XPost: uk.radio.amateur, uk.politics.misc, uk.d-i-y 
 From: roger@hayter.org 
  
 NY  wrote: 
  
 > "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. 
 Saying that you need a super-majority after the event (as Farage said 
 before the result but after the process had been agreed) may be corrupt. 
 But to need a super-majority for change is not in the least corrupt.  It 
 is very common both in referenda and company articles of association or 
 in rules for national constitutions.  Apart from anything else it 
 reduces the chance of oscillating from one position to the other every 
 few years. 
  
  
  
  
 -- 
  
 Roger Hayter 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)