Good points, but afaik these political topics are taboo, but I don't think that the establishment is made up of SJW's, quite the contrary. What you actually cannot talk about, is transferring to an actually democratic system - which is easy with the internet and it's power to crowd source - as well as introducing a new economic system to take the place of capitalism. These questions will be silenced long before anyone has time to come up with any words to call you by such as 'sexist' or whatever. They will call you a tin foil hat wearer and ridicule you for being a social outcast. That is the problem.
Wanting the referendum to be overturned doesn't mean that one is undemocratic. My reasons for wanting the referendum overturned are the same reasons I don't want referendums in the first place. Namely I believe that referendums work directly against the way our democracies work. Currently we have a system where parties vi for our vote. If a party then does things that we don't agree with (e.g. promise tons of things and then renege on them) then at the next election they can be voted out. The key point here is that decision makers can be held accountable and decisions can be changed. In a referendum there is no going back or accountability. This provides the incentive to lie as much as possible to get your way. This was very evident in the referendum campaign where the out campaign variously lied about more money than is possible on the NHS, increasing immigration from Commonwealth countries and how much of our laws originated from the EU. So if the decision to leave for 2% of voters was based on these issues then the result of the referendum is based on a lie. Is that democratic?
Did anyone here really tell the truth 100%? Heck, if the referendum was held again tomorrow, what if the exit side won by a larger percentage of the votes?
How many referendums would it take for the result to be 'democractic'? Enough til the side you want wins? Enough til everyone tells exactly the truth, makes no personal attacks/dubious claims and everything is as 'fair' as it could be?
I'd rather just one referendum, and people learn to live with the consequences, regardless of how much they personally like them.
You're misunderstanding me completely. I don't think that if remain had won it would be more democratic. I don't want referendums at all. I'm not alone in that thought. Germany has actually outlawed referendums.
As for learn to live with the consequences that also doesn't work. It's not possible to know a specific vote is the cause of this bad result. People can never be that informed they can only work off the feel that they think the country is doing well or it isn't doing well. Learning to live with the consequences can mean a lot of hardship for some very vulnerable people.
> The anti-democratic attitude of the liberal elite is absurd from a theoretical viewpoint because a democratic judgment represents the will of the majority and so whatever the majority decide is the correct answer, no ifs, no buts.
No, a democratic judgment represents the judgment of the majority. It is not "the correct answer" in any sense. It is merely "the way we have agreed to decide things".
Why single out the liberal elite? The conservative elite are also perfectly willing to ignore the majority opinion. For instance, look at drug legalization. The US has almost 90% in favor of legalizing marijuana with a prescription and a majority in favor of legalizing it without a prescription, yet neither has been done.
There isn't a lot of wisdom in a mob, which is why most democratic organizations are representative systems where there is varying degrees of insulation from the passions of today.
It's pretty plain to see the effect. In the US House of Representatives, 2 year terms mean more stronger pandering from representatives and more radical legislation that goes nowhere.
In the Presidency with 4 year terms and the Senate with 6 year terms, you tend to get a more stable and moderating outlook. (With notable exceptions, such as the horror show of the "solid South")
Some US states have referendum. I don't live in one so I'm not aware of the nuances of less well known propositions, but what I do see seems to signal that referendum isn't a mechanism that is bringing more enlightened governance.
8 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 32.7 ms ] threadDid anyone here really tell the truth 100%? Heck, if the referendum was held again tomorrow, what if the exit side won by a larger percentage of the votes?
How many referendums would it take for the result to be 'democractic'? Enough til the side you want wins? Enough til everyone tells exactly the truth, makes no personal attacks/dubious claims and everything is as 'fair' as it could be?
I'd rather just one referendum, and people learn to live with the consequences, regardless of how much they personally like them.
As for learn to live with the consequences that also doesn't work. It's not possible to know a specific vote is the cause of this bad result. People can never be that informed they can only work off the feel that they think the country is doing well or it isn't doing well. Learning to live with the consequences can mean a lot of hardship for some very vulnerable people.
No, a democratic judgment represents the judgment of the majority. It is not "the correct answer" in any sense. It is merely "the way we have agreed to decide things".
It's pretty plain to see the effect. In the US House of Representatives, 2 year terms mean more stronger pandering from representatives and more radical legislation that goes nowhere.
In the Presidency with 4 year terms and the Senate with 6 year terms, you tend to get a more stable and moderating outlook. (With notable exceptions, such as the horror show of the "solid South")
Some US states have referendum. I don't live in one so I'm not aware of the nuances of less well known propositions, but what I do see seems to signal that referendum isn't a mechanism that is bringing more enlightened governance.