XPost: uk.radio.amateur, uk.politics.misc, uk.d-i-y 
 From: me@privacy.invalid 
  
 "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
 news:5802d567c7dave@davenoise.co.uk... 
 > In article <0001HW.2353A2CB00248E9C700000BBC2EF@news.giganews.com>, 
 >   Keema's Nan  wrote: 
 >> > And what fraction voted to remain? Why is that supposedly the will of 
 >> > the people? 
 > 
 >> Apparently, it is €democratic' logic to assume that the vast majority of 
 >> those who didn't vote, didn't do so because they knew remain was going to 
 >> win anyway. 
 > 
 >> Therefore they can be added to the remain figures. 
 > 
 > But you are happy to say it was 'the will of the people' when only approx 
 > one third voted as you? 
  
 Exactly. Although less that 50% of the eligible voters voted for leave, an 
 even smaller number voted for remain. You cannot second-guess how those who 
 failed to vote would have voted if they had done so. They have to be 
 excluded from the decision-making process altogether: if you don't vote, you 
 cannot complain if the vote goes against your wishes. 
  
 Presumably if there ever is a second referendum, more remain supporters will 
 vote, to increase the chance of the vote going their way. But then, knowing 
 this, more leave supporters will vote too. 
  
 The "leave" decision was what the majority (just!) of those who voted 
 wanted. I would hate to think that we became a society where those that 
 failed to vote were tacitly grouped with one side or the other - eg that you 
 needed more than 50% (for example 75%) of those *eligible* to vote for a 
 change to be voted-in, but less than 50% to vote for the status quo - that 
 is so biassed as to be corrupt. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)