[Closed] a decisive majority...

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 ****ed 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 [i]could have [/i]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

[quote=jambalaya ]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.

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 [i]entitled[/i] to vote before it considers a [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-strike-thresholds-for-important-public-services ]public sector strike ballot[/url] 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.

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 [i]anything[/i]. 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.

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!

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

You'd think...but that relies on all parties [s]accepting the outcome![/s] 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?

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

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 £?

[s]decisive[/s] [b]divisive[/b] majority

FTFY

divisive majority

:-))

ninfan - Member
...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.

I'll take that so long as we're fair about it.

Last time people who didn't vote or were dead were counted as opposed.

So to make it fair, this time we count them as supporters. 🙂

I'd have to check, but I suspect there's not a govt in the UK that would have got into power in the last 100 years if it had had to meet the same criteria as Scotland did in 1979. In other words it was a stitch up.

@lazybike-vote again in 5 years. If enough people feel the GE result was a mistake then the other lot get voted in.

This has been said time and again. If in 5 years time Brexit has turned out to be a disaster then we're screwed (note I'm not saying it will be a disaster but we won't get another vote either way).

All good points...I just worry if we don't respect one person one vote, then stocks and money markets will be the least of our problems.

.I just worry if we don't respect one person one vote, then stocks and money markets will be the least of our problems.

Other countries have ignored Referendums and the sky didn't fall in, or rather their Currency didn't tank and there wasn't a 3bn global write down. Nor did they take to the barricades...

The difference being that a GE can be repeated a few years down the line, if you don't like the outcome. Something like the EU referendum, that can not be undone, should have a minimum 2/3 majority of a >70% turnout, in order to exact a constitutional change.

Bear in mind our GE election system isn't one person one vote. If we had a PR type system or would be so much better...

NF himself said that 52-48 couldn't be regarded as decisive, but he was expecting it the other way.

The difference being that a GE can be repeated a few years down the line, if you don't like the outcome. Something like the EU referendum, that can not be undone, should have a minimum 2/3 majority of a >70% turnout, in order to exact a constitutional change.

Right, but would you also apply that same, almost unsurmountable, majority to proposed House of Lords reform, or a change from FPTP to proportional representation?

divisive majority

Sadly yes.

@footflaps I find it quite extraordinary you would suggest we should not have any Referendums on important issues. A Referendum is a very powerful tool to address significant cross party issues.

Why have votes at all Jamba? I mean, parliamentarians aren't specialists in the area they vote on or anything.

Wouldn't it be much better to let a committee of technical experts decide on issues?

I not enitrely clear why the bar for taking us of the EU should be so much higher than the one that got us in.

I not enitrely clear why the bar for taking us of the EU should be so much higher than the one that [s]got us in.[/s] kept us in

FTFY, we never got a choice about joining (or about Maastricht, or Lisbon)

I know that was rather my point.

Wouldn't it be much better to let a committee of technical experts decide on issues?

yup, basically how the communist system worked, no thanks

So 25% of the population voted remain yet you want us to vote with strings and conditions attached to stay within a undemocratic union?

One where if I don't agree with you I'm an idiot and a racist?

Right.

One where if I don't agree with you I'm an idiot and a racist?

Wouldn't it be much better to let a committee of technical experts decide on issues?

As for the majority question, anything over 50% obviously... What would be the point of voting if the majorities decision is arrogantly dismissed?

That's what the labour party used to do, remember Gordon Browns 'bigot' jibe.

No that's what Gordon Brown did. He told Gillian Duffy "you're a very good woman, you've served your community all your life". And then afterwards in the car when he thought the mike was switched off he called her a bigot.

According to three-quarters of Labour MPs the Labour Party needs to be led by someone like that - someone who can connect with voters but isn't necessarily decent and honest.

For constitutional or other major change in a company you need 75% of those voting for a special resolution.

The premise I believe is something that is potentially disproportionately disruptive to a company needs a very high threshold.

I offer no opinion on whether that should apply to anything else. I am going to leave you lot to fight that one out...

I'm of the opinion that in any binary-option referendum (i.e. not just this one) it should need a greater than 60/40 split to be considered "settled".

Any less than that should leave the matter open to further debate, because no side has established a clear enough mandate.

The problem we have is we want a definitive yes/no answer from a referendum when sometimes the genuine answer is [i]"we're not very sure"[/i].

it should need a greater than 60/40 split to be considered "settled".

Greater than 60/40 ? I think you set the bar too low Graham.

I reckon North Korea should be invited to join the EU they could teach everyone a thing or two about unanimous decisions - nothing happens in North Korea unless there's 100% agreement.

Mind you any changes to the Maastricht Treaty requires the unanimous agreement of all 27 Member States, so the EU presumably shares some of North Korea's goals of 100% agreement.

I'm of the opinion that in any binary-option referendum (i.e. not just this one) it should need a greater than 60/40 split to be considered "settled".

Any less than that should leave the matter open to further debate, because no side has established a clear enough mandate.

The problem we have is we want a definitive yes/no answer from a referendum when sometimes the genuine answer is "we're not very sure".

Greater than 60/40 ? I think you set the bar too low Graham.

I feel you mocking me ernie 😀

But I think it is a fair call, and not (just) because I don't like this particular referendum result.

Look at the Scottish IndyRef: 44.7 / 55.3 split with massive turnout (84.59%).

But that issue was clearly [i]not[/i] settled and is rumbling on, so it's hard to call that the "decisive majority" the OP was looking for.

On Brexit, [url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017 ]Farage made it clear[/url] that he would continue to campaign if it was a narrow 48/52 victory for Remain. He wanted a two-thirds/one-third win before he'd consider it decisive.

Maybe not 60/40 but somewhere around there sounds about right to me.
The point is that it leaves room for a third answer: [i]"We've all thought about it and we can't decisively agree"[/i].

The [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven ]bastard verdict[/url] perhaps? 😉

I reckon North Korea should be invited to join the EU they could teach everyone a thing or two about unanimous decisions - nothing happens in North Korea unless there's 100% agreement.

😀

Look at the Scottish IndyRef: 44.7 / 55.3 split with massive turnout (84.59%).

But that issue was clearly not settled and is rumbling on, so it's hard to call that the "decisive majority" the OP was looking for.

If the Scottish Ref had been 60/40 Salmond and Sturgeon would still be pursuing independence. The dream will never die don't you know 😉

On Brexit, Farage made it clear that he would continue to campaign if it was a narrow 48/52 victory for Remain. He wanted a two-thirds/one-third win before he'd consider it decisive.

Strangely enough I attach very little importance to Nigel Farage's opinion on any matter, including what he personally thinks represents an acceptable decisive vote.

jambalaya - Member
...If the Scottish Ref had been 60/40 Salmond and Sturgeon would still be pursuing independence. The dream will never die don't you know

Yup, actual democracy looks really attractive when you're in a run down colony with demented remote overlords who can over rule your parliament and limit its powers. 🙂

If the Scottish Ref had been 60/40 Salmond and Sturgeon would still be pursuing independence.

Well true, but they'd have less voice and the "establishment" would have a greater mandate for saying (legally if necessary) [i]"The people have spoken - this matter is closed for a generation."[/i]

But yeah I suppose that is a greater issue: when there is one side campaigning for a change (as in IndyRef or Brexit), it is pretty much expected that if they lose then they will just campaign some more and try again.

Yet when the side supporting the status quo lose they are told to shut up, stop whining and accept democracy.

Perhaps change is therefore inevitable?

Strangely enough I attach very little importance to Nigel Farage's opinion on any matter

Very wise 😀

hora - Member

So 25% of the population voted remain

I think it was actually about 25% of the population that voted to leave, but correct me if I'm wrong.
26% of the population, 37% of the electorate.

Same figures either way, it wasn't conclusive.

A lot of debate here about the amount of participation.

A decision as big as this should have been a mandatory vote, or with a minimum threshold of at least 85%+ turnout in order for it to be considered a fair and valid (binding?) vote.

This is something we can't overturn in 5 years when our choice turns out to have been a bad one. It's not just us voters who have to live with this, but the generations following us.

I'm sure it's been mentioned already, at least on other threads, but the big thing for me was the sheer number of lies that were told during the campaign. As well as thresholds for participation etc there needs to be something in place to police the information and propaganda. In the immortal words of Slim Charles

"If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie"

[i]So 25% of the population voted remain yet you want us to vote with strings and conditions attached to stay within a undemocratic union?
One where if I don't agree with you I'm an idiot and a racist?[/i]

"MEPs aren't elected directly by the voters of their home nations. I'm not going to get into the finite detail but it isn't the same as me chosing either a Lbr, Con, Green or other candidate to represent me."

The future of a country decided by the politically illiterate.

The future of a country decided by the politically illiterate

That is the fundamental principle of democracy with universal suffrage. See also financially illiterate, economically illiterate or just plain illiterate.

Except it isn't in the UK because we were sensible enough to produce a parliamentary democracy which means the elected representatives get to make the votes that count. All we need is for the representatives to have conscience and backbone and not just vote according to the whip.

No sbob 25% of the population voted remain.

Approx 16,100,000 v 17,500,000

None of us got to vote on the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties

French had their constitution vote ignored. I wonder how popular is the EU amongst the actual people of Europe?

That's what we have elected representatives for Jamba

French had their constitution vote ignored. I wonder how popular is the EU amongst the actual people of Europe

France. Less and less popular based on family and friends I speak to. FN is highly eurosceptic and many on the left don't like the debt/gdp contraints of the euro as they want to borrow more. First responce to Bataclan was to effectively suspend Schengen. Austria could be on the edge too if Hofer gets elected. Hungary is having (I believe) a Referendum to "opt out" of any refugee quota (even if legally they could be compelled to accept under EU majority voting). Etc etc