber those who benefit.

So a weighted threshold (on perceived worth / happiness) would be 2/3 and that would only be a neutral sum gain ie no change in overall happiness.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

Possibly because the Leave campaign knowingly peddled lies, and a reasonable number of gullible voters – perhaps enough to have changed the outcome – swallowed those lies hook, line and sinker.

Quite possibly…but, all politicians say things to suit their agenda, and how do you judge the level of gullibility of voters, you either have one person one vote, or we do away with democracy and come up with something else…where people who arn’t gullible decide for the gullible!

come up with something else…where people who arn’t gullible decide for the gullible!

A representative democracy might just work!

If only we had one of those….

Given that David Cameron described the result of last year’s general election (Conservatives got 36.1% of the vote on a 66.1% turnout) as a “clear mandate”, the 52-48 result from the referendum probably counts as an impregnably super majestic unassailable mandate for all time, or similar.

lazybike we have come up with something else it is are parliament where the mad swings of one voter one vote on any issue are moderated out by a representative parliament and a 2nd chamber of Lords so each decision is properly debated assessed and reconsidered.

I’d suggest it was a decisive victory if you look at the language used by the government of the day when referring to the vote for a Welsh Assembly. Less than 1% (as I recall) in it on a low turn out.

Just sayin like.

A representative democracy might just work!

You’d think…but that relies on all parties accepting the outcome! In fairness, given time, the outcome will be accepted, if not liked.

@crankboy…I know…I guess the downside of democracy is people may actually participate.

You’d think…but that relies on all parties accepting the outcome! not having Referendums on important issues

FIFY

Fair point, but where do you draw the line? What happens at the next general election when the result doesn’t go the way some people want? The process is a fair one and needs to be respected, are 48% of the people that voted willing to sacrifice democracy?

Fair point, but where do you draw the line? What happens at the next general election when the result doesn’t go the way some people want?

Well it was advisory

The process is a fair one and needs to be respected, are 48% of the people that voted willing to sacrifice democracy?

No matter how much is screws up

What happens at the next general election when the result doesn’t go the way some people want?

No where near as serious / permanent though eg when was the last time a GE caused $3bn to be wiped off stocks worldwide, or the largest ever one day fall in the £?

decisive divisive majority

FTFY