I am still struggling to come to term with the concept of "majority". The country has decided. Yes but about half the country has decided not to leave. This concept of "majority" wins really flawed until nothing left to say. Similar problem with company shareholding. But it seems to suit those in charge/power/authority so they happily ignore it.
(29-06-2016, 05:02 PM)brattzz Wrote: [ -> ]b'cos it's 52 vs 48... just 2% gap... worth a dispute.... 
Strictly speaking its 51.9% vs 48.1% for BREXIT which is a
3.8% gap (still close but not as close as 2% which some people seem to think)
The turnout was 71.8% which was almost 3 quarters of the people. Those who didnt turn up would be classified as neutral since they choose not to vote/could not attend the vote/etc...
Voting is voting, even win by 1 vote also counted. If the rules of majority can be changed after a vote, then there is no point to vote anymore and call themselves democracy.
That's why I think super majority concept ie 2/3 makes sense on such important decisions. That's twice the number on on side vs the other. Some presidential election goes into 2nd round if no one gets super majority. 2nd round voting also help people to reassess the facts and impact, including the neutrals.
If this referendum is structured this way, things can be quite different. Even if eventually BREXIT people can be pretty sure that it is well informed decision rather than "mistake".
Otherwise I agree with GPD that it makes no sense if a small % (subjective what is small) affect everyone's future.
(29-06-2016, 05:16 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]That's why I think super majority concept ie 2/3 makes sense on such important decisions. That's twice the number on on side vs the other. Some presidential election goes into 2nd round if no one gets super majority. 2nd round voting also help people to reassess the facts and impact, including the neutrals.
If this referendum is structured this way, things can be quite different. Even if eventually BREXIT people can be pretty sure that it is well informed decision rather than "mistake".
Otherwise I agree with GPD that it makes no sense if a small % (subjective what is small) affect everyone's future.
Also to say that many reports suggested that the brits has been misinformed (or misled) by the leave campaign as many campaigners are distancing themselves or rewording from all their claims.
Really shameful liao.
(29-06-2016, 05:09 PM)BlueKelah Wrote: [ -> ] (29-06-2016, 05:02 PM)brattzz Wrote: [ -> ]b'cos it's 52 vs 48... just 2% gap... worth a dispute....
Strictly speaking its 51.9% vs 48.1% for BREXIT which is a 3.8% gap (still close but not as close as 2% which some people seem to think)
The turnout was 71.8% which was almost 3 quarters of the people. Those who didnt turn up would be classified as neutral since they choose not to vote/could not attend the vote/etc...
Voting is voting, even win by 1 vote also counted. If the rules of majority can be changed after a vote, then there is no point to vote anymore and call themselves democracy.
Ya I agree voting is voting as long as 1 more than the other. elections are also like that which part is not clear?
Very simple way to determine the winning "margin" in any ballot.
I beg to differ. Actually a simple majority vote is all needed for most cases.
Let put a test case. Instead of referendum of vote Yes/No to be want out from EU. You can have referendum to say should we maintain in EU with Yes/No too. Then would you now say do not need majority to leave EU ?
In fact for this situation, the purpose of country/citizen is clear. That's why they are in a country called UK. But inside EU you lose that "citizenship" rights due to xxxxx. Therefore the bar to continue to be EU should be 70% for this situation.
A revolt happening among the ranks of EU.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-26...referendum
[Image: Clrs-wNVYAA01iT_0.jpg]
Meanwhile, over 40% of Swedes, Poles, and Belgians are in the same boat.
But now, as Martin Armstrong notes, Brussels simply went too far. They cross the line moving from an economic union to a political subordination of Europe. Now eight more countries want to hold referendums to exit the EU – France, Holland, Italy, Austria, Finland, Hungary, Portugal, and Slovakia all could leave.
With Hollande's approval rating at about 11%, and Merkel lucky she is not tarred & feathered, the Front National leader Marine Le Pen has pledged to hold a French referendum. Hollande rejected Le Pen's call for a refendum today during their meeting; prompting the following from the leader of France's far-right National Front party:
Britain wants free-access of EU single market, with no cost...
EU warns Britain on life after Brexit
30 Jun 2016 00:29
[BRUSSELS] Britain got its first taste Wednesday of a future outside the EU as Europe's leaders met without premier David Cameron and warned London must accept EU migrants to win access to the bloc's free trade zone.
European leaders gathering without a British representative for the first time in 40 years poured cold water on the chance of Britain gaining no-strings-attached access to the huge EU single market of 500 million people.
"Leaders made it crystal clear today that access to the single market requires acceptance of all four freedoms, including freedom of movement," EU president Donald Tusk told a news conference.
The statement was a blow to "Brexit" campaigners, who promised to restrict large-scale EU migration to Britain while assuring British companies would still be able to easily sell goods and services to the continent.
...
AFP
Yes a simple majority is enough for most cases for efficiency purpose. But in major issues, for example changing of constitution, one would need 2/3 super majority. And I think Scotland leaving and BREXIT should be considered major issue.
People keep thinking it has to be fair but again to be politically incorrect, and some leaders have hinted at that, one-man one-vote system is utopian in nature but inherently unfair. I'm having the same piece of cake as my daughter is inherently unfair when I weigh twice her weight
The vote of a person who reads up voraciously on the issue and vote knowledgeably has the same weight as one who don't care. That's why in some countries voting is optional to weed out those "don't care" votes (though it brings with it other problems vs a compulsory system in Singapore). If one is truly neutral one should still go and vote spoilt vote to exercise one's right and distinguish themselves from the "don't care" ones but most people don't realize that and stay home watching telly
Hence US has the electoral college system. UN has a permanent member of Security Council for their "weighting" purpose. BN is currently ruling on a basis of minority popular vote wins and even when Singapore has 1/3 who voted for opposition, opposition is less than 10% of the house, or in the past less than 2% of the house.
Structure matters
(29-06-2016, 06:32 PM)corydorus Wrote: [ -> ]I beg to differ. Actually a simple majority vote is all needed for most cases.
Let put a test case. Instead of referendum of vote Yes/No to be want out from EU. You can have referendum to say should we maintain in EU with Yes/No too. Then would you now say do not need majority to leave EU ?
In fact for this situation, the purpose of country/citizen is clear. That's why they are in a country called UK. But inside EU you lose that "citizenship" rights due to xxxxx. Therefore the bar to continue to be EU should be 70% for this situation.