Defiant peers vote to reinstate 40% referendum clause

Peers have voted to reinstate a clause which would mean a referendum on the Westminster voting system would only be binding if 40% of the public took part.

So – an unelected “upper” house wants to over-rule the democratically elected chamber on the basis that the views of less than 40% of the electorate isn’t enough of a mandate.

Oh the ironing!

Sounds reasonable. Why should maybe 15% of the population saddle us with something that may not be ideal in the long run? People should be encouraged to turn out and vote on something that’s important, and if this does that, I’m fine with it.

1+ CountZero

Why should 0% of the population get a say in a body which is instrumental in our law-making process – and is now going against the body which was, at least, elected?

So should all eligible voters be legally obliged to ‘vote’, even if it’s only to express no preference?

Having the right and ability to be able to vote is something not everyone on Earth enjoys. People would do well to consider this, and get off their apathetic arses.

Why should maybe 15% of the population saddle us with something that may not be ideal in the long run?

Because that’s what currently happens in general elections. Why should referendums and similar require a minimum turnout to be deemed a mandate from the people, when general elections don’t have this requirement?

And god knows, we’ve been saddled with enough unsuitable in the long run governments, no matter which side of the political fence you sit.

how many people that could have voted actually ever voted for any of our governments? Too lazy to look up voter turnout but I bet even labour’s landslides only had a minority of people with the vote actually get off their bums and vote for them.

So yeah, why should a referendum have different rules?

and get off their apathetic arses

I would, but I can’t really be bothered. Sorry.

Sounds reasonable. Why should maybe 15% of the population saddle us with something that may not be ideal in the long run? People should be encouraged to turn out and vote on something that’s important, and if this does that, I’m fine with it.

When this sort of percentage applies to all elections then I’ll accept if for referendums also.

i like it as it means I can not vote for this crappy fudge proposal and have my [lack of ] vote count*. Think it reasonable to ask for threshild on changing our constitution and 40% is hardly a high turnout now is it as 20.01 % of pop can change the constitution which still seems rather low IMHO

One of the good things of having an unelected house is that they dont have to pander to the wishes of a capricous electorate or a deal made to allow a condem govt to exist- not sure that was a ringing endorsement of democracy either.
not perfect at all but I agree with the proposal
Oh no I am defending the Lords now – hangs head in shame.

* I am pro PR but this is representational not proportional system as I just get to change my vote to the least odious candidate left rather than have it count by voting for who i actually want.

So 15% turnout requires 7.6% of the population to agree to something sounds like an affront to democracy there then.

Make voting obligatory and then we will know the view of the population

So should all eligible voters be legally obliged to ‘vote’, even if it’s only to express no preference?

Yes.

So should all eligible voters be legally obliged to ‘vote’, even if it’s only to express no preference?

No.

Why not, DD?

Interesting that Flashy votes ‘Yes’…

Not voting is the affront to democracy. It should be compulsory to vote. Enough people die around the world trying to get the right and a lot of people cant be @rsed.
However if it was compulsory then it should be easy and accessible to do so for everyone and there always should be ‘I am not voting for any of them’ choice on the paper.

I think a lot of the politicians would change their attitude if they got 100% turnout and only 40% bothered to choose someone. I think they would be scrambling around for that missed market share.

Oh! and the Lords should be replaced by real people with real life experience across society.

See that ^; that’s wisdom, that is.

mmmm! It kind of killed the thread…. sorry. 😳