5 ms·

It's disappointing, but not surprising, that the focus seems to be entirely on the "wrong" side of the "desired" outcome. At this point it amounts to fighting

• detaro 8y ago
  Given the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it's not really surprising that the connected companies and their actions are being paid close attention to, no. (Also, is Brexit really the politically "wrong" side, given the amount of political backing it had and has in the UK?)
• lostlogin 8y ago
  Democratic yes, but ludicrous. Setting up something as critical as that to have such a slim majority decide is illogical. The U.K. doesn’t seem to get referendums. Important note however - they didn’t have a referendum to join the EU but maybe that’s covered by the one on joining the European Communities?
  • matthewmacleod 8y ago
    Yes, the UK voted strongly in favour of Common Market membership in 1975. While the process around the EC becoming the EU has changed the nature of it substantially, I think it would be misleading to say that there was no referendum. The UK fwiw has only had three referendums in its history. Precisely because they have a habit of leading to the current fucking stupid situation we now find ourselves in.
    • growlist 8y ago
      Theresa May led us here
  • tomp 8y ago
    > Setting up something as critical as that to have such a slim majority decide is illogical So you'd rather have a slim minority decide?
    • lostlogin 8y ago
      That’s not the only other option.
• dane-pgp 8y ago
  If just 1% of the population of the UK changed their voting intention (from Remain to Leave) because of illegally bought or misleading advertising, then undoing that effect would mean that Remain would have won. Invoking the "democratically determined result" is begging the question, since we don't really know whether the result would have been the same if the Leave campaign hadn't broken the rules: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/04/vote-leave-cheated-will-people-mps-electoral-commission https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/04/vote-l... When someone wins a sporting competition, and is found to have cheated by using banned substances, they don't get to keep their title by claiming "Well I still would have won even if I didn't cheat".
  • walshemj 8y ago
    And technically it was advisory and has zero legitimacy there is also the question of gerrymandering the vote by not allowing brits overseas to vote. This is like say ruling out any votes in a presidential election from expats and or military.
  • lostlogin 8y ago
    I think the overriding point is that a simple majority is completely the wrong format for descisions like this. I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change. There is also the argument about them stifling debate. There is an intersting criticism of the format in the below link from Chris Patten “I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is that if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say: "Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum." So during the last election campaign, the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system, and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
    • walshemj 8y ago
• morsma 8y ago
  Because all these things (Brexit/Trump) wasn't planned to happen, so they're in need of arguments why a fair democratic vote should be invalid. This is what's happening.
  • matthewmacleod 8y ago
    What is a “fair democratic vote”? Is it still fair if it’s a simple majority? Is it still fair if official campaigns break the law? Is it still fair if constituent nations’ views are disregarded? That concept is a hard one to define and precisely why it’s a bad idea to have simple majority referendums on complex technical matters.
    • tathougies 8y ago
      I mean in a direct democracy, a simple majority of a quorum of voters typically counts. Establishing arbitrary criteria for which votes are valid is not a democracy, especially when the various criteria are suddenly proposed after a controversial election.
      • hcknwscommenter 8y ago
        A vote result arising in the context of a great many voters having been persuaded by a sophisticated propaganda attack consisting of lies, misrepresentations, and half-truths, where the attack originated from a foreign power aiming to create chaos and confusion among its enemies is not a fair vote and should not be given the legitimacy that a fair vote deserves.
        • tathougies 8y ago
          So your claim is that people shouldn't be allowed to persuade others to agree with them politically? Don't you see something wrong with that thought?
          • matthewmacleod 8y ago
• HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
  It really does come down to sour grapes. The mental contortions people go to question a democratically determined result really is telling. A lot of people are only fans of democracy when it goes their way.
  • stevesimmons 8y ago
    Truth, fair play, acknowledging real constraints, getting the right result for the right reasons... Those aspects matter to sensible people. Calling it "sour grapes" is a lazy mischaracterization. I voted Remain. I would have reluctantly accepted the result if in the last two years the Brexit proponents had executed any reasonable plan with any degree of competence. They haven't, so I don't. Two years on, the Brexiteers are still full of lies, misrepresentations and stupid bluster. Just like the premise behind the targeted FB ads that are the subject of this post.